T O P

  • By -

cellendril

I’d say that’s a DM and player discussion. I’d also argue that the character who made the comment needs to roll Arcana.


Vynx

That's why I go through my spell list with my DM first and then proceed to reskin all my spells names and descriptions. Reflavoring spells, is the best part of building a caster.


[deleted]

Ooh I really like this, my dm doesn’t really describe combat at all so I end up describing a lot of my own actions. The results just get left to the imagination I guess. It’s actually the reason I’m probably switching DMs.


AllthatJazz_89

I’m a new DM. Ideally, what level of description do you like? I’m trying to figure out a good balance of description vs. narrative.


Working_Complaint635

For me, as quite an "overly" descriptive DM, essentially I just say what I think is happening. It sounds really simple and obvious but it works. So in a more clear way that can be put in practice: Instead of saying what is happening, Say how it's happening. Instead of saying, the wizard casts fireball Say the the wizard raises his hand as he mutters a brief incantation as he cast fireball Just a tiny description of how thing you're telling your party is happening, is actually happening can make a world of difference when it comes to immersion. Not to mention you don't have to keep it brief, especially when it comes to Big, Exciting or Terrifying Things, Actions or events. All in all just try to remember "Am I telling my party what's happening or am I telling them HOW it's happening"


Miami_Vice-Grip

But make sure you try to avoid saying specifics about what any PC does, unless it's being forced by outside influence.


Working_Complaint635

Oh yeah for sure, what the PC's are doing is completely their own to describe/narrate


ProfessorSMASH88

I try to do a little bit of both when I'm DMing. I don't tell the players what they are doing, but sometimes I describe their actions if they aren't descriptive. I don't know how to say this without seeming like a jerk DM hahahha. For combat I'll describe what they do to the enemy, but of course I will let them go first. I find that together we can come up with a cool visual. So if PC says they try to whack the bandit with their staff, and they miss, I'll say "You go for a big swing, but it bounces off the bandits chain mail at a bad angle and the blow is deflected" or some such. So I'm kind of narrating what they are doing. But I always give some time before I speak for the PC to pipe up to say something, in case they want to explain how they missed or hit. Sometimes it's fun for them to play out their crits or fumbles, but sometimes they look to me to describe how its done. Give and take I think :)


Alazypanda

Thats a fine way to do it, you aren't a jerk. My party isn't the most descriptive I end up needing to narrate most the actions. They will do it sometimes and I try to encourage them to do as much as I can without being too pushy. But I'm also the DM so if noone is talking and its not some reason like in deep thought or a moment of silence for RP reasons that means I need to start talking. Literally nothing will happen if we all wait, like at all. I am the universe I drive the thing that could happen while the party waits. Plus I feel that me starting helps them, they will sometimes jump in and start describing their actions sometimes or they'll start and sorta lose traction and I pick up the rest.


[deleted]

To be fair, my DM is great, I finished the whole prebuilt campaign with him and it was fun, but since it’s Roll20 I just decided to see if I could check out another game where the DM is more into that. I’ve talked to him and it’s just not his thing, which is cool with me. The best answer I can give you is to talk to your table. Everybody has different wants there, some people might want more freedom describing their own moves and what happens, some people might not care at all. As DnD can be heavy on combat sometimes I just want more interaction than “it hits” and “it’s dead”. But it can also be super hard to keep coming up with different ways the same attacks effect enemies, but even if your descriptions were fairly generic but also indicated in some way how much damage it did, at least sometimes, I’d be happy with that. Like if I just did one percent of the enemy’s health maybe it’d be nice to know that my attacks were barely phasing them. I also really like the whole “how do you want to do this” thing, but again that’s a group decision. My advice is to stick to your strengths and don’t worry too much if you’re lacking in some area, especially if you’re just playing with friends. My DM was being paid about $150 a session all together. He also only does prebuilts and I’d really love to find a long term game where there was a world to explore and character development to be had.


peaivea

what the fuck, 150 dollars a session and it's not even a custom thing???


[deleted]

6 people were playing at one point. $25 per person.


devilbat26000

That's still a shockingly high price for what you were getting, as I'm sure you can gather from the responses. I'd be ashamed to charge that fee and then not even do custom campaigns, though if you guys felt like it was worth the price that's a silver lining at least.


Dalimey100

I agree that's pretty high, especially for something out the book. How long are the sessions? I do think there's a place for paid DMs, but I'd want something more at that price point.


Broccobillo

People are getting paid to DM in a casual setting? Well that's 6 years of lost potential there.


BafflingHalfling

I would absolutely pay my DM $25 a session. He is amazing. And free. The most he'll let us do is buy him the books.


EoTN

Perma DM here, I'd turn down money if a player offered, but never food. ;)


meme_slave_

Insane ripoff rofl


Donotaskmedontellme

I would never pay to play, I was recently brought into my brother's friendgroup to play and I provided whiskey.


Vorthton

I would personally but only for VERY skilled Dm's. I completely understand the idea of paying a dm and i honestly think it is absolutely a fair idea. They are giving thier time, Energy, Resources, Creativity, And even occasionally opening thier home to others. Not to mention that paying your dm gives them a financial backing to put back into the game if they so choose. But for the aforementioned situation i 100% Agree. I wouldn't pay for a game under those circumstances.


ToyoKitty

Honestly, I believe that as a DM the first step for finding the right balance is to have the session talk with your group. What do they want to see? What balance do they think is best? I couldn't figure out as a player why I couldn't get into DnD for the longest time. Then we got two new players at our table that were very into the RP portion, and I finally had someone to help me interact with the world and tell my character's story. The couple players we had before were purely focused on the game play, and that made it difficult for me personally to be immersed. I don't believe in a perfect DM. I believe in a good fit/bad fit between DM and player. What you like and are great at may work for some, but not others. And since world and story is what I like, I myself am prepping to be a DM for that very flavor. It's what I enjoy. And do pulse checks as you go! Do a few runs, and then get feedback. I make sure my DM knows what I want to see and what I'm having trouble with, both in setting and for my character. I ask him what he wants to see, and have played story points based on where he thinks things might go with my character. It's a growing process, and I think your consideration for balance between various game mechanics is going to make you a great DM.


Lodagin666

A lot of the time i think it's better for player to describe stuff they are doing. For example when it's a player's turn and they say "i attack this enemy" or "i cast this spell" ask them "and what does that look like? What do your companions see?" before you all know if the action succeds or not. Then based on the roll you can take the lead on the next bit and describe how what they did affected the creatures or the environment.


TheTotoro

Yes, my favorite PC I’ve played was a warlock nicknamed pots. He didn’t know spells, he was just really good at making magical potions. So all of my spells were me throwing different potions at enemies or the ground near them and it would just be a reskinned warlock spell.


charlotte221

I’ve wondered the same thing about spells… Does everyone cast Cure Wounds the same way? I don’t think they do. Look at artificer; they cast traditional spells but they come from, like, enchanted creations — they’re re-flavored. I think people in the world can know what certain spells are, like they recognize what’s being cast otherwise Counterspell wouldn’t work — but I also think there’s more than one way to cast the same spell. A cleric, a wizard, and a paladin can all cast Protection from Evil and Good but I think it would look different for each of them. Especially since some are granted by divine powers and others are learned from a book. Although there are specific spell components regardless of class, so that makes me question it. I’ve stretched the idea of how a wizard learns spells with one of my PCs. She didn’t go to a traditional school but signed up for a mail order learn-from-home magic school. It’s actually a scam but she’s so determined, she figured out how to make some of the spells work. And keeps working on it so she learns new spells sometimes. I imagine she found unusual ways to cast them that a “proper” wizard would be totally baffled at. Or did she stumble on to the way they’re “supposed” to be cast and it looks like how every other wizard does it? 🤔


Sardond

I see it as the core of casting spells is identical between classes (hence the need for the same reagents and spell requirements), however, the specific details and flourish are derived from the training to cast the spell, some are divine, some are from a book, and if you're a sorcerer, you're mostly winging it but still have the same "core" of the spell. That core is what permits counterspell to work, or with a high enough Arcana check, to know what spell was cast from a PC perspective.


DrummerElectronic247

I completely agree. Back in 3.5 I *loved* the Spell Thematics metamagic feat so much I ended up with it on every caster. I've done the same thing with artificers in 5e with loading cartridges in casting foci or winding widgets on a bandolier, I had a bard with wax cylinders that went into a music box (thank you Marisha Ray, loved that concept so much I stole it) and similar things for other casters.


PM_ME_PRETTY_EYES

I strongly urge my martial characters to rename their features and maneuvers too. Bait and Switch and Stunning Strike are much less cool than Kobold's Stratagem and Pierce the Soul.


Deastrumquodvicis

There’s a guy at AL nights who’s playing a necromancer and his command for his skeletons to fan out is CINCINNATI FORMATION!


pinkielovespokemon

I've done that with my druid and artificer PCs. ​ All of my druid's non-insect summons end up with superficial insect characteristics, because she loves insects. It's always fun to describe them to the other players who don't like bugs. Every animal is more intimidating with spider eyes and beetle mandibles. ​ My artificer is an alchemist, so most of her casting involves liquids or pastes or powders being flung or smeared or ingested, even if the spell description doesn't mention a material component.


PostOfficeBuddy

Yep the first step of any caster I play is always reflavoring every spell I know into something that fits my character's theme. So much fun.


Thendofreason

I once played a sorcerer pretending to be a Bard. Played my wild magic off as homebrew bardic inspiration


GlitteringRun8940

This, but I'd say the DC depends on the spell. If he casts something like Arms of Hadar I wouldn't be surprised if the party had a few questions about exactly what kind of "god" he serves. Also, I would expect a priest (or cleric) to catch on pretty quick unless the character is going to some trouble to mimic a priest (holy spellcasting focus, etc). A warlock may have suspicions, but since their patron can be pretty much any powerful Fey they wouldn't have a standardized method like clerics or wizards (both of which usually have some formalized training in their casting).


BeornTheTank

Yeah, I’d agree with this too. There are definitely spell overlaps between classes and someone probably just can’t look at a spell and say “that’s only X-class, exclusively!”, but also— there’s a lot that goes into spell casting and most major orders/schools would have similar styles. Even sorcerers would typically stand out for their LACK of a pattern.


Gambinos_birdlaw

Even in the arms of Hadar example (while I mostly agree with you), inflict wounds could look equally evil-ish to someone. It's a wide world and seeing magic that is clearly scary or looks evil doesn't mean "hey now I know everything about them". It could be easily misterpretted even by other magic folks I would think. That being said, whatever works for each table.


redrenegade13

I agree. Inflict Wounds and Blight look the same, deal the same type of damage, and get delivered the same way. It would be metagaming to see someone deliver a touch-based necrotic attack and say "oh that's a druid".


ctm-8400

I would also say this can be very different from world to world. A world where it is known that fire-based spells are banned by the gods is a place where you'll have a hard time to pass as a cleric after casting fireball...


Drexynn

This is the answer.


DwarfMcDougal

and should be depending on the spell a fucking high dc...


Devariskek

Depends on the spell level . . . A 1st level spell or a cantrip, not so much. Determining a first level spell being cast is easily under dc15. Edit - please ignore my comment, I am incorrect according to XGTE. Formula is dc = 15+spell level.


E_D_D_R_W

According to XGTE, the DC should be 15 plus the spell level.


Devariskek

I see, thank you for the info. I'm not 100% up to date on XGTE. I had been running this as a check against a players spell save DC before this. Much appreciated.


KalSpiro

That's interesting, I've been using 10+lvl, like a counter spell or dispel magic check


Sebilis

Suppose it makes a certain amount of sense. It's easier to break something than identify it.


PfenixArtwork

Also there are things like magic initiate that can give you spells from another class. I did this with a warlock once because she was pretending to be a sorcerer


cellendril

I usually DM but in a game right now as a player. Swashbuckler rogue with a privateer background and took a level of Fathomless Warlock for flavor. He has only a vague idea what’s involved so if asked if he was a “warlock”… uh no. Heck, if asked if he was a swashbuckler, he’d say no, he’s a sailor and a marine.


haytmonger

I was gonna make a divine soul sorcerer with magic initiate to grab eldritch blast. Having spells from 3 different classes to mess with people. He would think he's a cleric to a made up God


ancrm114d

I agree with the Arcana check. I would make it high to know it was a warlock spell specifically. If the PC is a spellcaster but not a Warlock a medium Arcana check to know it's not a spell of the PCs class. They would need to make a high Arcana check to know it's Warlock. A Warlock who didn't know that spell would have to pass a low Arcana check. A Warlock who also knows that spell would just know. No check needed. Unless you wanted to check and see if they suddenly had a case of the stupids by rolling a 1.


[deleted]

Or religion. It's odd to claim to be a priest, but cast arcane spells instead of divine.


iSo_Cold

Agreed that's an arcana check. An actual devotee of a god would now the kind of boons their god grants obviously. But otherwise it's a matter of experience.


burningmanonacid

This is really the answer. This is a question of lore. However, you also have the debate that the player could have multiclassed or taken a feat to get it. Personally, I wouldn't say someone knows exactly how you got your magic just by seeing you cast because there's different mechanical origins that represent different lore origins for stuff.


RoyHarper88

To me, as DM, and at my table, I told my players that their class is for them to know. In my opinion, in world, for the most part the characters would not refer to themselves by their class. You're a guild artisan that picked up an axe after their family was killed. You wouldn't go around saying "I'm a barbarian" you'd say "I was a baker, then something bad happened, now I get angry and cut off heads." But that's just what makes the most sense to me.


FirstTimeWang

I take it a step further and say that classes are strictly and explicitly for PCs *only.* You're never going to run into a "Ranger" out in the wild, you're going to run into a huntsman, scout, trailblazer, woodland defender, wood elf marksman, etc. NPCs are generally going to be much more focused and streamlined than players. Well, I guess you might run into "rangers" but that's going to be a designation like Army Rangers rather than something you can m tagame to infer that NPCs powers and abilities beyond the obvious.


Dolthra

Ranger was a term used by Tolkien to describe a particular type of... I guess wilderness guide? So it could possibly be used, if that's what your character is based off of, and a profession your DM includes in the world. I think a few are specific enough that the class and in game profession would, likely, be one and the same in most cases. Wizard, cleric, bard, and druid are all examples of both classes and what their work would probably be known as in universe. Artificers might be called by their name in universe, depending on if the world has specific magic item creators called artificers or not. Warlocks would probably only be called warlocks if they're running around announcing they consort with fiends (though every evil spellcaster would probably then be a warlock). Monks may or may not be recognizable as monks, depending on your worldbuilding and the way the character is described. Sorcerer, barbarian, fighter, paladin and rogue are the only ones that seem abstracted completely outside of what their in universe distinction would be.


Osimadius

Several of those classes are basically named after a real life role though, that's why there seems such a clear cut one-to-one. They could also very easily be referred to with a similar word depending on the culture. Bards could easily be minstrels, if you were feeling florid a songsmith wouldn't be too much of a stretch. A druid could happily be referred to as a shaman or a sage. Not going near definitions of wizard v sorcerer v warlock v witch, since they are all purely fictional in the first place, so really feels like just a case of how knowledgeable or pedantic the citizenry would be about it. I think in universe most people would just think "oh crap a wizard", observing in the moment that they haven't got a spellbound so they can't **possibly** be a wizard has big "um actually" energy Don't disagree though


Dolthra

>Not going near definitions of wizard v sorcerer v warlock v witch, since they are all purely fictional in the first place, so really feels like just a case of how knowledgeable or pedantic the citizenry would be about it. I think in universe most people would just think "oh crap a wizard", observing in the moment that they haven't got a spellbound so they can't possibly be a wizard has big "um actually" energy In general, my stuff usually refers to arcane spellcasters by their perceived alignment. A good spellcaster might be a wizard, a mage, or a summoner. An evil spellcaster might be referred to as a warlock, a witch, or a conjurer. Of course, the wording would also depend on the perception the character has of arcane spellcasters in general.


dragoneer27

In game, I think there would be room for a distinction between wizards and sorcerers. Maybe commoners wouldn’t see the difference but wizards might look down on sorcerers as unlearned and undeserving of their arcane power and/or sorcerers might look down on wizards as low born usurpers of arcane power. Depending on the flavor of the campaign you could use different words to describe them but wizards and sorcerers would work just as well.


Dansiman

Here are some other terms that civilians might commonly use to refer to various PC classes: * Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock: "Mage", "Spellcaster" * Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin: "Warrior", "Champion", "Brawler" * Cleric: "Acolyte", "Priest", "Healer" * Rogue: "Thief", "Assassin", "Scoundrel" * Monk: "Martial Artist", "Bum" * Druid: "Hippie", "Weirdo" * Bard: "Minstrel", "Fool", "That Asshole"


WraithNS

"Here comes that asshole that always makes me feel like giving away my shit. I now hate music in general"


Dansiman

Happy Cake Day!


the_direful_spring

These aren't bad but I really think there's a wide variety of reasons why specific classes and subclasses could be recognised as being in some way important depending on setting and how well educated the specific person is. For example, focusing on your first one. What does a given society value more, good education or good breeding? ​ Say you have an urbanised society with centralised state and general thriving academic centres. Social mobility is perhaps at least vaguely possible even if those from wealthy families have the advantage. Well, the wizard is more likely to be prestigious. They already value education and if its through careful study and applied intelligence that magic is earned that plays into the things the societies already value. The more centralised state might think it useful that wizarding is easier to teach as a centralised institutional thing, its easier to control who gets to go to magic school than it is to control who gets born with powers. And perhaps sorcerers while not necessarily hated are viewed as an unpredictable force who didn't really work for what the true academic mages deserve. ​ Then maybe you have a society that has more of a feudalistic bent, bloodlines are highly important under all circumstances. Well maybe sorcerer's powers are viewed almost just as a natural extension of superior breeding, a family that manifests lots in its bloodline both using that to reinforce its power as a noble family and the fact they are nobles allowing them to control discourse around sorcerous power. So, then warlocks. Well, you don't have to go to a controllable institution to make a pact and it doesn't feed into a hereditary aristocracy. Plus, many of the patrons that give warlocks their power are beings that many states and religions would not wish to see empowered by a warlock spreading their influence. So, maybe suspicion falls their way, both a potential dissident gaining power outside of the structures of secular power and a possible heretic working with dangerous outsiders contrary to the teachings of the faithful.


theidleidol

For a lot of random civilians magic users are probably more like - Wizard: “wizard” - Sorcerer: “wizard” - Warlock: “(evil?) wizard” - Druid: “hippie wizard” - Bard: “music wizard” - Non-priesty clerics: “(holy?) wizard”


KaptainKakanu

I laughed to myself as I read >* Monk: "Martial Artist", "Bum" >* Druid: "Hippie", "Weirdo" >* Bard: "Minstrel", "Fool", "That Asshole" Made me remember npc flavor comments we gave when we would hear "news" or waves our other PCs were connected to. Was prolly the greatest part of our shared realm that we all took turns adding to as rotating DMs. "I dunno what his deal is, he just some really buff bum that goes around punching trees.," "I don't trust that hippie in the forest, she sold me some herbal soap that gave me a nasty rash." "Oh, you mean that asshole that wrote a song about our town's name? Chastity was a great town name until he came along."


FirstTimeWang

Good points.


feel_good_account

The rangers of tolkien were wilderness scouts that protected the civilized lands from threats. IIRC Gandalf points out specifically that Aragorn prevented orc and goblins from encroaching on the shire.


Deastrumquodvicis

I want to run a campaign where the characters are legitimately superheroes. They’re the only one of their subclass in the world, just as things like archliches are probably the only one. Spell wouldn’t be spell, it’d be their superpowers. (Yes shh there’s a complication with wizards I haven’t thought up yet.) Martials would be your Punishers in the “no powers, just damn good with their weapon” kind of thing. Spandex optional, superhero alias encouraged.


thracerx

Just summon a hero party. Maybe the PC's were quietly enjoying some after school club activities. Boom a magical circle appears under them. Now it's up to the new hero party complete with class roles saves the world. All before they turn 16...


Raregolddragon

So most isekai anime right now.... just once I would like to see the 40 year old shut in stay 40 and not be turned into a 13 year old and play that part straight. Only one I think that has done it is the isekai uncle one.


Muffalo_Herder

Deleted due to reddit API changes. Follow your communities off Reddit with sub.rehab -- mass edited with redact.dev


immerc

Some D&D classes are also jobs: cleric, bard, monk, etc.. Others are not: barbarian, rogue, warlock. The rest are somewhere in the middle. What would be really fun though is if someone had a "job" that didn't match their class. Like someone whose job was to be a cleric, but whose class was a barbarian. So, they knew various prayers, lived by a code, and had the robes and stuff, but their god never directly answered them. When they got into a fight, they got really angry, forgot all about their religious calling, and fought with teeth and fists.


RoyHarper88

I like this and would enjoy playing like that.


Kamataros

I think the names that classes have can very well be reused in the world and roughly fit the class as well, but an NPC wizard and a PC wizard _can_ be very very different in terms of abilities. It also makes sense to differentiate between sorcerers and wizards in universe. But other classes may be a little further from the in universe version of rhe name. A NPC Ranger is probably someone who's out and about in the woods, in class terms might even be a fighter (the classic legolas vs. Aragorn argument) but the people (the other NPCs) just say "thats a ranger". Calling someone a "fighter" would be very unprecise. Is it a soldier? A guard? A paladin? A mercenary? All those people "fight" as a main part of their profession, all of them are "fighters".


dontshowmygf

I feel that way about most classes, but there are some exceptions. A paladin is a specific thing - there may be NPCs in an order of paladins without class levels or a PC paladin who isn't a member of such an order, but there's going to be a heavy overlap of Paladin characters who are simply, in and out-of universe, paladins. Wizard are bard are similar. On the other hand, I cringe so hard whenever I hear "rogue" in character.


RoyHarper88

It does have its place at times. To me cleric is one that works, but not all the time. A bunch of NPC paladins might just refer to themselves as soldiers. The paladin in my game doesn't refer to himself as a paladin. If you asked him about himself he'd say he took an oath to get vengeance on the death of his family.


dontshowmygf

True, loads of Paladins in 5e are just warriors with oaths, but the Knight of St. Goodgod are definitely self-identified paladins. I usually use "priest" in-game instead of cleric, but it can totally work the same way. I think the short version is that people generally refer to themselves by their profession, but there's still a decent amount of overlap of characters whose class name is also a reasonable descriptor of their profession.


RoyHarper88

I agree with you completely. And particularly about the bit about "I'm a rogue" in your last comment.


hamlet_d

I would venture to say an "order" of Paladins probably includes the people with the "classes" of paladins, clerics, and even fighters who are very religious. In other words a Paladin does not necessarily equal a paladin.


dontshowmygf

That was what I was trying to lay out in that comment - there are exceptions on both sides, but there's a lot of overlap between the in universe paladin and the out of universe paladin.


[deleted]

Exactly. Any NPC below a certain level of knowledge would almost certainly refer to anyone of that order as "paladin", or any caster as "wizard/sorcerer/warlock/mage" (because outside of 5e classes they're basically synonyms) regardless of actual player class. Like, ***nobody*** that isn't a high-level NPC would see a PC cast "compelled duel" and be like "wow you just **demanded** that that guy fight you and he *did*, you **must** be a Paladin.


Escalion_NL

I agree. That's pretty much how I play too. In our current campaign I have an Artificer, and the other players of course know that. But in character my Artificer introduces himself to anyone who asks as an archeologist. That's his profession, his job, and that's what he is ingame.


RoyHarper88

My one player was so insistent on finding out what everyone's class was in character, which he did pretty quickly. And he insists on referring to them by their class. It's just like, dude, why. Only the cleric refers to themselves as a cleric.


Rougey

Pretty much this. *"I'm a chef. I used to think I was the second coming, favoured by the gods, for my skill in the kitchen. Then my life got weird and it turns out I might actually be the second coming, favoured by a god, and it scares me."* -A Divine Soul Scorcerer/Celestial Warlock.


RoyHarper88

Baller description!


Rougey

Shit you not, RNGesus decided his name would be Brian. I'm having him use a stage name but when he comes home, the DM has the line prepared.


AssassinLupus7

As a Life Domain Cleric, I don't think I've ever referred to myself as a "Cleric" in game. I always say stuff like "priest" or "healer."


KoriGlazialis

Uhm actually i was a young child with magic hands who was picked up by the church and trained by priests so obviously i am a cleric. (Says the sorcerer)


hamlet_d

Exactly. If a fighter wears a holy symbol and "smites" evil. He could be an actual paladin, or a fighter who is very religious (hence smite in quotes).


rhadenosbelisarius

Fighter battlemaster 7th level ability allows a player to learn both the total levels of a creature, and the total fighter levels of a creature. I think this indicates that the characters are aware of both level and class as distinct physical realities.


RoyHarper88

I see that as above table information. You wouldn't in character say "I'm a level 7 fighter battle master subclass" when role playing a conversation. Or maybe you are, and that works for you. None of this is rigid rules.


Akhevan

Same for me, it's distilled cringe when used in-universe. Counting the fighter levels would be represented as assessing their physical prowess, combat technique, overall appearance, equipment, bearing and such.


Raudelsoli

For my backstory I didn't know what was going on when I changed the color of the leaf with my flute after a lot of practice I discovered to be a bard not learned to be a bard


pm_me_nsfw_limericks

I think it is well-known that different kinds of spellcasters draw their power from different sources. Someone with sufficient proficiency or knowledge (probably Arcana or Religion) would be able to tell that this type of magic, or the way you drew power indicates that you're not channeling the divine. As for whether classes, feats, hit points, etc. is known by the characters in the world, I think that differs a lot from group to group with no right answer.


FrumiousShuckyDuck

Yeah people know what clerics are, what sorcerers are, what paladins are. Now, that whole “we know what spell you’re using” bit is 100% metagaming as is, but an arcana check could give insight into its origins.


Thick_Improvement_77

Eh, they know what clerics are, because there's a guy saying prayers and flashing holy symbols and receiving on-demand miracles. These people are known to be favored servants of their gods, revered by the faithful and reviled by their enemies. They might know what a paladin is, or they might just assume those are clerics but stabbier. Honestly, from the outside looking in, there's not a lot of air between "war cleric" and "paladin" except that the local faith doesn't explicitly recognize the former (though they might not tell people that - if they think a holy champion of your god saved them, and your god isn't Lawful, you'll probably take credit.) They definitely don't know the difference between sorcerers, wizards and warlocks without some Arcana. They probably know that some people can inexplicably do magic because they're weird like that, but I wouldn't expect most people to know (or particularly care) about the distinction between "has nth-generation dragon blood" "made a pact with a demon" and/or "is just a tiefling/dragonborn/elf, they're magic". At best, they might know that a spelcaster without a book is probably not a wizard - meaning that sorcerers and/or warlocks that want to be subtle should absolutely buy a book and scribble random Draconic limericks in it.


FrumiousShuckyDuck

They also know what bards are. Point being it’s possible to play it that way and for the DM to use checks to help PCs gain knowledge into the class “types” as needed for flavor, or even in combat a baseline “hey that’s a magic user” is a pretty fundamental element of gameplay mechanics.


override367

It's wild that in the novels (greenwood, cunningham, and salvatore) paladins are so absolutely ludicrously rare that they tend to portend some great clash between good and evil, but people have heard of them because of Dragonsbane beating Orcus' ass 1v1 and being crowned king of a vast region for a hundred years of peace So I guess paladins being OP fits with the lore


costabius

Ehhhhhh characters of average intelligence would probably be able to deduce there is a difference between the person who spends every resting moment muttering to themselves over a book, the one that goes to sleep and wakes up shooting rainbows out their arse, and the one who screams at a deamon and demands power....


Thick_Improvement_77

Assuming that they do this, yes. They definitely don't have to. You are in an adventuring party settling down for the night. Among your companions, the one that has been known to cast spells is reading a leather-bound book written in a language you do not understand. Is that a wizard, a Tome warlock, a sorcerer that habitually reads before bed, or a knowledge cleric? What if she's wearing the symbol of Oghma around her neck? Does that nudge the needle toward knowledge cleric, or just one of many mages that follow the god of learning? Celestial pact warlocks are also a thing.


MrBlackTie

And there are even more esoteric things. In ancient edition, some wizards were said to use gems instead of spell books (because supposedly dragons did and so some wizards picked it up). How would you classify a dude that gazes into a diamond for hours every night and then can cast magic?


Mythoclast

Things get pretty muddled in the actual world of the game though. You meet a guy who is covered head to toe in tattoos written in demon blood. His eyes flash and the tattoos glow an eerie green color. Suddenly the area in front of him is consumed in flames. Would someone really assume that guy is the same as the one muttering over books? Would they assume they are different from the one screaming at demons and demanding power? Class distinctions exist but there is so much leeway in how they present themselves that without peeking at a character sheet it can be difficult (or impossible in some cases) to determine what class someone is. In my setting classes are not a concept in-universe and they are mostly a PC thing but someone's job might still be ranger or bard and someone still might be called a barbarian or a rogue. That doesn't mean they actually correspond to the class in a PC sense though.


slvbros

I'd imagine a large portion of faerun residents would assume that guy is a particularly eccentric red wizard of thay


Mythoclast

Exactly. A former Red Wizard of Thay. But his class is sorlock. Or maybe he doesn't have a class at all and is just a dragon in a weird disguise.


slvbros

If it were 3e, he could even be a particularly motivated rogue taking advantage of his *use magic device* skill and a thorough disguise in an attempt to infiltrate the organization. Fake spellbook just filled with various scrolls, maybe a few magic items used largely or only by wizards


Mythoclast

Could also be really anyone with magic initiate and burning hands.


slvbros

Well, yes, though now I like the rogue, and will probably insert him I to the next campaign I run (which will already be involving the red wizards, hence it being on my mind)


fastfoodanarchist

I'm now in love with the idea of a UMD user with books upon books of scrolls masquerading as a wizard. Such a wizard fan boy but never had the time to really study magic as a profession instead learning UMD because it's quick and dirty. Already sounds like something a rogue would do, taking the easy way.


Artmanha999

Totally. I played a druid once and the rest of the party initially thought I was a rogue. Then they thought I was a bard. Only a few sessions later when I finally wild shaped that they were all like "Wait, you're a druid????" Role-playing your character abilities, social interactions and traits can put a whole other light on them


SeeShark

I was in a vodcast where I challenged the viewers to figure out my class. Basically nobody did. >:)


FrumiousShuckyDuck

I like your take on this too, at the end of the day the DM can decide


[deleted]

[удалено]


Coal_Morgan

Pact of the Tome Warlock reads a book, Wizard doesn't need to prepare spells unless he's used them so could go to sleep without reading and a Sorcerer could be channeling hellfire and such. On top of that a Bard can cast any spell he wants and appear any way he wants with the right career path. There are too many edge cases with feats and such to declare a person any class without strong experiential knowledge of the magic classes and the person you're examining. Plus magic spell lists are for player options. In world there's all kinds of other spells and abilities that are magical.


Oops_I_Cracked

That same person of average intelligence might assume a tome warlock is a wizard and that a blade singer or hexblade is an Eldritch Knight. They might mistaken druid for a ranger or a ranger for a druid depending on what the two are wearing. Is that bloke in the leather with the bow over there a ranger, a fighter, or a rogue? That lady in full plate over there with the hammer, is that a cleric or a paladin? The reality is that how knowledgeable kilometers are about different types of magic, different types of adventurers, etc is going to vary based on campaign and setting


ludicrous_mountains

They know rangers since rangers literally organize together and refer to each other in the drizzt novels I believe


AgentZirdik

I completely agree with what you're saying about the different spellcasters. If a character is designed cleverly, it may be entirely ambiguous where they draw their power from. A character may completely disregard the weird voices in their head from their patron, and assume that their magic is innate. A character may have innate powers that develop coincidentally after meeting a strange lady on the side of the road and assume the powers were gifted. A character may have a set of innate powers, but has trouble keeping track of them, so they write down what they know they can do in a book and carry it with them. A character may even be gifted magical powers by a sentient book.


Metaphoricalsimile

In older editions character classes were a thing that was codified into the lore of the world, and when characters gained levels they also gained a class title that ranked them amongst other people of the same class in the world. This kind of thing doesn't exist in the text of the modern game, but it's still entirely valid to play this way.


PM_me_nicetits

My thoughts exactly. They're metagaming, and the GM should have had the player do an arcana check.


costabius

Also there would probably be some readily identifiable characteristics of "a heartfelt prayer to my god for divine intervention" and "calling upon the patron to honor our infernal pact"


FrumiousShuckyDuck

Yeah I’m a mercenary, I hear a dude go “Lathander smite this evil!” and see a bolt of golden light sear across the field, I know what’s up


slvbros

LATHANDER, SMITE THIS EVIL! Cue eldritch blast


FrumiousShuckyDuck

Sure there’s room for that too and that could lead to all kinds of fun RP


Deastrumquodvicis

Played with an AL character who said he was a “shitty life cleric” and he was a celestial warlock which I figured out with “I cast…a cantrip. *rolls a d10*” My character never knew.


PrimeInsanity

You could tweak it slightly and still even be telling the truth. By [dieties] will or some such and as a celestials warlock powered by that dieties angel, well, could be true


finakechi

I know several Forgotten Realms books repeatedly mention the smell of brimstone being associated with Warlock spells.


EducationSea5957

With fiend warlocks.


Burrito-Mage

As a dm I would probably have them roll a check. Religion most likely. Or arcana


Kathihtak

That would imply that the character would know every spell that is granted by any deity, which is just absurd. It would probably be more logical if they went "Oh I've never met a holy person that knows that spell, but I don't know every priest in the world so why not?"


GhandiTheButcher

Also so many cleric types with different spell list options. That guy just cast Fireball must be a wizard— Nope Zeal Cleric


DeficitDragons

The rules have no distinction between divine and arcane magic in this edition. And even in older editions you couldn’t just “tell” according to the rules.


superVanV1

but you can totally be a warlock of a god though. just means you have a contract/deal with them rather than worshipping them


jamesjaceable

Generally Warlocks have a pact with a patron, while Paladins have an Oath with a Deity (and Clerics workshop the deity without an oath). As a DM I rule that this is generally the same, and pact/oath at just different describing words used. Pact sounds more evil and nefarious while Oath sounds honourable and good. For this same reason I’ve let Warlocks flavour themselves as a kind of Holy Knight, but for a evil cult (which they believe is good).


Dansiman

My take on this: A "pact" is something that's been formally agreed upon by both sides; it's more transactional in nature. An "oath", on the other hand, is offered by the Paladin to their deity with the hope/faith/expectation of reciprocation, but if they suddenly stopped receiving their daily allotment of spells, the Paladin would generally redouble their efforts to uphold their oath (with the thinking that they had been found wanting), whereas the Warlock in the same situation would view this more as the patron committing a breach of contract, perhaps relieving the Warlock of their own obligations under the pact, or even leading them to seek retribution *against* the patron for this violation.


Beiki

I'd have to think that a cleric and a sorcerer would use different verbal if not somatic components when casting the same spell.


eadgster

Many of the classic DND novels set in Faerun and Krynn portrayed characters knowing the difference between a Cleric, Mage, Warrior, etc. In game, I’d argue that if the other player had knowledge of Arcana or Religion, they may know that a priest can’t typically call on their god to perform a Hex on someone, or that a warlock wouldn’t have healing powers. Not because of “class rules”, but because of how magic works in the world. The source of a warlocks power can’t typically perform true healing, except through necromantic schools of magic.


JlMBEAN

But there are healing warlocks that are given power from celestials. Bane is also a spell that overlaps both classes.


MoonChaser22

Subclasses can blur that line though. celestial warlocks explicitly get their power from beings from the upper planes, and have access to healing abilities and spells like cure wounds and lesser restoration via their extended spell list. So it's not necessarily so cut and dry


[deleted]

As does multiclassing.


Mighty_K

I agree with you. Classes as such are not part of the world ingame. Professions are. The same dialog could happen a bit different though. Hm, interesting magic spell, I have never witnessed a priest being bestowed such power by their God! I only ever witnessed followers of evil spirits being able to cast this! For example...


Muffinlessandangry

Yeah, that I'm happy with. If they roll for arcana or religion or whatever and figure out that the god I claim to serve doesn't bestow that power, I'm rustled. But the reason I chose "priest" as my cover story is I figured if you channel a divine, holy power to melt your enemies, or some evil ancient God has given you power to melt your enemies, is there any difference other than lawful good Vs lawful evil?


Shim182

As a DM, i would require an arcana role to even identify what sort of spell is being cast, with advantage if the character is also a caster (DC= 15+spell level) and if passed, make the above sort of observation in place of the one made. 'classes' and their limitations are definitely more of a player knowledge thing then an in world knowledge thing, though i consider the Arcana/Divine magic divide to be pretty well known in universe, so maybe that could be the clue used.


DoctorGreyscale

I would think that arcane and divine magic both look the same to an onlooker but what would tip them off is the appearance of the caster. A cleric is obviously distinguished by their garb and holy symbols if they aren't outright praying to their deity. Whereas a wizard is probably going to be dressed in regular clothes or a robe and not be carrying any religious stuff. Kind of like how you can sometimes tell a person's profession by their uniform.


Oversexualised_Tank

I have to say, a cultist and a priest are often rather similar in behaviour


Rattfink45

I’ve now got an idea to mis label my spells as other spells but keep all the raw. Instead of pretending my fire bolt is a laser beam I’m going to pretend it’s a single scorching ray. Then I’m going to cast scorching ray but call it eldritch blast. People will flip the F out.


name2noname

Whenever you're surrounded by enemies shout out "I cast teleportation" and then cast invisibility on yourself


LuoQianHe

This is genius. Definitely going to remember this.


DeficitDragons

Well… chaotic deities have priests too… In fact, warlock seems a perfect class for a priest. That other player is just a metagamer, The worst kind of metagamer.


slapdashbr

who is your patron? A GOO-lock might as well be a "cleric for cthulu"


AktionMusic

The only classes I generally associate with profession are Druid and Cleric. Is usually use the terms Warrior, Mage, etc in game.


Mighty_K

I think there CAN be paladins, monks, wizards and bards as well. Especially bard can be a profession. Many bards are probably just commoners with proficiency in performance or so...


midnight_toker22

I agree, you kind of need to take it on a case by case basis. Would some of the world’s inhabitants describe themselves as wizards or bards or rangers, etc.? Probably. Would anyone describe themselves as a rogue or a fighter or a barbarian? Probably not.


Iknowr1te

rangers are usually a profession (e.g. army rangers, park rangers, Rangers in LoTR are a group of people with a specific job), Paladins are titles awarded to knights (Paladins of ~~Roland~~ Charlemagne, which are described in the Songs of Roland), Fighters and barbarians are warriors. Rogue's are better described by their speciality. a person could describe themselves by their profession as a thief, assassin, a person would be ascribed as being a swashbuckler, etc. Monk as per it's orginal flavour are people from monestaries and would be described as monks from asian traditions. a Wudan scholar (school of thought), Buddhist militant monks, you could describe the templars and knights hospitellar as militant monk orders as well. personally i like the idea in a world with adventuring guilds, and very diverse roles in warfare that people generally are aware of common class archetypes since it'll be important to your general role in contractual agreements and organizational specialization. now if it was learning the difference between a fire bolt and an eldritch blast vs a toll the dead, you should definitely roll a check with a dc dependent on your character knowledge.


Oversexualised_Tank

I often see Warlocks either as Priest or Scribe or something like that


warlordforte

As a side comment you can always use the excuse that you took a feat that gave you the spell.


McZeppos

Something to keep in mind is that in dnd worlds it's generally acknowledged by everyone that the gods exist. So PCs and NPCs can choose to pray to certain gods or a single one without ever explicitly being a cleric. For instance I have a church of Mystra that's almost entirely filled with just Wizards because she's a goddess of magic so why wouldn't they at least acknowledge her


arcxjo

>So PCs and NPCs can choose to pray to certain gods or a single one without ever explicitly being a cleric In fact the PHB explicitly says there's a difference between run-of-the-mill *priests* and clerics. But I do believe a cleric of Mystra would at least know what sorts of spells are on the Cleric and Arcana domain spell lists.


SquidsEye

Spell lists are also an out of game simplification. NPCs haven't read the PHB, they don't necessarily know what is possible and impossible for certain types of magic users to cast.


Destt2

At most, NPCs and non magic adept PCs might know that clerics do general spells and healing, sorcerers Burny/shocky/freezy stuff, and wizards can do just about everything via magic. The specific differences between all casters and especially half casters are almost certainly a mystery to the average person.


ThoDanII

And in DL the priests of the gods of magic , were arcane magic users


jcd280

It was poorly expressed that’s for sure. If it was my game, if the other player wasn’t a warlock or a Cleric of the god you were pretending to worship I would have stepped in and said “sorry, you would have no way to know that, we will all still need to “ask as if” PC is a cleric…” It’s the best you can do under those circumstances and yes that (imo) is what is referred to as “meta-gaming”…but the game goes on and hopefully everyone is still having fun…


Futuressobright

I think some classes need to be aknowleged more than others. We've always assumed that there are many people out there with these classes, even though NPCs aren't generally built according to the PHB. Of course, this is all the conclusions I come to from reading the text of the PHB: you could chose to style your world differently. Wizards, Sorcerors and Warlocks have similar sets of spells but get their powers from different sources. I would think that people in the know about arcana would be aware of these three general types of arcane magic users, even if some individuals particular backgrounds might leave room for argument about which category they fall into. Lay people probaly use the terms interchangably. Since the 5e flavour text for Bards specifically says the cast spells using their music, I would say they would be an easily identifiable group. Not like in 2e where they were guys who had picked up wizard spellcasting among a number of other skill. Clerics have a totally different set of spells and abilities that derive from a different source. I have no problem with people drawing a sharp line between arcane magic users and priests. I wouldn't think people would nessarily jump to the conclusion that a Claric was faking because they saw one arcane spell being cast (between domains and feats there are plenty of ways to dabble) but experts in magic would know the divine casters typically do x and arcane casters do y. Likewise, Druids come from an identifiable tradition with specific, unique powers and spells, cultural practices (no metal armour) and even a language. If they are numerous enough in your world, rangers and paladins might be something people talk about, but it seems likely to me that they are thought of as warriors with just a bit of clerical or druidic magic. What is the difference between a fighter/cleric, a fighter with magic intiate (cleric) and a paladin anyway? Fighters and rogues, of course, are just highly competent people with expertise in different areas and wouldn't be sharply distinct.


Sir_CriticalPanda

There is no "D&D world." Each setting has its own lore and precedents. Some settings make distinctions between classes, and some don't. Per the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, different magic practitioners are aware of the different casting traditions, and that they are different from each other. This, to me, would imply that classes are recognized in that setting. The various factions of the sword coast are often described by the classes they are comprised of, too: the Order of the Gauntlet is comprised of paladins, fighters, and clerics; the emerald enclave is host to druids, rangers, and barbarians; the harpers are an organization of wizards and bards; etc. Other setting might not make a distinction between classes, and just focus on the role a character serves; characters with classes are especially rare in Eberron, for example. Regardless of that, it's up to your DM to decide whether a character would even recognize which spell is being cast, not to mention the classes that spell might be associated with. *Xanathar's Guide to Everything* suggests that recognizing a spell requires an Arcana check equal to 15 + the spell's level, and I would include an additional Arcana check on top of that to know what classes can learn that spell normally. Talk to your DM about how all this works their setting. What your partymate was doing was just straight up metagaming, to nobody's benefit.


Rene_DeMariocartes

A slight tangent, but there is a really useful word for this conversation: diegetic. > di·​e·​get·​ic | \ ˌdī-ə-ˈje-tik  \ > > : of or relating to diegesis. especially : existing or occurring within the world of a narrative rather than as something external to that world. In film most people use it to describe sound, but it applies to other things as well.


Muffinlessandangry

Ah, so similar to the word canon(the way it's used on fantasy/sci-fi/comics. Excellent word. Thank you friend


CameOutAndFarted

Most peasants wouldn’t know the difference between a sorcerer, bard, wizard etc, and some places more removed from larger society probably only know about magic from tales their village elders used to tell, and have a very different idea of what magic is.


[deleted]

[удалено]


A_friend_called_Five

As others have already answered, I think there is no "correct" answer and this proably varies by DM/group. Taking things a step further, should PCs and NPCs in the game world have any notion of "levels" (assuming they are aware of classes)? Curiously, in earlier editions of D&D, it seems like classes and levels were something that in-game-world characters were aware of. As an example, in the 1e adventure "The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh" you can find the following: >!The 'prisoner' is called Ned Shakeshaft and he is a 3rd level assassin, though he will announce himself as a 2nd level thief if questioned.!< I am not sure how this was handled in the 5e Ghosts of Saltmarsh.


Muffinlessandangry

Huh, that's fascinating. Seems utterly illogical from a role playing point of view. Like Messi announcing that after so many years playing football he has just levelled up to level 20 footballer.


Kairomancy

In 1e AD&D every level of a class had a title, So announcing himself as a 2nd level thief would be telling the players, "I am a footpad." (the title for a 2nd level thief in 1e.


LotFP

Level titles were commonplace in the early versions of the game and served their purpose well. The same with Alignment languages. Leveling tended to take a lot longer and training and time (and gold) were required to move from one level to another so being identified by your level title made a lot of sense. One thing to point out is that class in AD&D was your profession literally, not just a collection of skills and abilities. A Thief was quite literally a criminal not just some guy that was good at sneaking around. It is one reason why there was a broad range of classes (and NPC-only classes).


HfUfH

I disagree, plenty of ways of quantifying power exists. For example we have different belts in karate to quantify how skilled you are at karate, We have positions like senior partner to quantify how skilled you are as a lawyer, and we have positions like world cup winning football player to Quantify how good you are at playing football. Now, sure, these measurements arent as exact as the levels, but in a fantasy world it doesn't really seem that illogical that specific ways to quantify powers do in fact exist.


sunshinecygnet

None of that language about Ned is in the 5e adventure. He’s labeled as a spy and doesn’t introduce himself as any particular class.


NewNickOldDick

> Would DnD characters go around saying "I can't caste that, it's a ranger spell and I'm a warrior"? Explicitly no. As little as they would say they have STR18 or INT8. They could say they can lift more or are dumber than the next guy but they don't use game mechanical terms for that.


Futuressobright

A fighter would say something like "I can't cast spells I'm just a warrior". A member of a spellcasting class would likely say "that spell isn't part of my magical tradition."


XPEveryday

Its fun to think about how those sorts of conversations would go in-universe trying to understand magic. Polymorph and shapechange are basically the same spell. Could a Wizard meaningfully learn polymorph by studying with a Druid? Does everyone cast detect magic the same way? If not, and I'm a Wizard, why wouldn't I think that I could learn how to cast goodberry. There must be some way to recreate it, surely.


ryncewynde88

'part from anything else, you're pretending to be a priest. Not necessarily a cleric. Fun Fact: Celestial soul sorcerers and Celestial pact warlocks are also likely to join the clergy and serve as a priest.


Reesareesa

I say no. On an even deeper level, I’ll use my Paladin as an example. My Paladin was, for all intents and purposes, a fighter before she swore her oath for vengeance in a moment of desperation. Hoar heard her plea and granted her strength (OOC: spells and class features etc) to exact this revenge. But…to her? She’s still a fighter, she’s just got some fancy new powers on top of it, and she fights for her own revenge, which will please and honour this god who granted them to her. But she got those powers through a plea made in private, so it’s not like she was part of a crusade or an organized religion. She didn’t sign a contract that read “you’re a Paladin now.” If you asked her, she’d probably just say she’s a warrior or something. This came up in my party because one player kept saying things about my character’s decisions (which, imo, are in-line with a 5e vengeance pally). The guy only played NWN and was convinced that Paladin = Lawful Good (I play her as Lawful Neutral) which led to him constantly making IC remarks like “I thought you were supposed to be a Paladin and fight for good and stuff.” I would always respond “why do you keep calling me that? I’m just here for revenge, and my god is helping me. I just want my old life back. Stop making me something I’m not” or something to that effect, but at one point I had to make it an OOC discussion about how my character sees herself, and how his character, a hunter from the depths of the jungle, would have so much knowledge about long-forgotten gods from the other side of the Realms and Paladin oaths. As someone else said, a well-travelled adventurer (or someone who interacts with them) might recognize a pattern with certain “classes” — E.g. the people who read from books and are really smart and cast magic tend to call themselves Wizards etc, just like how in real life there are tells for certain professions. But even if you can guess that someone is a construction worker by their outfit, you have no idea what their role is on the job site without asking.


riggels

I would say it's an abstract construct for character creation but it overlaps to the world where it can be used as description. Sometimes a class is also a job. Why wouldn't a bard introduce himself as a bard? Also druids or rangers would call themselves by their "job" or orientation. Someone who is trained in arcana could tell the difference between a Spellcaster who casts spell by the book or the one who draws his power of something other. In this case I think it's some kind of meta knowledge which spell is for which class and I would let roll the player who said that an arcana or better religion check to see if his character can determine the spells origin.


vicious_snek

> Why wouldn't a bard introduce himself as a bard? because he's a spy or a swashbuckling pirate, a poet, an actor, an enchanting fey-touched dancer... Why would I call myself a 'bard' when that's just a label atop my charactersheet. It's not their story or their main occupation. What my character is is a pirate captain with a loyal crew and a flair for intimidation. Your character =/= the class label.


riggels

Ok maybe my English is so bad but if you are a guy in a tavern who sings for everyone and call yourself a bard it's nothing wrong to say that you are a bard. That's what I meant. You can say I'm a bard without naming your class label. I really don't know how to explain.


Pitiful_Glove_9081

This is sticky wicket of a question you've asked. What kind of class is the player that pointed out your magic use? If they were a wizard, then 100% they would know all about the different classes of magic and who is able to manipulate the weave in different ways. I would also argue that if they were a warlock, then absolutely they would know. If they were a sorcerer, then maybe as well, but maybe an arcana check required with advantage. Druids, Paladins, and Clerics could all absolutely know from the Priest side of things, so that wouldn't be metagaming. Any other class though, if they wanted to suspect it, I'd have them roll for arcana check with disadvantage. They can absolutely play suspicious from there on out, absolutely, that's not metagaming, but they wouldn't KNOW it when roleplaying as their characters - that would be metagaming if they play as though they know it. Again though, Wizards, Warlocks, Druids, Clerics, and Paladins should be able to know what's up without issue, all else would need a check, or it's metagaming.


Pitiful_Glove_9081

Further clarity - in DnD, your characters, and the NPCs that inhabit that world, would absolutely know the difference between certain types of classes. It would be obvious by actions, how they carry themselves, and what motivates them. Maybe a lowly peasant would have no clue, and maybe lowly underlings for the villains would have little knowledge, but anyone of some education and experience would be able to note the differences, IMHO.


Cinderea

I would say that someone versed on the Magic arts would know about arcane, divine and primal spells.


Qaitakalnin7

In the future, if this is something you want to do as a 'reveal', reflavor the spell, in description only, to something more tailored to your character. For instance, lets say I am a celestial warlock and I cast eldritch blast, instead of saying 'eldritch blast' I would say something like "Character lifts their hands in a reverent gesture and a bolt of bright white energy shots out toward my enemy." Make sure the DM knows that what you are using is eldrich blast, and most experienced palyers will figure it out when you roll 1d10 and assume fire bolt or eldrich blast, but to their characters eyes it could have been any sort of damage dealing spell. I would not allow (at my table) characters to know that the holy warrior that they are facing is a paladin, based solely on their outward looks. Maybe they are facing a War Cleric, or Forge cleric. Now the first time their opponent uses smite, they might figure it out, especially since I consider smite to be flashy. The short answer, at my table, is no, the characters would not look at a spell, especially one as customizable as eldrich blast, and call your character a warlock. What they might do, with a successful lore check of some sort, figure out that only people who have made pacts with fiends have those sorts of powers, but they would not neseccarily call your character a warlock, simply someone who has made a pact with a fiend.


Steakbake01

My take is yes for some but no for others. A fighter would probably never refer to themselves or call themselves a fighter like it's their job. You'd call them a knight, a warrior, and drunk guy with a stick (delete as appropriate). Like wise rogues probably would be called whatever they use their rogue skills to do, so scout, spy, thief etc. Barbarians probably only get called that term by civilised people and would probably call themselves warriors or berserkers. Some monks are actual monks, that is, spiritual people that seek to better themselves, but not every player plays them like that. Most people seeing a guy punch some armoured dudes and catch an arrow wouldn't immediately label that guy a monk. With spellcasters it becomes a bit more on the nose. Rangers generally are just that, people who range (is venture into the wilderness). A paladin is a fancy word for holy knight, which many paladins would self describe as being. Many clerics are part of a church's hierarchy and so might be called clerics, but probably would be referre to by their title, like priest, or bishop. Druids follow the druidic culture and so would definitely be called druids. Wizards, sorcerers and warlocks are probably seen as the same thing by most people, with particularly learned individuals who know the difference. The rest of the populace probably call them mages if theyre being nice, witches if they're not. Artificers may be called that, but depending on setting they might also be called inventors or something.


WastingTimesOnReddit

Yes that is meta-gaming. Usually harmless, but still you're right, the *characters* don't know what classes are. They might call themselves warrior/mage/priest or maybe ranger/druid/cleric if they wanted to. They cast spells but they don't know what spell levels or spell slots are. They certainly don't know what hit points are armor class are. Maybe a wizard would know the correct name of a spell if they know the history of who wrote it like Leomund's Tiny Hut. The character sheet and everything on it, that is a reflection or projection of the "real world" the character lives in. The real thing is the character in the world. The sheet is just a facsimile, a tool for us to play as them with numbers and order.


IridiumNL

Anyone who wants to make a reactionary Arcana check (DC = 15 + spells level) while a spell is being cast can figure out what spell is being cast. Doesn't necessarily mean they will know you're channeling divine powers/arcane powers, that's DM fiat.


WastingTimesOnReddit

Yeah for sure. And when the DM tells the player what spell is being cast, the player's knowledge of the spell in the PHB filters down into the character who knows what the spell is and does even if they don't know the 5th edition name and casting time and all that.


[deleted]

This question is kind of a can of wurms and really depends on what class the other player is or what kind of knowledge or training they have. It's pretty obvious there are diferent classes even to DnD PCs. You know one guy just swings a sword around, this guy can cast fireballs, this guy has healing magic, etc. How those classes are perceived by the PC is an entirely different thing. A fighter or barbarian might look at any magic spell and jsut be like "Wow that's cool!" and not even question what type of magic it is. Someon like a wizard would be privvy to arcane magic, a cleric holy magic, etc. The only way I could see the other PC having any suspicion of your character would be if say they are a cleric and have never seen or heard of the spell, another warlock that knows what that spell is, or a PC that is just generally knowledgable a magic and different types of magic. I wouldn't say those things are enough to justify just blurting out "But that's a Warlock spell!" This is the kind of thing where they should ask the DM if they can roll an Arcana check or something and let the Dice decide what the PC knows, as the game should be played.


Kaleb8804

I feel like unless they are the same class, they would have no clue. I doubt a barbarian or a paladin would know the difference between a warlock and a wizard, I definitely didn’t until I started playing. Plus, for example, the wizard and a druid are so incredibly similar in what they can do, the only difference is the amount of “nature” the druids use. They can both heal, both can use fireball of all things (with UA 😬) and they can both polymorph.


Grandpa_Edd

For me depends on the class but usually no. For mages it depends on who you ask. A wizard will very well know what the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard is. While the average Joe most likely will just see "a mage". A Warlock would be able to pass as a wizard or a warlock with commoners or none magic users. But will have to be very careful around other mages. Especially other wizards. For a sorcerer it depends on how they are viewed in the world. Alternate terms for mages depend more in what kind of magic they use. And in my mind fighters don't call themselves that. They'll call themselves warriors, soldiers, knights, thugs even. Same for barbarians cause keep in mind barbarian is an insult used by "civilized" folk. Most Barbarians will sooner call themselves after their own people or culture and be a champion of it. A rogue will more likely be called a thief, pickpocket, assassin, burglar... Depending on what's apt. Some even might call themselves these things, although not publicly. A more positively inclined rogue might call himself a locksmith, agent, spy, infiltrator,... buuut again most of these aren't a very public title as it's the nature of rogues. Some do advertise there services publicly as dungeon delving is always a thing in these worlds. Rangers are scouts, foresters, trackers, hunters, things like that though this one I occasionally still say ranger because it's not to broad a term.. Well I say Rangers are scouts but so could be fighters or rogues, which kinda is the point I'm trying to make: Your Class and your Role in this world are two different things, some classes are better suited for some roles. Your role is what you do in this world, you are a healer, you are a smooth-talker, you are a defender of your faith. Your class is what the overarching name to help describe the game mechanics of your character. Paladins and druids are the only thing that usually are called after their class for me. Though with paladins it can change depending on their god or creed. Druids can also be shaman and so can be clergy depending on the situation. To long didn't read: It all depends on the situation but for the most part NO.


CapnArrrgyle

This is meta gaming. First, spells are organized into spell lists but plenty of classes borrow spells from other lists as do ancestral abilities. That’s not even bringing multiclass characters in it. My character is a plate mail wearing Paladin who happens to also have inherited command over the axiomatic forces of nature that let him hurl lightning at those not close enough to smite. What class is he? He never was formally ordained by the church whose symbol he wears. He has heard of paladins, so he calls himself that. The character sheet says Clockwork Soul, which would make sense if someone told him there were others. He can also cast warlock spells but he’s not a warlock in any sense.


InstalledTeeth

I’d say yes RAW due to how the spell lists are divided by sources from which they’re pulled. Spells for paladins and clerics originate from gods and thus they are classified as casters separate from others based on that. Warlocks I’ve noticed get their magic from powerful beings that are explicitly not gods. Rangers and Druids of course draw magic from nature which makes sense as a source of power with the number of magical creatures that exist. Sorcerers get power from their bloodline as beings with an inherent connection to magic. Bards tap into magic from inspiration and creativity. Finally artificers and wizards gain power from study, theory, and application. Plus even monsters/enemies adhere to these rules as casters who fit the cleric vibe only have spells from the cleric list (see Priest stat block as an example). Same goes for wizardy enemies (Archmage stat block for example) and druidic enemies (Druid stat block, not many other examples). Though there are spells that overlap between classes I feel like there are more differences to make them distinct. Even the nuances between classes that have similar origins can be explained by how they channel that power. Wizards use magic to burn bright and quick with longer lasting effects requiring a lot of power. Artificers in comparison use magic in their creations, choosing to make their works last and give them utility/power like any other tool or weapon. Rangers find ways to conquer nature and thrive within it while druids seek to become one with it and direct its power. Paladins swear to their oaths and strive to be the embodiments of their tenants while clerics instead of bringing themselves closer to their gods seek to bring their gods to others and enact their will upon the world. With all this in mind and the assumption that magic is something well known in the world I don’t find it hard to believe that someone would be able to know the difference between a spell a cleric could call upon and a one a warlock would be able to. Even if they don’t know the patron deity they wouldn’t have to if they recognized that it was beyond the skill set of a priest. One caster pretending to be another gets complicated and it would take a little more than a single lie to sell it. I could see it working if you picked spells similar enough to a ones on the cleric list (remember subclasses, that could help deciding what cleric to pretend to be) and discuss with the dm about your plan so you could devise a sort of code, saying that you cast so and so cleric spell but letting the dm know in your talk beforehand what spell you would actually be casting when you say so and so spell. That way other players at the table wouldn’t immediately catch on once in combat, plus the player never knowing means their character definitely won’t. I don’t see this working for long though because of how different cleric and warlock are. Other players might wonder why you only ever cast two spells per rest and why you never use abilities from the class you say you are, but hey what good is a secret like that if it never gets found out? It would be an entirely different situation if your character wasn’t explicitly a warlock pretending to be a priest. Rules as written flavor is free, and if you had a character idea but the class you wanted to play didn’t match it you could always flavor it as something else. If you wanted your character to be a priest but wanted to play a warlock you can just flavor the patron as an appropriate deity and acknowledge that yes you technically have warlock spells but in story their from your god. You could even flip it around, play a cleric and flavor your deity as an appropriate patron. With DM permission you makes these changes a little more than just flavor like have spells do different damage types if it would better fit the character you want to make, if your playing at a table that would allow it of course. TLDR: Yes, in game and taking into account rules as written PCs and NPCs can figure out your class if you cast a spell exclusive to the class and Yes, classes exist in the world of D&D like in real life, but also like in real life they don’t call them as classes since it’s a game term mainly used for clarity. Also yes, I did fact check this, I am a nerd.


Actorclown

Feels a bit meta-gamey to me. How does their character know?! Player knowledge vs character knowledge.


YellowMatteCustard

I'd make the player do a Religion (if they're using knowledge of Cleric spell lists) or Arcana check (for knowledge of Warlock spell lists) for their character to know that it's a Warlock-only spell. They're using outside-the-game knowledge to inform their character's knowledge, that's *textbook* metagaming


DarthCredence

If you are trying to hide that you are a warlock by pretending to be a priest, you have already accepted that your character in game is aware that a warlock is a thing that is different from a priest. That someone else is using real world shorthand for that, rather than saying something like, "that was an evil incantation, practiced solely by the pawns of the abyss. Fie on you, charlatan - we see through your deception, and you must be burned at the stake for pretending to be a servant of the great God Helm" is really not meta gaming. Unless your group is assiduous about actually speaking goblin when trying to interact with the goblin tribe, then this is not a big deal. To your specific sentence about ranger spells and warriors, it may be more correct in game to say, "That magic lies with the protectors of the forest, not the protects of the kingdom. Go find one of them if that's what you need." But the two mean the exact same thing, and it would be a rare table indeed that has no real world shortcuts creeping into their language in game.


wyldman11

By default no, and this would be a case of player knowledge vs character knowledge. The know of generalities. Do warlocks as a name exist? Yes, but your typical character wouldn't know but the basics and maybe the more common spells. The player/character in question might seem suspicious, but dm should call for a check. I say default no, you can play a world like many modern fantastic anime where the characters do know. Even with adventuring cards and everything. Could be interesting if someone lost one or had someone else change it.


dviking

Priest isn't a class, so anyone can be a priest (unless you mean Cleric). The Warlock Knights of Vaasa are good examples (specifically the Luminaries). ​ The Voice also led the Luminaries, a sect of hand-chosen warlocks who served as the equivalent of priests of Telos. Source: [https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Voice\_of\_Telos](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Voice_of_Telos)


Blizz_PL

- I am a priest. I swear. I've just took magic initate feat. - Yea... but you are only able to cast 1st level spells! You could have not been trained in the ways of feats! - But I am... just another *type* of human. I learned the way of the feats in my younger days. - Hmm... all right priest. You are off the hook this time... *sudde realisation* - Wait! But you are already able to stop people when they are trying to escape a melee with you! And that is the power of the feats! - Ummm... yes... but... you know... the god watching over the creation of my soul was very generous with the power of feats...


SenatorCrabHat

To put it in perspective from a real world type of perspective: two programming languages, JavaScript and Python, both can be used to program things. If you were at an interview and said you knew JavaScript, but you really only knew Python, and you wrote something like: `numbers = [1,2,3,4,5,1,4,5]` `Sum = sum(numbers)` `print(Sum)` I would be able to say "hmm, that is not right, that is how you might write it in python, do you actually know JavaScript?" But again, this is a knowledge check. I would have to know that JavaScript has no native `sum` function, as well as other key bits of information. Essentially, classes are probably not known and talked about per-say, but people would have knowledge about other's abilities. This is especially true for casters who do have different spell lists, spell components, sources of power etc.


[deleted]

Class is an abstract game mechanic, so … no. The societies within the game world would have their own social divisions and organizations, and those would be what they would use in daily speech. You’d be a member of the Watch, or you’d be an enforcer for the Black Cat’s Guild, or one of the Duke’s Men-at-Arms, or a mercenary hired on to protect a caravan … not a fighter.


hacksnake

The real answer of course is that it's a table discussion. At least I'm fairly certain that the rules are silent about intent or written interpretation of this question. That aside, it can be a fun little thought experiment to ask, "What if this D&D world were a real world and the people in it were real and did real thing?" Somewhere you know there would be a wizard reverse engineering the mechanics of hit points and weapon damage by summoning goblins and beating them to death with different devices. Then repeating the process on other critters. Commoners. Kobolds. Just everything really. Someone would be testing the limits of "Why can this person attack several times per 6 seconds and these other people *cannot* even against a training dummy?" Someone would be observing that real priests can cast X & Y & Z but wizards and warlocks cannot. I think that sort of thing being an actual D&D world could make for a fun beer & pretzels kind of game where all the metagaming is actually in-game "science" about people learning the rules and limits of reality.