How to identify the class of a character in character?

[Darth Ultron]

In a general sense, people will call themselves whatever they want. If they are part of some organization or group, they might have a title, and they might or might not use it.

Jorn knows how to fight, so he calls himself a Warrior. He works for Lord Dumbtree as a Knight of the Realm. Though he rarely says he is a ''knight'' himself, unless he is speaking to some thing like a noble. Though in D&D Game Terms he is a Fighter Character Class.

[Calthropstu]

I am going to go slightly off base here: What does the person identify themselves as? If a rogue takes levels as a shadowdancer, shadow dancer is fairly specific and will identify themselves as such. Likewise, a fighter, who takes a wide variety of weapons training likely at a school of some sort, will identify himself as such. A paladin as well, and most other classes the same. A sorcerer, who undergoes no such training, is labeled as such and likely identifies as such.

So to answer the op's question, "How do you identify a person's adventurer class..."
You ask.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm going to mention that this is why I like lifepath character creation. No needing to deal with classes/versus professions and umpteen different abilities, just get the skills and abilities suited to your character's life and call them what they wish.

A Traveller character who went through five terms of the Navy career and never got a commission might be a Sailor, Pilot, or Engineer depending on what subpath they picked (and with the rules in 1e High Guard there's a lot more), but somebody from the Merchant career could also be a Sailor or a Pilot, while Engineers might also come from the Civilian or Scientist careers. There is likely no way to tell if somebody was Army or Marines by gear alone (bar the cutlass in the OTU), or even in the way they act, the main difference is in the rank title (and not always then). Note that one of the specialties for the Noble career boils down to 'the Drifter career, but with more baths', as stated in the book itself. This is what happens when the closest thing to 'classes' is literally in-universe careers.

Therefore if somebody tells you they're Navy you know that there's a decent chance that they don't have much in the way of personal combat skills (actually given how character creation works by default a lot of PCs will begin low on those). But it means you're free to call yourself what you want profession-wise without that one idiot at the table insisting that conjurers are a different class.

(I also like point buy systems a lot, essentially I have a low view of 'class by appearance' because I like to play and run games where they're not a thing.)

[Berenger]

As another said, horse + armor + sword suggests he definitely isn't a peasant

Unless it's a typical british longbowman, which were often mounted (for travel and foraging, not for battle).



So, Commoner 1 / Warrior 1.

[Anymage]

To come at this from a different perspective. If we're playing a kung fu game, and a mysterious stranger is good in combat, my character could very reasonably be curious what school the stranger learned from. A talented martial artist could probably recognize as much from watching them fight, and could use that information to be prepared for their strengths and weaknesses.

Wanting to know what's on the character sheet of someone you just met is rather silly. Trying to read them for what abilities they might have (and if they're sneaky, them trying to give misleading information) is not unreasonable for a seasoned adventurer who has had a bit of time to get a feel for someone.

[Duff]

I am a computer programmer and identify myself as such. If I were a wizard, I would identify myself as such. If I were a cleric, not only would I identify myself as such I'd attempt to convert you, if I were a fighter I would identify myself as such, If I were a rogue I would well... pretend to be something else heh. But you get the picture. It is a profession, nothing more nothing less. So yes, you would have a concept of your profession.

This. Plus the character classes will usually go with a combat style. A D&D 3.5 warmaster and fighter will often be equipped the same but will fight with different styles. While the experienced adventurer may not use the terms warmaster and fighter, they may think "I see she follows the Tamarian school of combat" knowing that means she will use moves the player understands as warmaster class abilities.

[Quertus]

Lots of random little thoughts.

Clearly, by the value of gear, a man of wealth, and thus fairly high class.

Back in earlier editions of D&D, I used such things as, "how does he carry himself?" to answer related questions of capability and outlook.

Back in 2e D&D, there was a spell (Arcane Sight, IIRC) which let you know of a character was a spellcaster, and, if so, a) what their relative level of ability was compared to your own; b) what their type of magic was (arcane, divine); c) if they were a specialist, and what their specialty was. Really handy for answering this question. Quertus, my signature character for whom this account is named, developed several custom spells based on this spell.

But it's the little details that matter. What is the condition of his clothes, his weapons, his horse? Were they chosen for style, for functionality? How well do they match what activities? How much of what type of wear does each piece of gear show?

Hmmm... I'm sure someone else could make a better test, but...

Spoiler: Character Descriptions

Show

If you look at Quertus, you will see a man with pasty skin and short black cut hair in bright red gold-trimmed robes, surrounded by wisps of magical energy, and smelling of sugar cookies. Should you see his eyes through his gold-rimmed ruby-tinted glasses, they generally either appear distant, or look suspiciously at the landscape. He generally carries a forked metal staff with lightning playing between the prongs, and has his nose shoved in a book every possible moment. Everything about him appears factory fresh. If you look past the illusion, you'll see that his clothes are quite ragged and threadbare, although his timeless features are as clean and well trimmed as he appears. His gear is stowed primarily for ease of carrying, aside from the odd golden hourglass with red sand hung on one side, although the wand case at his hip and quick draw mechanisms hidden up both sleeves hint at some level of preparedness.

Armus dresses in a combination of brown & green hues. His clothes are a bloodstained taters showing more repairs and patches than original materials, yet he moves with a fluid grace. His well-worn scabards do not match the style of the weapons they hold - elven craftsmanship leather holding a dwarven short sword and celestial long sword - but both are readily accessible. Although his bow is of elven make, it has a strange deposit of wax near the top, and Armus's arrows are a strange assortment of mismatched colors and woods, with a predominance of grey-fetched ammo. Armus' gloved hands are often fiddling with a red glass polyhedron with strange markings on its faces. His gear is optimized for ease of accessibility while walking, yet his clothes show wear indicative of much time spent riding. Despite his youth, Armus' most commonly recognized expression is his piercing glare. Should you see his mount (a strange winged lizard creature), it seems an afterthought, like a bike tossed aside by a child playing with other toys, yet Armus riders it like one born to the saddle.

Hunter's well-tanned skin is free of scars or defects. He wears simple, loose-fitting clothes, with wear indicative of a very active lifestyle (but oddly bereft of rips & tears). Hunter had lots of pockets, but his visible gear is minimal, including a well-made knife, a transparent bow filed with liquid silver that defies physics, and a single quiver of nearly equally physics-defying identical arrows.

Ikou is a literal golden boy. His chain armor is gold, he even has gold highlights in his hair. His gear is all well maintained (and generally seemingly fairly new, as well). His finely made elven bow is accompanied by a(n un)healthy supply of arrows, whereas the katana at his side appears almost decorative. He has a ready smile, although his eyes often scan the horizon.

K'Tamair is an obese imp-like creature dressed in a bath robe who is covered more (human-sized) jewelry than is healthy - so much so that he resembles a gold nugget with wings.

Can you guess their class, Prestige class(es) etc from their description? In some cases, perhaps. Doubtless Sherlock Holmes would see even more than I've described, and deduce more truths than just their classes. But I suspect that, in general, characters attempting to divine such information from their casual observations would find their efforts rather hit-or-miss.

[dps]

Actually, I see it more like this:
I am a computer programmer and identify myself as such. If I were a wizard, I would identify myself as such. If I were a cleric, not only would I identify myself as such I'd attempt to convert you, if I were a fighter I would identify myself as such, If I were a rogue I would well... pretend to be something else heh. But you get the picture. It is a profession, nothing more nothing less. So yes, you would have a concept of your profession.

But the question isn't about what you identify yourself as, it's about how others would identify you. If you drove to another city on a business trip, and pulled into a gas station to fuel up your car, people hanging around the station almost certainly wouldn't know you were a computer programmer just by looking at you. Even if you were driving a company car with the company logo on it, that still wouldn't tell them what your job is, just who you work for (actually, it would probably be misleading, because a lot of people at that point would guess sales rep).

[WarKitty]

Here's one of mine, from Pathfinder:

Spoiler: The description

Show

The woman in front of you is broad-shouldered, but wiry, with scars criss-crossing what of her face you can see. She's riding a horse and carries a rapier and a heavy shield. Her expansive cloak envelops most of her body, but you can see chain peaking out. Her shield has a hold symbol painted on it prominently. Her horse is covered in chainmail as well. She has a shortbow and quiver on her back. You see her bend over briefly and mutter a healing spell, and then she shouts some words that seem to energize all those around her.

Spoiler: The answer

Show

Mechanically she was some mix of bard and fighter. Bardic skills focused on perform (oratory). Took cure and buff spells for her bardic abilities. In-game, she's a reformed thug who was taken in by, and belongs to, a holy order. She'd probably identify herself as a holy knight or something, if asked, and would if pressed call her background a "thug"
or "enforcer."

[Mordaedil]

But the question isn't about what you identify yourself as, it's about how others would identify you. If you drove to another city on a business trip, and pulled into a gas station to fuel up your car, people hanging around the station almost certainly wouldn't know you were a computer programmer just by looking at you. Even if you were driving a company car with the company logo on it, that still wouldn't tell them what your job is, just who you work for (actually, it would probably be misleading, because a lot of people at that point would guess sales rep).

Pfft, clearly they can tell that I'm a decker from the cyber-eyes and my implanted datajack and cyberdeck.

[Jormengand]

So, thinking about this a bit more, there are three general categories that you can put classes in: Classes which actually represent organisations (like the Red Wizards or the Assassins), classes with an obvious uniquely-defining ability which very clearly differentiates them from other classes (like most of the tome of magic classes) and classes which are just generally effective (or ineffective, but that's another discussion) in an area (fighters, rogues, scouts, and so forth). If you hear someone babbling in truespeak, they're a truenamer. If someone carries the symbol of the Knights of the Mystic Fire, they're not just a paladin but a paladin with a specific, named ACF and/or feat (specifically, Mystic Fire Knight and/or Sword of the Arcane Order).

In fact, the existence of the Knights of the Mystic Fire (who are an order of paladins) and similarly ranger orders do sort of imply that most classes are actually specific things in-universe as well as out of universe. This sorta makes sense because you can identify lore about truenamers with a knowledge (arcana) check and people tend to burn binders at the stake (but evil clerics are fine), so that implies that they are separate entities in universe.

Similarly, people can't just have not noticed that there are a group of people who know the ways of the Devoted Spirit, Stone Dragon and White Raven, a group of people who know the ways of the Diamond Mind, Setting Sun, Shadow Hand, Stone Dragon and Tiger Claw, and a group of people who know the ways of the Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, Tiger Claw and White Raven, but no-one who knows the ways of the Devoted Spirit and Tiger Claw, at least no more than a cursory understanding of one and a proper understanding of the other. Realistically, there must be three separate schools teaching this knowledge, or else people must have come to notice the immense difficulty in learning any set of disciplines apart from the crusader, swordsage and warblade sets. While they might not call the groups "Crusader", "Swordsage" and "Warblade", it must be a relatively trivial fact among those responsible for teaching initiators that there are three essential groupings of them.

[EDIT] According to the "Warblades in the world" section, they really do call them warblades:

"The clicks and scrapes echoed off the limestone blocks, warning us of danger ahead. The dwarf and I whispered, debating a retreat, but our third was a warblade and a student of the Bright Annis. He charged, slicing the umber hulk's mandibles off, then striking it seven times more before the creature's jaw had clattered to the floor."

-- Dorrom Veshthazrell, swordsage of the Murient Temple

[/EDIT]
Of course, this is all very 3.5-centric, or at least D&D-centric, so let's look at some other games.

In Stars Without Number, there are only three classes, warrior, expert and psychic. Warrior and expert are difficult to tell apart at a glance (because of the way that skills work, it's actually easier for experts to learn to wear the heaviest armour) but psychics are generally obvious because, well, they use psychic powers.

In a lot of systems, your class is actually the name of the role you have - for example, in Dark Heresy, if you're a sanctioned psyker then your class is called Sanctioned Psyker and you usually have some very obvious indications of being a sanctioned psyker (wires attached to your brain, for example). If you're an inquisitor, you're an Inquisitor and you have the symbol of the Imperial Inquisition stamped all over your armour.

In some systems, all the classes are organisations. I can't think of any tabletop RPGs which do this, but in the Diablo series, all rogues are members of the Sisterhood of the Sightless Eye, all assassins are members of the Order of Mage Slayers, and even the NPC classes are organisations: all magic swordsmen are members of the Iron Wolves. You can generally tell most classes apart by looking at them (the warriors and the magic swordsmen, as well as the rogues and the amazons, might be a little harder, but most of them are fairly obvious).

[Beneath]

If a character class does not correspond to an in-world concept, it probably shouldn't be a class; using a class system that includes it is a kludge, not an accurate depiction of your world.

That you might describe yourself as being intensely multiclassed in D&D terms means you're not from a world the D&D class system fits (and, let's be real, you're not an adventurer; most of us here would be Experts at best)

So, by the fact that "this character is a Ranger" is a thing you can say out of game about your character as one of the first decisions you make when creating them, and that the class system isn't being force-fit to the DM's world (admittedly, speculative) in a way that gives you a bunch of named options that your character wouldn't be able to talk about the differences between (for what may well be the first choice you make in character creation), yes your character as a native of that world has an intuitive concept of what a Ranger is which aligns with the Ranger class.

Someone who has paid attention to stories about spellcasters like their life might depend on being able to identify a spellcaster's weaknesses and limitations someday would know the difference between a sorcerer, wizard, druid, and warlock, between a cleric and a paladin, a paladin and a ranger, a ranger and a bard. They might not always be able to tell without watching them cast or rooting around in their supplies, especially if they're not boasting or behaving stereotypically (the furtive one is the warlock, the one who has a wizard master's mark proudly displayed is a wizard, the one who's showboating is a sorcerer, especially if they have scales)

Admittedly, the "a class is a specific in-world concept" thing doesn't apply perfectly to Fighters and Rogues; those are more the fall-through cases; a big-F Fighter is a fighter (small f) who isn't anything else. A rogue is an outcast or adventurer who isn't anything else. Even then they can probably tell the difference (and, like, the rogue being a fall-through class probably started with 3e; an AD&D Thief is a specific kind of specialist). For the other nine or ten classes in the PHB, a class is a meaningful in-world concept.

If it bothers you, then the first thing to do isn't to complain about your DM telling you things and not telling you how you know them to the forum, it's to ask questions. If an unknown Ranger rides in on a horse and the description goes like "horse, chain shirt, longbow, longsword", then ask. Are they wearing some insignia or uniform that marks them as a member of a ranger order? They almost certainly have something to say where they're from or who they represent, even if it's just the hardened gaze characteristic of the Rangers of the North, regardless of class, unless they're actively disguising their identity. People trust you better when they know who you are or where you come from or who your liege is. If the DM's stumped, make something up and ask if it's there.

[Anonymouswizard]

No, classes could also be narrative roles or just vague archetypes. The 'wizard' class refers to many different magic traditions who use a similar spell list but cast vastly differently. But that's the point, the point is that there should be no way to identify a class until they do something, and even then not always that. The person in no armour carrying a dagger could be a rogue or a wizard, or even a cleric, while a person in heavy armour carrying a battle axe could be a fighter, a cleric, a paladin, or even a barbarian.

[Beleriphon]

^ This.

IMO, the idea that characters literally identify themselves and others as belonging to an actual RPG "character class" belongs in farce and parody.

Other than classes that also represent social roles, or actual distinctions. I mean a paladin is a character class and a character role. A wizard is different than a sorcerer as a class, but also as a character in setting since they use magic in different ways. Would either or both use those words? Maybe, maybe no. The only classes that I see not having defined roles are the ones that are also generic words like fighter or rogue. For example if I see a dwarf wearing heavy chain armour, carrying a shield and warhammer probably a good bet they are a warrior of some kind, in D&D terms a fighter, add a holy symbol of Moradin to the shield and we more than likely have a cleric of Moradin or paladin of the same. So we can tell something in character about the dwarf that lines up with their game construct class. Now if we have an elf armed with: a short sword and a dagger; a long bow; and wearing leather armour. We have a warrior of some kind, but they could be a fighter, a rogue, or a ranger. The specifics aren't directly relevant other than the elf is probably going to kill the average peasant pretty easily.

[No brains]

A Battlemaster Fighter from 5th edition D&D can use Know Your Enemy to determine the number of Fighter levels a creature has. In that system, 'Fighter levels' are a thing that exist, but are something so obtuse that only one class feature can tell what they are.

[Tanarii]

A Battlemaster Fighter from 5th edition D&D can use Know Your Enemy to determine the number of Fighter levels a creature has. In that system, 'Fighter levels' are a thing that exist, but are something so obtuse that only one class feature can tell what they are.

Pretty sure other editions of D&D have had similar features. Maybe ... OA 1e's Samurai or Kensai? Pretty sure the 5e Battlemaster feature is a riff of something one of those two could do, since (prior to XtgE at least) that's the concepts the subclass represented.

[Beleriphon]

A Battlemaster Fighter from 5th edition D&D can use Know Your Enemy to determine the number of Fighter levels a creature has. In that system, 'Fighter levels' are a thing that exist, but are something so obtuse that only one class feature can tell what they are.

Eh, its a way to determine if a creature/character is stronger than the fighter in question, at least in terms of similar combat skill. Effectively if you are lets say level 10 fighter, use the ability and determine that thing has 53 levels in fighter maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't try stabbing it in the gibbly bits.

[OdinTGE]

My view is that "classes" generally aren't in-game concepts at all. One exception that springs to mind is a Paladin. A Paladin is a martial warrior belonging to some priestly order. Their class is their character's title. For most other things I can think of "class" is a meta-game construct.

[Mordaedil]

What is a Jedi?

You can surely answer that in your own mind. Bearing that in mind, in the setting of Star Wars, a jedi is almost recognizable by sight unless you've lived on a farm in a remote star system your entire life, farming moisture. They are ubiqutous and instantly recognizable, if not for using outdated laser weapons like lightsabres, then for their diplomatic ability, which a few recognize as mind manipulation.

Likewise, a class is recognized by the dress they decide to wear or how they wear it, usually. It might be hard to tell that Strider sitting by himself in the corner of the bar is anything special to any given halfling, but the bartender instantly gives up that he's a ranger.

The only exception to this is when they decide to intentionally obfuscate their class role, such as a wizard wearing leathery bits to cleverly pass himself off as a rogue instead of a wizard, or a jedi wearing robes in the desert to hide his identity (until they retroactively made that into the clothing of the jedi for some reason, even though early cartoons showed Obi-wan in his prime wearing a black uniform similar to what Luke would wear in the Return of the Jedi, which makes more sense to me and is kinda impressive to me as it suggests this was officially the outfit of the Jedi before the prequels)

Basically I agree with Beleriphon, in that only the fighter and rogue are generic to the point that their classes can't be outright identified by somebody in the setting of D&D.

Unless you're a country-bumpkin.

[Glorthindel]

I generally go with dress/demeanor. A guy standing at the back of the group in a robe, carrying a staff, with a mouse perched on his shoulder can be safely assumed to be the Wizard.

Which is why, when I played a Wizard, part of our standard "entering a city" protocol, was for me to cast an illusion to make it seem as if I was wearing platemail, hid my staff in the cart with the rest of the dungeon loot, had my familiar perch on the shoulder of the Rogue (who carried two swords and a bow anyway, so tended to likewise "ranger it up" in town), and strapped on a greatsword I couldn't use (which was a tournament prize, so "bound" to me anyway). That way, there was absolutely no way I could be identified as the Wizard, except by people who already knew us.

[Pugwampy]

A man with a chain shirt, and a longsword at his hip rides into town on a large horse, there's a longbow sticking out of a quiver on the horse. What class is he?

Too easy . Its a female gnome illusionist in disguise ....

[Max_Killjoy]

Can I also ask why a person within the setting would be trying to identify the game-mechanics abstraction used to map another person in the setting? The whole thing just sounds kinda metagamey to me.

Even a "paladin" within the setting could be constructed using Paladin, Cleric, Fighter, Fighter/Cleric, or whatever.

[Anonymouswizard]

I generally go with dress/demeanor. A guy standing at the back of the group in a robe, carrying a staff, with a mouse perched on his shoulder can be safely assumed to be the Wizard.

This is why the only time I had a wizard dress in a robe, it's because it gave actual benefits (the city was ruled by senior members of my order, so I got circumstance bonuses on most checks).

Otherwise? Robes are for those in academia. Plus a staff, wand, or orb gives away that you're a wizard. The best outfit in my experience is trousers and a shirt or tunic (dresses are acceptable for female wizards while in a town or village, but you likely switch to trousers when adventuring). Ideally with a leather jerkin or some form of outergarment that'll give you protection from the weather, plus a cloak. If you're trained in a martial weapon carry that, otherwise take a dagger over a staff. A spell component pouch is probably stealthier than a wand or staff until the spells start flying, and a wand is stealthier than a staff. Ideally a travelling wizard should look like anything other than a wizard, if you can get armour proficiency go for it.

Which is why, when I played a Wizard, part of our standard "entering a city" protocol, was for me to cast an illusion to make it seem as if I was wearing platemail, hid my staff in the cart with the rest of the dungeon loot, had my familiar perch on the shoulder of the Rogue (who carried two swords and a bow anyway, so tended to likewise "ranger it up" in town), and strapped on a greatsword I couldn't use (which was a tournament prize, so "bound" to me anyway). That way, there was absolutely no way I could be identified as the Wizard, except by people who already knew us.

I generally find it's not worth wasted a slot on it when you can pretend to be a merchant (great cover for buying weird spell components), but yeah, that's the idea. Some familiars are easy to blend into a town as well, there's a decent amount of metagaming to my choices (generally rats, occasionally birds or bats).

[Tanarii]

This is what happens when the closest thing to 'classes' is literally in-universe careers.

Warhammer would like to say Hi, with its requirements that you both buy the trappings and Roleplay & live the career.

[Quertus]

I generally go with dress/demeanor. A guy standing at the back of the group in a robe, carrying a staff, with a mouse perched on his shoulder can be safely assumed to be the Wizard.

Which is why, when I played a Wizard, part of our standard "entering a city" protocol, was for me to cast an illusion to make it seem as if I was wearing platemail, hid my staff in the cart with the rest of the dungeon loot, had my familiar perch on the shoulder of the Rogue (who carried two swords and a bow anyway, so tended to likewise "ranger it up" in town), and strapped on a greatsword I couldn't use (which was a tournament prize, so "bound" to me anyway). That way, there was absolutely no way I could be identified as the Wizard, except by people who already knew us.

Was there a reason your party a) was so paranoid in town; b) seemingly didn't care if travelers you met on the road saw through the disguise?

[Mordaedil]

I dunno about his personal justifications, but it's a general idea that if you go around looking like a wizard and you get into a fight, you are going to be targeted first "because you looked like the most dangerous guy there". Never mind the 7 foot tall barbarian, get the ****ing nerd.

[Jormengand]

Can I also ask why a person within the setting would be trying to identify the game-mechanics abstraction used to map another person in the setting? The whole thing just sounds kinda metagamey to me.

Even a "paladin" within the setting could be constructed using Paladin, Cleric, Fighter, Fighter/Cleric, or whatever.

Well, some of those game mechanics abstractions aren't necessarily so abstract, honestly. See: lots of the 3.5 PrCs, for example.

[veti]

Actually, I see it more like this:
I am a computer programmer and identify myself as such. If I were a wizard, I would identify myself as such. If I were a cleric, not only would I identify myself as such I'd attempt to convert you, if I were a fighter I would identify myself as such, If I were a rogue I would well... pretend to be something else heh. But you get the picture. It is a profession, nothing more nothing less. So yes, you would have a concept of your profession.

When you've changed careers a few times, you'll see it differently.

Nobody pays you to "be a computer programmer". You get paid to do things, and that might mean programming a computer - but another time, it might mean measuring the tread on an escalator, or juggling raw eggs, or grovelling to people over the phone. The role might be called "business analyst" or "solutions architect" or "team leader" or...

Likewise, no-one is paid to be a "fighter". Guard, soldier, hunter - these are jobs. "Fighter" is just a skill set, which may come in useful in your job from time to time - but if you think about it, even soldiers likely spend 99% of their time not fighting. They'll spend more time building, digging, cleaning, cooking, foraging, singing, scouting. They'll certainly spend more time recovering from wounds than they spent incurring them. It may well be that a rogue or a bard or a cleric makes a better soldier than a fighter - and yet they'll dress pretty much the same.

[Jay R]

Can I also ask why a person within the setting would be trying to identify the game-mechanics abstraction used to map another person in the setting? The whole thing just sounds kinda metagamey to me.

It does to me, too. But trying to be fair, I point out that the PC is trying to figure out what this person might be capable of. She's not using game terms. The player is simulating her thought in game mechanics, because game mechanics are what the stranger will eventually use.

I generally go with dress/demeanor. A guy standing at the back of the group in a robe, carrying a staff, with a mouse perched on his shoulder can be safely assumed to be the Wizard.

Yup. That kind of consideration is crucial to how disguises work.

My gnome illusionist never wears robes. He wears sturdy traveler's clothes, and carries a hooked hammer, which is actually his staff. Until he casts a spell, he will not be taken as a wizard.

[In fact, he owns no robes. Having been raised by artificers, he owns a lab coat, which he only wears when working in a lab. Wearing loose clothes in the wilderness is not very bright.]

[Chronos]

I view classes as just sets of abilities, and that a character might describe themself any way they wish. It might be possible to distinguish a character's class or classes, and in some cases it's going to be easier than others. A wizard or sorcerer, for instance, is definitely going to recognize the distinction between "knows some spells that they always choose from but doesn't have to pin down how many of which each day" and "has books full of spells from which they can choose every day", but to most non-casters, either one of them is probably just going to be "a mage". Druids probably will identify themselves as druids (or some synonym), since they restrict themselves by druidic oaths and speak the Druidic language, but the distinction between a fighter, ranger, and barbarian might be much less obvious. Two wildly different characters might also use the same labels for themselves: I can see a barbarian or a wizard either one calling themself a "mercenary" or an "adventurer". And mere appearance is almost never going to be enough: Someone dressed in cloth and carrying a staff could equally well be an arcane spellcaster or a monk, or just a poor peasant commoner with a walking stick.

This is also why I've never had a problem with heavily-multiclassed warrior-type builds. In character, he's still just a warrior, or a soldier, or a mercenary, or an adventurer, or whatever he's always called himself. He might tell you that he's specifically sought out and learned many different fighting styles, and someone sufficiently educated in fighting styles might recognize that he has an unusually diverse skill set, but the fighter wandering the globe learning the fighting styles of many different cultures is a well-established trope. Or maybe he's entirely self-taught, and just happened to stumble upon a lot of tricks that work just by virtue of getting into a lot of fights.