# "Your Class is Not Your Character": Is this a real problem?



## Fauchard1520 (Feb 13, 2020)

You guys have heard the phrase "your class is not your character," right? the idea is that you don’t have to be an baby-eating psychopath just because your sorcerer has the Abyssal bloodline. You don’t have to be a purehearted hero just because you know your way around a smite evil.

I'm curious if this is a real problem that people have encountered, or if it's just a good soundbite. Have you ever encountered a GM or another player who told you that you were "playing your class wrong?" I may just be lucky in my groups, but I haven't ever encountered that mess out in the wild.

*Comic for illustrative purposes.*


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 13, 2020)

Fauchard1520 said:


> You guys have heard the phrase "your class is not your character," right? the idea is that you don’t have to be an baby-eating psychopath just because your sorcerer has the Abyssal bloodline. You don’t have to be a purehearted hero just because you know your way around a smite evil.
> 
> I'm curious if this is a real problem that people have encountered, or if it's just a good soundbite. Have you ever encountered a GM or another player who told you that you were "playing your class wrong?" I may just be lucky in my groups, but I haven't ever encountered that mess out in the wild.
> 
> *Comic for illustrative purposes.*



I've been told that about Paladin once or twice, but not since 1e.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 13, 2020)

Not really. Playing the class as character is a good RP handhold for newer players, and I've found most players pretty naturally branch out and separate the two ideas. Personally the phrase "playing your class" doesn't make any sense in 99% of the cases where it might be applied. I'm sure there are people who would and do say it a lot though, just not anyone I'd play with.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 13, 2020)

I've had new (er) players feel that they should play class X like Y because reasons but as they get more table time that tends to disappear.

I have much bigger issue with players and DM fighting the concept that characters will and should evolve throughout their life.


----------



## GlassJaw (Feb 13, 2020)

Not sure what you mean by "problem". It's actually a great concept to keep in mind.

I 100% subscribe to it, especially with regards to multiclassing. My "character" isn't X levels of class A and Y levels of class B. "Class" is just a way to describe the in-game abilities of the character I envision. 

That's always my biggest issue with people who complain about multiclassing. What if my character is a combination of abilities across multiple classes? Choosing a class at each level is just a clunky game mechanic. I can play my fighter from level 1 as a sneaky bounty hunter and maybe I add some rogue levels along the way. That doesn't change my character.


----------



## iserith (Feb 13, 2020)

The character is not the class.

It is, in fact,the 5-page backstory nobody reads or cares about that is barely ever mentioned during play.


----------



## Shiroiken (Feb 13, 2020)

It really depends on the player. Most new players fall into class stereotypes because they don't know otherwise. A lot of gamers move past this, but a few do not. I know one guy who always plays a sneaky ninja-like character, because that's his ideal image of himself. Another guy never roleplays; his character is just numbers on paper that he uses to try and "win" the game. 

Of course some of us go too far the other way. I've twice had a character move in a direction I didn't intend. One I played out as an object lesson to the other players, who should have put me down like a rabid dog, but didn't because I wasn't an NPC. The second I retired (he left for his own reasons) because he was becoming a disruptive influence on the game.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 13, 2020)

Depends on your aesthetics of play.

For some tables, your class is your character because the aesthetics of play don't really encourage your role in the play to be more than what your character can contribute to group success. And importantly, thespian and pseudo-intellectual snobbery aside, this is perfectly OK. 

For others, because they want to engage in more diverse or different aesthetics of play, your class can't be your character because a class doesn't define the attributes of your character that are important to that aesthetic of play. Importantly, thespian and pseudo-intellectual snobbery aside, a system doesn't have to explicitly define your class in terms of thespian attributes and maneuvers to support melodramatic, narrative, introspective, or expressive play. Doing so may or may not help a group get in a mindset where they prize those aesthetics of play, but a group can evolve those aesthetics of play independently of the system.

In particular, I remember reading Gary Fine's 'Shared Fantasy' a few years after it came out, and he documented that many of the very crunch heavy systems of the 1980's were in practice supporting very different processes of play than you'd imagine.   The insanely high levels of crunch meant that engaging with the rules was extremely expensive.  As a result, many tables that enjoyed the games did so by evolving processes of play that engaged with the rules only rarely, and instead spent most of their time engaged in low melodrama that barely engaged with the rules.   When combat takes hours to resolve, one viable procedure of play is to avoid combat on all but the most important occasions.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 13, 2020)

It does depend. Especially for paladins, and if you, like me as a dm, require a paladin player to play a paladin. Thankfully my Paladin player even some times does more than I require, and instantly notices any moral dilemmas.

Other game systems are much harder: DSAs Rondra Cleric is required to never turn down a challenge and never retreat even if clearly against all odds and always fight fair, e.g. if the opponent fumbles and loses his weapon the Rondra Cleric would insist on him picking it up.
We lately had a session where one NPC (much stronger than our Rondra cleric player and probably the whole group but that does not matter because the Rondra cleric would not accept help from the others in this case, as it would be unfair) did slit the throat of a bound helpless prisoner.
This NPC was shady, but principally on our side and as such one of the major forces of "good".
The Rondra cleric PC tried to challenge him for duel for that and just survived because the NPC simply ignored him and pushed him aside and escaped.
That's a lawful good paladin like character turned up to eleven, most of them die soon, because of their code of honor being so strict.


----------



## RSIxidor (Feb 13, 2020)

I think it's more accurate to say that your class doesn't have to define your character if you don't want it to, and that it's also okay to have your class define your character if you want it to, and not everything about your character has to come from your class. But that's a mouthful.


----------



## Phazonfish (Feb 14, 2020)

Honestly I've seen the opposite problem. Whenever the topic of multiclassing comes up around here, I see a lot of "I allow multiclassing, but only if they have a story reason to." Why? If I'm a paladin, and I wanna take levels in Warlock, why can't I just take the mechanical benefits of the Warlock class, but in-story attribute the new powers to where ever my Paladin powers come from?


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 14, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> Honestly I've seen the opposite problem. Whenever the topic of multiclassing comes up around here, I see a lot of "I allow multiclassing, but only if they have a story reason to." Why? If I'm a paladin, and I wanna take levels in Warlock, why can't I just take the mechanical benefits of the Warlock class, but in-story attribute the new powers to where ever my Paladin powers come from?




If the game is just a bunch of mechanical effects then it loses what makes it special.

I don't want to play such a game.

I am very glad that multiclassing is an optional rule. I will never use it.


----------



## tommybahama (Feb 14, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> why can't I just take the mechanical benefits of the Warlock class, but in-story attribute the new powers to where ever my Paladin powers come from?




But that is a consistent story and a good explanation of your new powers and abilities.  It's more of a problem if you say you are Paladin of Torm but then make a pact with a devil for supernatural powers.


----------



## Phazonfish (Feb 14, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> If the game is just a bunch of mechanical effects then it loses what makes it special.
> 
> I don't want to play such a game.
> 
> I am very glad that multiclassing is an optional rule. I will never use it.



Who said anything about the game just being mechanical effects? What I want is to write my character in whatever way makes the best story, as opposed being presented the dilemma of "Take an entirely unnecessary mechanical penalty or insert contrivances into your story so that you fit the stereotype your new class is supposed to."


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Feb 14, 2020)

I've only seen it as a problem when someone else (especially the dm) enforces it on a player, rather than the player enforcing it on themselves.

If you're playing a paladin and want to play him as a big blue boy scout, that's fine. If you want to play him as an old soldier who knows the little things don't always matter but your dm punishes you for playing that way because paladins must be lawful stupid, that's bad.

It's also something I haven't seen in the wild since 3rd edition.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 14, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> Who said anything about the game just being mechanical effects? What I want is to write my character in whatever way makes the best story, as opposed being presented the dilemma of "Take an entirely unnecessary mechanical penalty or insert contrivances into your story so that you fit the stereotype your class is supposed to."




Why even have races or classes? Why have any abilities tied to anything?

Let's just have a bunch of powers to pick and choose from and then write stories from there.

There are games that actually do that.

D&D is a class based game. Throwing out the strengths of a classed base game while playing it is rather silly.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 14, 2020)

I've mostly seen the opposite problem, with players choosing a class for mechanical reasons, and then jumping through hurdles to justify why they can get away with not acting like the class that they chose.

Classes exist for many reasons. One of them is to tell us more about how the world works, by invoking shared lore. If a paladin isn't even really a paladin, then the class fails at upholding that purpose.


----------



## Phazonfish (Feb 14, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Why even have races or classes? Why have any abilities tied to anything?
> 
> Let's just have a bunch of powers to pick and choose from and then write stories from there.
> 
> ...



I would totally allow my players to refluff races/classes as each other if it helps them make the character concept they want to make. You tout the strengths of a class based game, but don't list any; I wish you would have, as none are apparent to me.



Saelorn said:


> Classes exist for many reasons. One of them is to tell us more about how the world works, by invoking shared lore. If a paladin isn't even really a paladin, then the class fails at upholding that purpose.



I disagree. The lore tells us what Paladins are usually like, we don't need the PC's as an example to know how the world works.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 14, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> I disagree. The lore tells us what Paladins are usually like, we don't need the PC's as an example to know how the world works.



I strongly disagree. If PCs don't reflect the setting at large, then you aren't really playing in that setting.

If I tell you that I'm playing a Paladin, and that doesn't tell you anything about who my character is or how they act, then you've just squandered the rich history of fantasy tropes. We might as well be playing a sci fi game, at that point.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> I strongly disagree. If PCs don't reflect the setting at large, then you aren't really playing in that setting.
> 
> If I tell you that I'm playing a Paladin, and that doesn't tell you anything about who my character is or how they act, then *you've just squandered the rich history of fantasy tropes. We might as well be playing a sci fi game, at that point.*



uh, considering your avatar I find that just _a little _ironic for you to say.

I agree that class does inform abilities and possibly behavior of your character, but I don't see how that means you need to pigeonhole yourself either. especially in this day and age where class based rpg's are no longer the norm, and mutliclassing and archetypes are part of 5e. and really if paladins always acted in line we wouldn't have blackguards.


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> I strongly disagree. If PCs don't reflect the setting at large, then you aren't really playing in that setting.
> 
> If I tell you that I'm playing a Paladin, and that doesn't tell you anything about who my character is or how they act, then you've just squandered the rich history of fantasy tropes. We might as well be playing a sci fi game, at that point.




If I tell you I'm playing a Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen, why does it matter which set of mechanics I use to support that? You have what you need to know, lore-wise.


----------



## Phazonfish (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> I strongly disagree. If PCs don't reflect the setting at large, then you aren't really playing in that setting.
> 
> If I tell you that I'm playing a Paladin, and that doesn't tell you anything about who my character is or how they act, then you've just squandered the rich history of fantasy tropes. We might as well be playing a sci fi game, at that point.




If you tell me that you're playing a Paladin then I would expect you to play them like a Paladin because you just told me that you are a Paladin like it is central to the character's identity. That's perfectly fine, but I don't think this needs to be the case for all characters. You can even still play into fantasy tropes without necessarily playing into the tropes associated with your class.


----------



## Charlaquin (Feb 14, 2020)

I haven’t seen this be a problem... well, ever really. Early in my roleplaying career my and my friends characters were a bit flatter and more archetypal, but even then none of us thought the class did or should define the character completely.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 14, 2020)

jmartkdr2 said:


> If I tell you I'm playing a Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen, why does it matter which set of mechanics I use to support that? You have what you need to know, lore-wise.



Because the mechanics of the game reflect the reality of the game world. That's why we're using one set of mechanics, instead of some other set of mechanics.

If it was possible for a Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen to be accurately represented with multiple different classes, then that indicates a severe mis-match between the reality and its reflection. We shouldn't be using these classes to represent a reality where they don't hold. The consistent approach would be to define Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen as its own class.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

I hadn't seen this be a problem for years, then my wife and I joined a 5E campaign at one of our local game stores, and the DM has persisted in behaving as though my wife is playing her character wrong. It seems he only has one motivation in his head for wizards, and my wife's character isn't motivated by that. It's an ongoing source of irritation (we continue in the campaign primarily because we like the other players)


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> If it was possible for a Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen to be accurately represented with multiple different classes, then that indicates a severe mis-match between the reality and its reflection. We shouldn't be using these classes to represent a reality where they don't hold. The consistent approach would be to define Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen as its own class.




Maybe we don't want fourteen million classes, though, and maybe there are several kinds of Warrior-nuns of the Raven Queen. So long as the player and the GM are on the same page, it's almost certainly fine (though I have to admit I'd look very carefully at a character whose player wanted to bring lore into my setting that allowed him to multiclass paladin and warlock).


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 14, 2020)

Panda-s1 said:


> uh, considering your avatar I find that just _a little _ironic for you to say.
> 
> I agree that class does inform abilities and possibly behavior of your character, but I don't see how that means you need to pigeonhole yourself either. especially in this day and age where class based rpg's are no longer the norm, and mutliclassing and archetypes are part of 5e. and really if paladins always acted in line we wouldn't have blackguards.



Given that class-based RPGs are less common, the choice to use a class-based system says something. In particular, one of the things it says is that codified classes make sense in this world. After all, if you didn't want your class to really mean something, then you could have played one of those other games.

On a very serious note, one of the problems with sci-fi RPGs is that they don't have a universal set of tropes to help get everyone on the same page with how the world works. The closest we have is Star Trek, and that doesn't work for a lot of campaign types. It's a big problem, which limits their popularity. Hence why space fantasy is much more common.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Given that class-based RPGs are less common, the choice to use a class-based system says something. In particular, one of the things it says is that codified classes make sense in this world. After all, if you didn't want your class to really mean something, then you could have played one of those other games.




Or, you might be playing a class-based game because it's what your friends are playing. I think that's a determining factor more than a lot of people waht to admit.



Saelorn said:


> On a very serious note, one of the problems with sci-fi RPGs is that they don't have a universal set of tropes to help get everyone on the same page with how the world works. The closest we have is Star Trek, and that doesn't work for a lot of campaign types. It's a big problem, which limits their popularity. Hence why space fantasy is much more common.




I'd have to say that Star Wars is at least as much a source of SF archetypes as Star Trek. If nothing else, I can think of more, and more successful TRPGs set in that universe, and the Campbell influence seems more ripe for the taking.


----------



## Phazonfish (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Because the mechanics of the game reflect the reality of the game world. That's why we're using one set of mechanics, instead of some other set of mechanics.
> 
> If it was possible for a Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen to be accurately represented with multiple different classes, then that indicates a severe mis-match between the reality and its reflection. We shouldn't be using these classes to represent a reality where they don't hold. The consistent approach would be to define Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen as its own class.




You bring up an excellent point here, which is why I would like to clarify my position. I only support refluffing where the crunch and fluff make sense together. If you have been a Wizard for most of the campaign, but want to take a 1 level dip in Sorcerer, and want to write your new spells off as more scholarly magic instead of explaining your sorcerous origin, I see no reason why not. If your character has the ability to cast Plane Shift and you try and write this off as a non-magical skill of your warrior who has never learned or otherwise obtained a speck of magic and don't have some kind of interesting justification for me, I would have a problem with this as a GM. I agree wholeheartedly with you when you say that the mechanics need to reflect the reality of the game world.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 14, 2020)

prabe said:


> I'd have to say that Star Wars is at least as much a source of SF archetypes as Star Trek. If nothing else, I can think of more, and more successful TRPGs set in that universe, and the Campbell influence seems more ripe for the taking.



Star Wars isn't sci-fi, though. It's Space Fantasy.

Star Trek is sci-fi, albeit pretty far to the soft end of that spectrum.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Star Wars isn't sci-fi, though. It's Space Fantasy.
> 
> Star Trek is sci-fi, albeit pretty far to the soft end of that spectrum.




Neither of them is particularly *good* SF, I'll grant you that.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Given that class-based RPGs are less common, the choice to use a class-based system says something. In particular, one of the things it says is that codified classes make sense in this world.



Or maybe it just says that WotC is putting on stage productions of Fiddler on the Roof every night.

Sure, there are other games out there that have a wider range of possibilities built into the system. But most of everybody is playing D&D. Some people, you won't believe it, _like _D&D even after playing FATE or World of Darkness or Savage Worlds, they just want a bit more latitude of fluff beyond the strictest confines of the class system.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 14, 2020)

I think it's important to separate the class mechanics from the class fluff.  The best reskinning you can do is by totally erasing the existing fluff and then building your own back in to make the powers and abilities match the concept.

When creating a character for ToA I wanted to be a nonmagical jungle native warrior.  This would naturally swing the way of being a fighter, but there are a lot of heavy armor assumptions to make a fighter work correctly.

After looking over the barbarian, rogue, and monk as substitute's it made the most sense to go with the monk rules to portray the character in my head.  But, I'm not a monk.   I don't have a monastery.  I don't karate kick and Kung Fu people.  It was trivial to rewrite each and every ability as representing different aspects of the jungle beasts that my character used in their adventuring.

I did not refer to my character as a monk, but instead as a fighter.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Feb 14, 2020)

I think the problem I have stems from knowing how many different iconic characters went into making each class, and in some cases that class might not even represent every character that went into it well. I also find it silly when people use the names of classes in-game as if people in that setting codify adventurers that way (okay some settings do do this, but those settings are usually trying to ape rpg mechanics for comedic effect).



Saelorn said:


> Given that class-based RPGs are less common, the choice to use a class-based system says something. In particular, one of the things it says is that codified classes make sense in this world. After all, if you didn't want your class to really mean something, then you could have played one of those other games.



I mean like prabe said sometimes I don't have a choice in what game I'm going to play. sometimes I have to compromise and choose a class even though the character I have in mind is a bit more nebulous than what the game will let me do. I do like thinking of what class I'm gonna play when I don't have a character in mind, or even coming up with characters with a class in mind, but I especially like thinking outside the bounds of what's usually expected of the class. like not every cleric is going to be the healbot with a mace. sometimes I'm a cleric of a war god and your average person might not think me a holy man but just some random mercenary. or maybe I'm a cleric of a god of magic. people might see me and think of me as some sort of wizard instead. be a fighter who only uses slings, or a ranger who's only ever explored the sewers beneath the city, idk man classes are dumb when they're rigidly defined imo.



> On a very serious note, one of the problems with sci-fi RPGs is that they don't have a universal set of tropes to help get everyone on the same page with how the world works. The closest we have is Star Trek, and that doesn't work for a lot of campaign types. It's a big problem, which limits their popularity. Hence why space fantasy is much more common.



I feel like fantasy doesn't have as many universal tropes as people would like to think. and if it does it's probably because it's tapping on the long history of human mythology. science fiction has only really coalesced in it's current form like maybe 200 years ago? the other problem is science fiction by its nature is a lot more open ended. Star Trek has planets and spaceships and it's ostensibly sci fi (though I find this claim tenuous imo). but Fallout only has planet and no spaceships (none that anyone flies at least) and I'll be damned if that's not also sci fi.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 14, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> I would totally allow my players to refluff races/classes as each other if it helps them make the character concept they want to make. You tout the strengths of a class based game, but don't list any; I wish you would have, as none are apparent to me.
> 
> 
> I disagree. The lore tells us what Paladins are usually like, we don't need the PC's as an example to know how the world works.




Why are you playing D&D?

I don't feel like writing out a treatise on the strengths of D&D right now.

It's all been said before.

What is perplexing me here is why you are playing a game where you can't see the strengths of it.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Because the mechanics of the game reflect the reality of the game world. That's why we're using one set of mechanics, instead of some other set of mechanics.
> 
> If it was possible for a Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen to be accurately represented with multiple different classes, then that indicates a severe mis-match between the reality and its reflection. We shouldn't be using these classes to represent a reality where they don't hold. The consistent approach would be to define Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen as its own class.



With the fact that between backgrounds, classes/Subclasses, and race alone there are about 1,000 ways to portray any giving thematic 'class' as a base option is pretty apparent that that was the design goal of 5e.
They didn't want to go the way of 3.X with a million classes, subclasses, and prestige classes. They presented a few general classes that can be molded to fit multiple concepts.
Refluffing is the standard in 5e.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Feb 14, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Why are you playing D&D?
> 
> I don't feel like writing out a treatise on the strengths of D&D right now.
> 
> ...



man how many times do people have to say it? not everyone has a choice. I mean _I could_ decide not to play with my friends, _I could _also make a vain attempt to get people to play a different game with no classes, but sometimes you gotta compromise, especially when the most popular rpg in the world uses classes.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 14, 2020)

Panda-s1 said:


> man how many times do people have to say it? not everyone has a choice. I mean _I could_ decide not to play with my friends, _I could _also make a vain attempt to get people to play a different game with no classes, but sometimes you gotta compromise, especially when the most popular rpg in the world uses classes.




No gaming is better than bad gaming.

If I'm going to play a game then I'm going to play that game and not try to warp it into something else because I don't like it but feel forced to play it.

If I don't like a game that my friends are playing I will find something else to do with them at some other time. I won't join the game I don't like and then dump that baggage on them while they're trying to enjoy something.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 14, 2020)

Fauchard1520 said:


> You guys have heard the phrase "your class is not your character," right? the idea is that you don’t have to be an baby-eating psychopath just because your sorcerer has the Abyssal bloodline. You don’t have to be a purehearted hero just because you know your way around a smite evil.
> 
> I'm curious if this is a real problem that people have encountered, or if it's just a good soundbite. Have you ever encountered a GM or another player who told you that you were "playing your class wrong?" I may just be lucky in my groups, but I haven't ever encountered that mess out in the wild.
> 
> *Comic for illustrative purposes.*




I find this is a problem when ether the *GM or the player* feels that way but the other does not. So for example, some GMs hate players who play more neutral paladins because they define them by their class while some players will play "Lawful Stupid" paladins because they don't think they can "within character" do anything else. Which results in general avoidance of Paladins, Warlocks, druids, and Clerics as well as hate for multi-classing them like Paladin/Warlock builds for example. While the game does not restrict these a GM who thinks "your character IS your class" will not allow the idea that a Paladin of Oath of the Ancients aka fey knights might make a deal with an allied Patron to their cause becoming an Archfey Patron Warlock multi-class despite their being not rules or even fluff that prevents a Nature Domain Deity  from having Archfey subordinates who grant additional power from the same faction, to fight for the same cause, against the same enemy, in reverence and support of the same original Deity. Its simply not allowed because "you are your class".

This is made more complicated because often the same GMs and players only hold the "you are your class" beliefs to specific classes. In the same group you might have a GM that feels that way about warlocks and clerics while one player feels that way about druids and another player that way about paladins.

In the end, these are opinions with no actual basis in the rules. So none of them are "wrong" and none of them are "right". *No argument will ever over rule someone's opinion*.  The best you can do is work around the conflicts by being aware of them and picking different options that avoid problems at your table. Generally speaking it comes to a head when the table runs into these unaware that these "restrictions" were there before they got invested into a campaign. I have had "Lawful Stupid" Paladins end up changing characters mid campaign because they could not let themselves play that character with out trying to PVP their own party and Players changing from warlock (forced-evil), cleric (forced pushy religious), or druid (Lawful Tree hugger) because the GM felt players should be tied to acting in a specific manor due to their class that was not how the player intended or wanted to play.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 14, 2020)

Stoutstien said:


> With the fact that between backgrounds, classes/Subclasses, and race alone there are about 1,000 ways to portray any giving thematic 'class' as a base option is pretty apparent that that was the design goal of 5e.
> They didn't want to go the way of 3.X with a million classes, subclasses, and prestige classes. They presented a few general classes that can be molded to fit multiple concepts.
> Refluffing is the standard in 5e.



Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Backgrounds, subclasses, and races exist as a way to reflect slightly different realities; but the rules still definitely reflect _those_ specific realities.

Re-fluffing died with 4E. The expectation of 5E is that, if you have some new thing which isn't already covered by the rules, you should use the content creation guidelines in the DMG to make those things. But in every case, the only reason to use any given set of mechanics is because it's an accurate reflection of the thing you're trying to represent.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Why are you playing D&D?
> 
> I don't feel like writing out a treatise on the strengths of D&D right now.
> 
> ...




Look, I really, *really* like 5E. I'm choosing to play it, and I'm choosing to run two campaigns in it.

I have a group of friends who've been gaming together for decades. That group is playing Pathfinder 1E, which I'm tired of, probably terminally. I'd rather spend time with those friends, playing a suboptimal game than *not spend time with them at all*. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has gaming friends, where the expected social context is gaming.

Also, one of the strengths of D&D (at least 5E) is its flexibility. If someone wants to re-write the non-mechanical bits of the Monk class to play a tribal fighter, that's excellent and awesome. If someone has a character concept that requires straddling a couple classes, and the player and the DM are both cool with this, that's excellent and awesome. It's not the only way to play, of course, but it's not wrong at all.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> I strongly disagree. If PCs don't reflect the setting at large, then you aren't really playing in that setting.
> 
> If I tell you that I'm playing a Paladin, and that doesn't tell you anything about who my character is or how they act, then you've just squandered the rich history of fantasy tropes. We might as well be playing a sci fi game, at that point.




Umm, in 5e, that's certainly not true.  

Your paladin and my paladin might look completely different, depending on our different sub-classes.  Telling me you are playing a paladin, in 5e, doesn't really tell me anything about your character anymore.  The days when class=character are long gone.  Niche protection has eroded to the point where there are multiple paths towards representing the same archetype.

Is that Raven Queen Battle Nun a paladin, a cleric, a monk, a warlock?  Who knows.  All four classes could easily represent that concept even before we get into reflavoring anything.  My last priest of Kord was a rogue who believed (after eating a stew of mushrooms of rather questionable provenance) that he had dined with Kord and had thus been chosen by Kord to be his representative on the world and was thus tasked with building a tabernacle to Him.  His holy symbol was the very spoon that touched Kord's lips.

While some classes do come somewhat more tightly parceled with world building flavor, not all do. 

Classes are there to provide guidelines - but, they should never be straight jackets.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Backgrounds, subclasses, and races exist as a way to reflect slightly different realities; but the rules still definitely reflect _those_ specific realities.
> 
> Re-fluffing died with 4E. The expectation of 5E is that, if you have some new thing which isn't already covered by the rules, you should use the content creation guidelines in the DMG to make those things. But in every case, the only reason to use any given set of mechanics is because it's an accurate reflection of the thing you're trying to represent.



The classes and their abilities are only an accurate reflection of what they can do on the battlefield and in certain utility and social situations. Anything else is imposed from outside, whether from setting lore or from the DM and/or player's preconceptions.

For example, have it from a D&D setting creator: what can you get when you take the Druid's mechanical abilities and refluff them?



			
				Keith Baker said said:
			
		

> *Druids That Aren’t Druids*
> Mechanically, a druid is primarily defined by spellcasting abilities, limited armor, and Wild Shape. Here’s a few quick ideas for characters that use the druid class withoutbeing spiritual devotees of nature.
> 
> *Changeling Menagerie*
> ...


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Re-fluffing died with 4E. The expectation of 5E is that, if you have some new thing which isn't already covered by the rules, you should use the content creation guidelines in the DMG to make those things. But in every case, the only reason to use any given set of mechanics is because it's an accurate reflection of the thing you're trying to represent.




Except we're not talking about something that's not covered in the rules (optional in the case of multiclassing). We're talking about the perception that all characters of a given class (or subclass, I suppose) must act alike.


----------



## Phazonfish (Feb 14, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Why are you playing D&D?




Because it's a fun game? I also play a bunch of flash card RPGs and have a lot of fun with them, but sometimes I want to play something more mechanically complex and I have a couple players that wouldn't even attempt to learn such a game, yet happen to have acquired a good foundation of knowledge on the rules of D&D because they watch Critical Role every week (and often the rules ramblings I spew as I watch).



ad_hoc said:


> What is perplexing me here is why you are playing a game where you can't see the strengths of it.



I see a good many strengths of the game, just not of playing it the way you suggest.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 14, 2020)

ClaytonCross said:


> This is made more complicated because often the same GMs and players only hold the "you are your class" beliefs to specific classes. In the same group you might have a GM that feels that way about warlocks and clerics while one player feels that way about druids and another player that way about paladins.



This tbh.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 14, 2020)

prabe said:


> Except we're not talking about something that's not covered in the rules (optional in the case of multiclassing). We're talking about the perception that all characters of a given class (or subclass, I suppose) must act alike.



That's fair. All members of a given class would act alike, except for those areas which are not covered by class (such as race or background), and subject to any changes that your subclass may inflict upon your class.

But as for the part of a character which_ is_ a reflection of that class, _that_ part is the same for all members of that class.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> That's fair. All members of a given class would act alike, except for those areas which are not covered by class (such as race or background), and subject to any changes that your subclass may inflict upon your class.
> 
> But as for the part of a character which_ is_ a reflection of that class, _that_ part is the same for all members of that class.




You do realize that areas like race or background might end up with a character who's a different reflection of the class than some people might expect, right? Especially if one brings Traits, Bonds, et al., into the picture.


----------



## Ogre Mage (Feb 14, 2020)

I encountered this problem more in previous editions of D&D.  Paladins tended to be the worst offenders, to the point where their dogmatic ideals and policing of other characters actions caused a lot of inter-group tension.  Fortunately, 5E has diversified paladins a great deal via subclasses so that has not been an issue in any of my 5E games.  

Of the 5E PHB subclasses, the warlock fiend pact seems like the one most likely to raise the "character is the class" problem.  There are certainly reasons why a good-aligned character might be in a pact with a fiend and it could make for a rich (if difficult) role-playing experience.  But that might not be obvious to less experienced players, who would assume you should be playing an evil character to make a pact with a fiend.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Classes exist for many reasons. One of them is to tell us more about how the world works, by invoking shared lore. If a paladin isn't even really a paladin, then the class fails at upholding that purpose.



 What _is_ a paladin?



ad_hoc said:


> Why are you playing D&D?
> 
> I don't feel like writing out a treatise on the strengths of D&D right now.
> 
> ...



Maybe they just plain enjoy playing D&D? Pretty sure that is allowed even if your Paladin isn't Lawful Good o and your Warlock didn't get their powers with an Infernal pact.

I'm thinking that what you think the strengths of D&D are, is not the same as what they think they are.



ad_hoc said:


> No gaming is better than bad gaming.
> 
> If I'm going to play a game then I'm going to play that game and not try to warp it into something else because I don't like it but feel forced to play it.
> 
> If I don't like a game that my friends are playing I will find something else to do with them at some other time. I won't join the game I don't like and then dump that baggage on them while they're trying to enjoy something.



 But what if you like the game the way your group plays it, and you're having fun?



Saelorn said:


> Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Backgrounds, subclasses, and races exist as a way to reflect slightly different realities; but the rules still definitely reflect _those_ specific realities.



 The rules can reflect any reality that they can represent.



> Re-fluffing died with 4E.



 Citation needed.


> The expectation of 5E is that, if you have some new thing which isn't already covered by the rules, you should use the content creation guidelines in the DMG to make those things.



  By definition, re-fluffing is covered by the rules. The crunch is staying the same. Its the fluff that is changing.



> But in every case, the only reason to use any given set of mechanics is because it's an accurate reflection of the thing you're trying to represent.



 And anything that can be reflected by those mechanics can be represented by the class with those mechanics.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> That's fair. All members of a given class would act alike, except for those areas which are not covered by class (such as race or background), and subject to any changes that your subclass may inflict upon your class.
> 
> But as for the part of a character which_ is_ a reflection of that class, _that_ part is the same for all members of that class.



... All I can say is "what".

Why would two people act alike because they both know how to pick locks, or turn into animals, or turn their weapons into vibroblades by channeling radiant energy? Especially since they could have learned those abilities from different sources through different experiences. 

The character classes do not prescribe or enforce personality traits on your character. That is the purview of their background and their traits-ideals-bonds-flaws.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

Ogre Mage said:


> I encountered this problem more in previous editions of D&D.  Paladins tended to be the worst offenders, to the point where their dogmatic ideals and policing of other characters actions caused a lot of inter-group tension.  Fortunately, 5E has diversified paladins a great deal via subclasses so that has not been an issue in any of my 5E games.
> 
> Of the 5E PHB subclasses, the warlock fiend pact seems like the one most likely to raise the "character is the class" problem.  There are certainly reasons why a good-aligned character might be in a pact with a fiend and it could make for a rich (if difficult) role-playing experience.  But that might not be obvious to less experienced players, who would assume you should be playing an evil character to make a pact with a fiend.




I find that paladins in prior editions were made more palatable by treating alignment as more descriptive than proscriptive, but it still had potential to be a real problem.

In the setting I've homebrewed for my 5E games, the world spent some time being ravaged by armies of demons and devils, and fiendlocks can be taken over by their patrons at any time, fiendlocks therefore are usually killed quickly upon discovery and are not available as a PC class. I agree that even without all-a-that, they do have a tendency to reflect class-as-character more than just about anything else in the PHB.


----------



## Wiseblood (Feb 14, 2020)

i don’t think it’s a thing. I played a Bard that was from a barbarian culture so Bardbarian. ( Awesome BTW old pro wrestling is your friend) For me, that emerged after playing to class for years. My thirteen year old daughter seems to have been born without my limitations. Her Barbarian is a near genius sage and works for a wizard.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 14, 2020)

For those who haven't read the comic, Colin (the writer) is referencing this post when talking about how characters shouldn't be solely defined by their class: What's In A Name? How Your Character's Class is Limiting Your Creativity

It's a fair take.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Feb 14, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> No gaming is better than bad gaming.



yo _what?!_


> If I'm going to play a game then I'm going to play that game and not try to warp it into something else because I don't like it but feel forced to play it.



trying to something new and original hardly counts as "warping it into something else". also if I'm not the dm there a huge limits to the "warping" I can get away with.


> If I don't like a game that my friends are playing I will find something else to do with them at some other time. I won't join the game I don't like and then dump that baggage on them while they're trying to enjoy something.



a lot of people don't have the luxury of finding something else to do with them some other time. also not sure how playing a character I want is dumping baggage on them.

also this only makes sense if there was literally one way to play an RPG. d&d isn't a board game (no, not even 4e), it can be changed and played a myriad of different ways. if it weren't then why are there so many different official campaign settings? Forgotten Realms is vastly different from Dark Sun and yet both are played with the same set of rules.

let me ask you this: how can someone play fighter wrong? keep in mind fighters have proficiency with every weapon in the book, every kind of armor as well, and even get the option to use magic at 3rd level.


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Because the mechanics of the game reflect the reality of the game world. That's why we're using one set of mechanics, instead of some other set of mechanics.
> 
> If it was possible for a Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen to be accurately represented with multiple different classes, then that indicates a severe mis-match between the reality and its reflection. We shouldn't be using these classes to represent a reality where they don't hold. The consistent approach would be to define Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen as its own class.




So your answer is to homebrew up an entirely new class?

What if I homebrewed it up by taking an existing class and simply changing all the names of the features without changing how those features actually worked?


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 14, 2020)

prabe said:


> Maybe we don't want fourteen million classes, though, and maybe there are several kinds of Warrior-nuns of the Raven Queen. So long as the player and the GM are on the same page, it's almost certainly fine (though I have to admit I'd look very carefully at a character whose player wanted to bring lore into my setting that allowed him to multiclass paladin and warlock).




uh... 

Oath of Ancients Paladin + Archfey warlock you have a cooperate boss and a branch manager
Oath Breaker Paladin + any warlock - your just changing directions.
Oath of Conquest Paladin + any warlock patron who supports your conquest
Oath of Devotion Paladin + Hexblade or Undying Warlock - serving the Raven Queen
Any Warlock  + Oath of Redemption - you made a bad choice and your trying to fix it.
Any Warlcok + Oath of Vengeance - your patron turned on you so your turning the tables, or someone betrayed your patron and you want to get them back.
Any Warlock + Oath of the Crown - you just changed jobs under the same management become and inforcer of their rules. 

This took longer to type than to think up. Really, it doesn't take much thought for Paladin/Warlock to work... it does however require SOME thought. Instead of halving a default "No x/x multi-class" I find it generally better so say, "Before you multi-class let me know so we can iron out the lore and reasoning before you bring it to the table and you have to *role-play* out what *we *agree on." meaning with any multi-class (even fighter / ranger etc) you take the mechanical you take an agreed lore BUT we build the lore on a *mutual understanding*. This is not the GM dictating to the player how they will play a class or multi-class or a player just abandoning all lore and thought magically picking up mulit-classes that don't make since and have 0 context. "Y_our ranger picked up fighter while alone in the woods? Who taught him? You never mentioned any attempt to learn or train those skills before showing up with this multi-class_."


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

ClaytonCross said:


> uh...
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Really, it doesn't take much thought for Paladin/Warlock to work... it does however require SOME thought. Instead of halving a default "No x/x multi-class" I find it generally better so say, "Before you multi-class let me know so we can iron out the lore and reasoning before you bring it to the table and you have to *role-play* out what *we *agree on." meaning with any multi-class (even fighter / ranger etc) you take the mechanical you take an agreed lore BUT we build the lore on a *mutual understanding*. This is not the GM dictating to the player how they will play a class or multi-class or a player just abandoning all lore and thought magically picking up mulit-classes that don't make since and have 0 context. "Y_our ranger picked up fighter while alone in the woods? Who taught him? You never mentioned any attempt to learn or train those skills before showing up with this multi-class_."




I don't think we disagree as much as maybe you think we do. I'm pretty relaxed about multiclassing in my campaigns. My main reasons for wanting to look carefully at someone wanting to combine the two classes are A) They can heterodyne extraordinarily well and B) I want to make sure it fits (or can be made to fit) into the setting I'm running in. Coming to a mutual understanding with the player about the character is part of this, too.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Backgrounds, subclasses, and races exist as a way to reflect slightly different realities; but the rules still definitely reflect _those_ specific realities.
> 
> Re-fluffing died with 4E. The expectation of 5E is that, if you have some new thing which isn't already covered by the rules, you should use the content creation guidelines in the DMG to make those things. But in every case, the only reason to use any given set of mechanics is because it's an accurate reflection of the thing you're trying to represent.




Style of play did not die.

Exmple:
Druid 1: "I love nature, you should never hurt anything even plants unless it has free will and tires to hurt you first... WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOUR GOING TO CUT DOWN SOME FIRE WOOD!! I must protect the trees!" <_I cast Ice Knife at level 9 at my fellow party member to teach him not to hurt precious trees_>

Druid 2: "So he's cutting down a tree … who cares? There is a dragon burning down the forest and killing villagers.... eh... what ever. Wait, does the dragon have gold? Okay then lets kill us some dragon, I am gona be rich!.. life sacred ? The rules of nature are survival of the fittest, might makes right, and your predictor or your pray. If we can kill the dragon his gold is rightfully ours if he can kill us then he has earned the right to keep it. Lets go."

There is no rule in any 5e book saying you can't multi-class with any other class.
There is no rule in any 5e book saying you have to have one alignment or another for a specific class.

These are character playstyle choices, based on opinions. Everyone at the table is entitled to their opinion. For the sake of a better gaming experience you can avoid opposing opinion when you can't work them out but its pretty much impossible to argue that someone's personal preference based on opinion is wrong.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 14, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> What _is_ a paladin?




Um...



Spoiler



Clad in plate armor that gleams in the sunlight despite the dust and grime of long travel, a human lays down her sword and shield and places her hands on a mortally wounded man. Divine radiance shines from her hands, the man’s wounds knit closed, and his eyes open wide with amazement.

A dwarf crouches behind an outcrop, his black cloak making him nearly invisible in the night, and watches an orc war band celebrating its recent victory. Silently, he stalks into their midst and whispers an oath, and two orcs are dead before they even realize he is there.

Silver hair shining in a shaft of light that seems to illuminate only him, an elf laughs with exultation. His spear flashes like his eyes as he jabs again and again at a twisted giant, until at last his light overcomes its hideous darkness.

Whatever their origin and their mission, paladins are united by their oaths to stand against the forces of evil. Whether sworn before a god’s altar and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin’s oath is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion.

*The Cause of Righteousness*
A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness, and to hunt the forces of evil wherever they lurk. Different paladins focus on various aspects of the cause of righteousness, but all are bound by the oaths that grant them power to do their sacred work. Although many paladins are devoted to gods of good, a paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god.

Paladins train for years to learn the skills of combat, mastering a variety of weapons and armor. Even so, their martial skills are secondary to the magical power they wield: power to heal the sick and injured, to smite the wicked and the undead, and to protect the innocent and those who join them in the fight for justice.

*Beyond the Mundane Life*
Almost by definition, the life of a paladin is an adventuring life. Unless a lasting injury has taken him or her away from adventuring for a time, every paladin lives on the front lines of the cosmic struggle against evil. Fighters are rare enough among the ranks of the militias and armies of the world, but even fewer people can claim the true calling of a paladin. When they do receive the call, these warriors turn from their former occupations and take up arms to fight evil. Sometimes their oaths lead them into the service of the crown as leaders of elite groups of knights, but even then their loyalty is first to the cause of righteousness, not to crown and country.

Adventuring paladins take their work seriously. A delve into an ancient ruin or dusty crypt can be a quest driven by a higher purpose than the acquisition of treasure. Evil lurks in dungeons and primeval forests, and even the smallest victory against it can tilt the cosmic balance away from oblivion.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 14, 2020)

prabe said:


> I don't think we disagree as much as maybe you think we do. I'm pretty relaxed about multiclassing in my campaigns. My main reasons for wanting to look carefully at someone wanting to combine the two classes are A) They can heterodyne extraordinarily well and B) I want to make sure it fits (or can be made to fit) into the setting I'm running in. Coming to a mutual understanding with the player about the character is part of this, too.



I actually don't think that most people hear disagree in general. This thread is mostly about conflict resolution of preconceived and differing opinions. My reply is less a disagreement of your position and more a description of how to look at the same conflict. Instead of "_I don't like paladin/warlock multi-classing_" up front, I find it better to say "_I would like to support on all multi-classing in context of setting and circumstance which will mean a mutual agreement of lore between the player and the GM, because the GM has to live with your character decisions in the world the GM is creating for you, despite those decisions being your decisions to make._" While the first is easier to say, its like getting ready to fight while the second tends to more about working together to resolve it. The second prepares me and them (which ever side I am on) to start negotiations and suggestions. The first tends to make people shut down and get butt hurt.

So, we may not disagree at all but your going to trigger a lot of "uh uh" replies because of the direction of your mental approach to the same direction and possibly results. Sometimes it is less about what your saying and what your goal is than how you say it and the path you take to get there that causes everyone to lose there minds despite being able to find the same result and move on in actual practice at the table.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 14, 2020)

I think I said everything significant I have to say in earlier posts but I am long winded. So I am going to say it again as concise as I can.

1. "Your Class *is Not* Your Character" is not a rule in any book. its not wrong and its not right. Its just an opinion on style of play.

2. "Your Class *is* Your Character" is not a rule in any book. its not wrong and its not right. Its just an opinion on style of play.

- Wizards of the coast staff has come out at almost any chance they could get to say this is deliberate to allow as much freedom as possible.

Also most every player and GM holds "Your Class *is* Your Character" true on some classes (usually Paladin, Warlock, Cleric, and/or Druid specific to them) and "Your Class *is Not* Your Character" on all other class.

Their is only conflict when a player or GM invests into one of these opinions and the player or gm disagrees with that investment with investment into their opposing opinion. This boils down to opinion vs opinion conflict resolution that is just part of life not anything to do with the game. This escalates and results in them both digging in because people don't see any evidence saying they are wrong, *correctly* assume that their opinion is right (since it is not wrong) but all so, *incorrectly* assume all other opinions must there for be wrong (because they are right and directly opposite). *The problem is that people have difficulty excepting opposites as not being mutually exclusive*. I said above that the opinion are not right or wrong and in this paragraph they are correct in assuming they are right. *That is not a contradiction*. _An_ opinion is not right or wrong. *Your opinion is always right to you*, *because you have the right to make it so. That doesn't make it right to anyone else unless they choose it*.

So you ether work out an understanding of your opinions you can both live with or you avoid the conflict by not involving the factors that bring it up. In this case, avoid specific classes and/or multi-class combinations. The thing is this a life skill more than D&D class topic because you will find this EVERYWHERE once your aware of it and know to look for it. Politics, Relgion, Morals, and the list goes on. It's the reason for the rule of not talking about religion and politics in public because often you can't resolve it so you just have to avoid the drama.

Not really shorter hu? Fail.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 14, 2020)

From my standpoint, when I sit down to play, the "game" I'm playing is the campaign, not the system. I see the system as a tool for running that campaign. Like any other tool, it has strengths and weaknesses, and what's a strength in the context of one campaign may be a weakness in another.

For the campaigns I run, strong class _identities_ would be a weakness. I heavily emphasize verisimilitude, and for me that goal is best realized by characters whose depth and complexity reflect the diversity seen in the real world. A character whose identity can be defined by their class (or even by their race/background/class/subclass combination) would stick out in my campaigns like a caricature rather than a character.

At the same time, the class _structure_ of D&D 5e is a strength in my campaigns. In comparison to a point-based system: character creation is simpler and faster, there is less tension between specialization and breadth (e.g. you can't trade in a fighter's skill proficiencies to get more points to spend on their sword skill), and character creation is less impacted by the point cost the developers chose to assign to each ability.

When class identity gets in the way in my campaigns, it's simple enough to ignore without losing any of the benefits of the class structure. So ultimately, I choose to use 5e for my campaigns because the strengths outweigh the weaknesses, _not_ because I universally appreciate all the aspects of a class-based system.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Feb 14, 2020)

If my character isn't my class, what's the point of playing a Bard if I can't sing a musical number during the game?

If my character isn't my class, can I be a multi class Bard/Fighter and call myself a Warlord?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Your paladin and my paladin might look completely different, depending on our different sub-classes.  Telling me you are playing a paladin, in 5e, doesn't really tell me anything about your character anymore.  The days when class=character are long gone.  Niche protection has eroded to the point where there are multiple paths towards representing the same archetype.




Strange.  It tells me that the person is playing a holy warrior that is most likely dedicated to a god and has tenets that are strictly followed.



> Is that Raven Queen Battle Nun a paladin, a cleric, a monk, a warlock?  Who knows.  All four classes could easily represent that concept even before we get into reflavoring anything.  My last priest of Kord was a rogue who believed (after eating a stew of mushrooms of rather questionable provenance) that he had dined with Kord and had thus been chosen by Kord to be his representative on the world and was thus tasked with building a tabernacle to Him.  His holy symbol was the very spoon that touched Kord's lips.




Reflavoring is home brew and confuses things.  And even if that priest of Kord was a rogue, he wasn't a cleric of Kord.  Clerics of Kord have clerical spells.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2020)

prabe said:


> You do realize that areas like race or background might end up with a character who's a different reflection of the class than some people might expect, right? Especially if one brings Traits, Bonds, et al., into the picture.



I think the point is that no matter what race, trait, bond, etc. the PC cleric has, he's still going to have clerical spell casting, a holy symbol, channel divinity, etc., which will all play into how the cleric is played.  Those will be a part of the PC regardless of whether he calls himself a cleric, holy servant or Batbane.


----------



## Seramus (Feb 14, 2020)

I play clerics and call myself a paladin. I'm even thinking of playing an artificer and calling it a paladin!


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 14, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> By definition, re-fluffing is covered by the rules. The crunch is staying the same. Its the fluff that is changing.



The rules are specifically concerned with how the fluff and crunch relate to each other. The rules say that a given bit of fluff is represented by its respective bit of crunch. 

If you change either the fluff or the crunch, then you've changed the rule which connects them.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 14, 2020)

jmartkdr2 said:


> So your answer is to homebrew up an entirely new class?
> 
> What if I homebrewed it up by taking an existing class and simply changing all the names of the features without changing how those features actually worked?



Then your representation would be disingenuous, because the mechanics would only reflect the fluff of the existing class, rather than actually reflecting the fluff of the new class.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Feb 14, 2020)

MichaelSomething said:


> If my character isn't my class, what's the point of playing a Bard if I can't sing a musical number during the game?
> 
> If my character isn't my class, can I be a multi class Bard/Fighter and call myself a Warlord?



who said you had to sing to be a bard? you can play an instrument, and unless I'm mistaken I'm sure other performative arts are used by bards.

also not sure how an artsy warrior wouldn't be allowed to lead a small army that terrorizes the countryside. ransacking a town is one big musical number for them!


----------



## Hussar (Feb 14, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Um...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But, even that doesn't really apply.  A Vengeance or a Conquest Paladin certainly don't give a rat's petoot about standing with good things.  Yes, what they list is A paladin, but, hardly ALL paladins, even the ones that are actually in the PHB.



Maxperson said:


> Strange.  It tells me that the person is playing a holy warrior that is most likely dedicated to a god and has tenets that are strictly followed.




What are those tenets?  How am I different from a cleric?  Never minding that paladins in no way need to be connected to any deity whatsoever, and in fact, two out of the three core paladins have no connections to a deity.  Oath of Ancients paladins are specifically tied to fey and Oath of Vengeance paladins barely even mention deities and only as a single example of many.  

So, no.  You are outright wrong.




> Reflavoring is home brew and confuses things.  And even if that priest of Kord was a rogue, he wasn't a cleric of Kord.  Clerics of Kord have clerical spells.




Reflavoring only confuses you.  Everyone else has no problems.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I think the point is that no matter what race, trait, bond, etc. the PC cleric has, he's still going to have clerical spell casting, a holy symbol, channel divinity, etc., which will all play into how the cleric is played.  Those will be a part of the PC regardless of whether he calls himself a cleric, holy servant or Batbane.




Oh, sure. I think the problem is when there is a disconnect about the extent to which class features must correlate to personality. I think it's possible for different clerics--even of the same deity/domain--to have different personalities, to use your example above. Yes, it's plausible that some classes would tend to draw some personalities, but the correlation likely isn't 100%, and if a player has an idea that's not (stereo)typical my own inclination would be to let the player run the character that way, provided there's not a violation of, e.g., a paladin's oath happening.

I also think it's a reasonable position that a character with a nonstandard approach to a given class might not describe themselves as a member of that class. The player, however, should be clear what class the character is, and what the mechanics are representing; so should the GM.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

ClaytonCross said:


> I think I said everything significant I have to say in earlier posts but I am long winded. So I am going to say it again as concise as I can.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Not really shorter hu? Fail.




Concision is *hard*.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> The rules are specifically concerned with how the fluff and crunch relate to each other. The rules say that a given bit of fluff is represented by its respective bit of crunch.
> 
> If you change either the fluff or the crunch, then you've changed the rule which connects them.




So fluff is the same as rules? Even if nothing changes about how something plays, mechanically? That sounds as though you believe I'm radically altering, e.g., the Order domain by calling it the Command domain instead, because I think that's a better reflection of what it does. If that's your position, it seems awfully extreme from here.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Strange.  It tells me that the person is playing a holy warrior that is most likely dedicated to a god and has tenets that are strictly followed.




In 5E, the only one of those things that's specifically mandated is the tenets (Oath). You could easily have an Oath of Vengeance paladin who didn't care for the gods (and might in fact have sworn vengeance against one or more of them), or an Oath of Ancients paladin who worshiped with druids (who themselves might not serve gods, depending on the setting).



Maxperson said:


> Reflavoring is home brew and confuses things.  And even if that priest of Kord was a rogue, he wasn't a cleric of Kord.  Clerics of Kord have clerical spells.




I think there is dispute over whether changing a description without changing the rules is really homebrew, and I think that dispute is causing lots of confusion. Yes, it's possible that priest of Kord is a thief (in the sense that he steals, not in a class sense); it's possible he's multiclass with rogue (in which case he's both a rogue and a cleric); it's possible he's a homebrew rogue subclass roughly equivalent to a clerical Arcane Trickster (I've seen such a thing, and while it's not in the subclasses I specifically allow in my campagns I'm not deeply opposed to it, either). One of those is homebrew, and another is using technically optional rules, but the first one seems strictly RAW (which, I don't care much for appeals to authority, but here we are).


----------



## Coroc (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> ....
> Re-fluffing died with 4E. The expectation of 5E is that, if you have some new thing which isn't already covered by the rules, you should use the content creation guidelines in the DMG to make those things. But in every case, the only reason to use any given set of mechanics is because it's an accurate reflection of the thing you're trying to represent.




I disagree. Refluffing works well in 5e, so well that you got a believable FS concept (divine caster) using a sorc (arcane caster). Perfect refluff, in as good as you can do this by refluffing. As far as I can tell you could do similar stunts with 4e. 

But:
You can refluff an elven eldritch knight and simply call it the Elf class of ODD. And although I do not know much about 4e I bet you cannot do this with 4e. Not at all.

I even dare to say that 5e with its backgrounds and feats for emulating multiclass without multiclass took refluff to the next level, a mechanical option you never had in any of the prior editions.

You could recreate Elf class of ODD with 3.x e, but it would be hard. You could use a fighter/mage for 1e or 2e but it is not the same thing. But with 5e it perfectly works. And since mechanically it is 100% an Elven Eldritch Knight you just gave it a different name and made a class out of a class / subclass this is the perfect example for a refluff.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 14, 2020)

prabe said:


> So fluff is the same as rules? Even if nothing changes about how something plays, mechanically? That sounds as though you believe I'm radically altering, e.g., the Order domain by calling it the Command domain instead, because I think that's a better reflection of what it does. If that's your position, it seems awfully extreme from here.




Fluff is not rules. Fluff is classes races items spells deities religions, but not mechanics. Rules is game mechanics.

You can create a Flumpf Berserker by re "fluffing" a human barbarian. Fluff is names. Prosa.

Rules is mathematics.

In  so far @Saelorn   I   100%  agree with  @prabe ´s opinion here.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2020)

prabe said:


> In 5E, the only one of those things that's specifically mandated is the tenets (Oath). You could easily have an Oath of Vengeance paladin who didn't care for the gods (and might in fact have sworn vengeance against one or more of them), or an Oath of Ancients paladin who worshiped with druids (who themselves might not serve gods, depending on the setting).




And you'd know he had divine smite, paladin spellcasting, etc., which affect how he is roleplayed.



> I think there is dispute over whether changing a description without changing the rules is really homebrew, and I think that dispute is causing lots of confusion. Yes, it's possible that priest of Kord is a thief (in the sense that he steals, not in a class sense); it's possible he's multiclass with rogue (in which case he's both a rogue and a cleric); it's possible he's a homebrew rogue subclass roughly equivalent to a clerical Arcane Trickster (I've seen such a thing, and while it's not in the subclasses I specifically allow in my campagns I'm not deeply opposed to it, either). One of those is homebrew, and another is using technically optional rules, but the first one seems strictly RAW (which, I don't care much for appeals to authority, but here we are).



Rules are not an Appeal to Authority.  It isn't a claim that it's right because it was said by an authority without further evidence.  The rules themselves are evidence that things are done that way.  Now, if I had said that clerics are played a certain way, because Gary Gygax said so, that would be an Appeal to Authority.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Backgrounds, subclasses, and races exist as a way to reflect slightly different realities; but the rules still definitely reflect _those_ specific realities.
> 
> Re-fluffing died with 4E. The expectation of 5E is that, if you have some new thing which isn't already covered by the rules, you should use the content creation guidelines in the DMG to make those things. But in every case, the only reason to use any given set of mechanics is because it's an accurate reflection of the thing you're trying to represent.



Not only is refluffing legit in 5e it's RAW. even in the most extreme modes of play like AL there are written rules that allow players to change races and such to better fulfill their personal goals as long as they follow the mechanical rules. In the DMG it talks about Reskining  options before making new ones so you don't have to worry about balance. And that apply to races weapons spells classes subclasses NPC stat blocks and just about every other aspect of the game
In reality we don't have to look past the PHB. Every class has a built-in vagueness that is covered in the individual class sections that requires the players to create the class and how it interacts with each individual setting/campaign.
not to mention you can't have default classes because the default setting for fifth edition is the multiverse or in simple terms it's setting neutral.

Even the paladin's oath is open. Even taking the text for what it is so vague an open-ended they practically don't exist other to help define the individual player/dm interpretation of them.

The real challenge in this edition is to set a default option. ask a hundred people what a default Barbarian is and you'll get a hundred different answers.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2020)

Seramus said:


> I play clerics and call myself a paladin. I'm even thinking of playing an artificer and calling it a paladin!



Sure.   You can also call yourself Kool Aid, but it won't make it true.  Your artificer and cleric call themselves paladins, but they are not paladins.  

Only paladins are paladins,  unless you home brew otherwise.  If you home brew that classes aren't really classes, but rather just unattached sets of mechanics, then you can apply any name to anything


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Rules are not an Appeal to Authority.  It isn't a claim that it's right because it was said by an authority without further evidence.  The rules themselves are evidence that things are done that way.  Now, if I had said that clerics are played a certain way, because Gary Gygax said so, that would be an Appeal to Authority.




Fair enough. To be clear, it felt as though *I* was appealing to authority, and I was claiming my own argument was weakened. Thanks for the fair play.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 14, 2020)

This boils down to competing ways of playing for which there is no right answer: is class a purely game mechanic way of describing a character, or is it something that is real within the fiction of the game world?


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

jmartkdr2 said:


> What if I homebrewed it up by taking an existing class and simply changing all the names of the features without changing how those features actually worked?




Without snarking on someone doing this, I'd say it's "homebrew" only by ... um, I can't tell if it's the strictest definition of the word, or the loosest. Definitely at one end of the spectrum.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Sure.   You can also call yourself Kool Aid, but it won't make it true.  Your artificer and cleric call themselves paladins, but they are not paladins.
> 
> Only paladins are paladins,  unless you home brew otherwise.  If you home brew that classes aren't really classes, but rather just unattached sets of mechanics, then you can apply any name to anything




I think what @Seramus  wanted to express is he plays a "Cleric " (mechanic / crunch) but in his homebrew/adaption the title is of this Cleric is Paladin (Fluff). 

Do not get confused by names. A dark sun "Bard" (Fluff) is a rogue (Crunch) and uses a rogues mechanic not a bards.

@Seramus example is a difficult one, because Clerics and Paladins in their standard use have some similar mechanics (*Divine, a deity, eventually turn undead, normally medium to heavy armor etc)
(Notice I do not write : Oath of Pelor, Pelor channel Pelors light to destroy creatures of darkness, Pelors Initiates Breastplate etc. which would be names on the mechanical fluff)

There is nothing preventing Seramus to play his Cleric as a devout holy man with equal zeal than a paladin would be.

If Seramus would play an artificer calling himself paladin things would be much more complicated, but still also an Artificer could act like a paladin. He even could try to heal people with his means egg.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2020)

Hussar said:


> What are those tenets?  Never minding that paladins in no way need to be connected to any deity whatsoever, and in fact, two out of the three core paladins have no connections to a deity.  Oath of Ancients paladins are specifically tied to fey and Oath of Vengeance paladins barely even mention deities and only as a single example of many.




The Oath of Ancients paladins have the exact same oath.  All of them.  With some simple observation, you can over a short period of time figure out which oath a paladin follows.



> How am I different from a cleric?




You have paladin specific spells.  A cleric doesn't.  You have Divine Smite.  A cleric doesn't.  You have Lay on Hands.  A cleric doesn't.  You have Divine Sense.  A cleric doesn't.  You have Divine Health.  A cleric doesn't.  If you violate your oath, you can lose your class.  A cleric can't.  You have Aura of Courage.  A cleric doesn't.  Then there will be even more differences, depending on oath.

All of those things affect how you roleplay your PC.



> So, no.  You are outright wrong.




There you go with wrong = right again.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

MichaelSomething said:


> If my character isn't my class, what's the point of playing a Bard if I can't sing a musical number during the game?
> 
> If my character isn't my class, can I be a multi class Bard/Fighter and call myself a Warlord?




You can call yourself anything. You might want to conquer and hold territory before you call yourself a Warlord, though.

Also, I have a bard character who didn't take Performance, and who has Tool Proficiencies instead of Instrument Proficiencies. The chances of his breaking into song are approximately zero. He doesn't think of himself as a Bard, but mechanically he is one.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Sure.   You can also call yourself Kool Aid, but it won't make it true.  Your artificer and cleric call themselves paladins, but they are not paladins.
> 
> Only paladins are paladins,  unless you home brew otherwise.  If you home brew that classes aren't really classes, but rather just unattached sets of mechanics, then you can apply any name to anything



I mean from an immersion point of view what's the difference between a cleric and a paladin if they are members of the same religion? Would any NPC treat them differently if they show up the vanquish the evil controlling their town? Tell declared wants to call himself a paladin for narrative sake who cares.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> The rules are specifically concerned with how the fluff and crunch relate to each other. The rules say that a given bit of fluff is represented by its respective bit of crunch.
> 
> If you change either the fluff or the crunch, then you've changed the rule which connects them.



I think that we may be using the  terms differently to each other. I was using "crunch" to represent the rules mechanics (Paladin spell list, or tenets of the Oath of Ancients subclass for example,) and "fluff" to represent the flavour (Paladins being heavily-armoured knights who stand for goodness and justice for example.)



Maxperson said:


> And you'd know he had divine smite, paladin spellcasting, etc., which affect how he is roleplayed.



 Personality, bonds, flaws etc have a much larger influence in how a character is roleplayed I find.



> Rules are not an Appeal to Authority.  It isn't a claim that it's right because it was said by an authority without further evidence.  The rules themselves are evidence that things are done that way.  Now, if I had said that clerics are played a certain way, because Gary Gygax said so, that would be an Appeal to Authority.





Maxperson said:


> Sure.   You can also call yourself Kool Aid, but it won't make it true.  Your artificer and cleric call themselves paladins, but they are not paladins.
> 
> Only paladins are paladins,  unless you home brew otherwise.  If you home brew that classes aren't really classes, but rather just unattached sets of mechanics, then you can apply any name to anything



 I  think that you may be getting confused between what a character refers to themselves as, and the name of their classes on the character's character sheet.
A Rogue can absolutely call themselves a priest of Kord. The Acolyte background is practically made for that, but isn't even necessary to do so.
A Cleric can refer to themselves as a Paladin. Who is going to tell them that they aren't?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> This boils down to competing ways of playing for which there is no right answer: is class a purely game mechanic way of describing a character, or is it something that is real within the fiction of the game world?



In the game of D&D as written, they are something real within the fiction of the world.  If they weren't, they would just be a collection of mechanics with nothing else attached.  The rules might then give you ideas of different ways to play certain sets of mechanics.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 14, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> This boils down to competing ways of playing for which there is no right answer: is class a purely game mechanic way of describing a character, or is it something that is real within the fiction of the game world?




No it does not. It boils down on some people not drawing a line between game mechanics and fluff.

The smite mechanic is a concept for paladins to dish out damage. You need some spell slots for that.
No one hinders you to put the smite mechanic to another class (crunch) and calling it differently e.g. slam
The latter being pure fluff and probably the xy class of game world z does slam opponents with spellslots akin to what a paladin does but might be different in everything else e.g. cowardly, egoistic, have no principles or measure.

I hope my last example made something clearer


----------



## Coroc (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> In the game of D&D as written, they are something real within the fiction of the world.  If they weren't, they would just be a collection of mechanics with nothing else attached.  The rules might then give you ideas of different ways to play certain sets of mechanics.




Yes, but they are not part of the mechanics but of the fluff. see my post 1 up


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2020)

Stoutstien said:


> I mean from an immersion point of view what's the difference between a cleric and a paladin if they are members of the same religion? Would any NPC treat them differently if they show up the vanquish the evil controlling their town? Tell declared wants to call himself a paladin for narrative sake who cares.



Depending on the rarity of PC classes, the NPC might not know the difference.  That doesn't mean the difference isn't there.  As for how they might be treated, that would also be dependent on the NPC in question.  Perhaps an Oath of Vengeance paladin killed that NPCs father and he hates paladins.  In such a situation, that NPC would indeed treat a paladin savior different than a cleric savior.  He might thank the cleric and not the paladin.  Give the paladin dark looks, while inviting the cleric into his home for a feast.  And so on.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> This boils down to competing ways of playing for which there is no right answer: is class a purely game mechanic way of describing a character, or is it something that is real within the fiction of the game world?




I think this is something of a false dichotomy (how often do you see the word "dichotomy" without the word "false" in front of it? it's like finding an escutcheon without a blotch). Class is mechanical, in that it has mechanical effects within the game, but it also reflects roles in a party and probably roles in a broader culture/society.

Looking more closely, I think you were making roughly the same point.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> I  think that you may be getting confused between what a character refers to themselves as, and the name of their classes on the character's character sheet.
> A Rogue can absolutely call themselves a priest of Kord. The Acolyte background is practically made for that, but isn't even necessary to do so.
> A Cleric can refer to themselves as a Paladin. Who is going to tell them that they aren't?



I already agreed that you can call yourself whatever you like.  As for who is going to tell them that they aren't.  Perhaps an NPC who knows the difference between a cleric and paladin and observes the cleric using an ability that paladins don't have, but clerics do.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> In the game of D&D as written, they are something real within the fiction of the world.  If they weren't, they would just be a collection of mechanics with nothing else attached.  The rules might then give you ideas of different ways to play certain sets of mechanics.



"Different ways to play certain sets of mechanics" is pretty much what everyone has been referring to when they talk about "refluffing" or "reflavouring".
If this is just another case of words meaning different things to different people, then perhaps we should sort it out now. It looks like the last few hours of discussion might simply have been you having a rather heated agreement with several people.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Depending on the rarity of PC classes, the NPC might not know the difference.  That doesn't mean the difference isn't there.  As for how they might be treated, that would also be dependent on the NPC in question.  Perhaps an Oath of Vengeance paladin killed that NPCs father and he hates paladins.  In such a situation, that NPC would indeed treat a paladin savior different than a cleric savior.  He might thank the cleric and not the paladin.  Give the paladin dark looks, while inviting the cleric into his home for a feast.  And so on.




Sure, the thing is maybe the paladins are  called rose knights in this world.
If the character in question refers to himself to be a paladin the NPC would act like you described. But not because the NPC would analyse the combat or healing skills of the character.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Depending on the rarity of PC classes, the NPC might not know the difference.  That doesn't mean the difference isn't there.  As for how they might be treated, that would also be dependent on the NPC in question.  Perhaps an Oath of Vengeance paladin killed that NPCs father and he hates paladins.  In such a situation, that NPC would indeed treat a paladin savior different than a cleric savior.  He might thank the cleric and not the paladin.  Give the paladin dark looks, while inviting the cleric into his home for a feast.  And so on.



I mean the PC could have been anything and killed said NPC father for zealous reasons and have the same effect. Would said NPC hate paladin's or hate anyone who calls himself a paladin and is a member of a certain sect. 
so said Cleric introduces himself as a paladin the NPC would hate him the same unless the NPC has metaphysical awareness.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2020)

Coroc said:


> The smite mechanic is a concept for paladins to dish out damage. You need some spell slots for that.
> No one hinders you to put the smite mechanic to another class (crunch) and calling it differently e.g. slam
> The latter being pure fluff and probably the xy class of game world z does slam opponents with spellslots akin to what a paladin does but might be different in everything else e.g. cowardly, egoistic, have no principles or measure.




5e doesn't do that, though.  Where more than one class has the same ability, it has the same name.  Expertise is Expertise for both bards and rogues.  Unarmored movement is the same for both barbarians and monks.  Fast movement and unarmored movement, both movement increases, have different names due to having different mechanics.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2020)

Coroc said:


> Sure, the thing is maybe the paladins are  called rose knights in this world.
> If the character in question refers to himself to be a paladin the NPC would act like you described. But not because the NPC would analyse the combat or healing skills of the character.



If you home brew that there are no paladins in a world, but rather that they are called rose knights, then sure.  That NPC would treat the rose knight differently than a cleric, since now it's a rose knight that killed his father.  And yes, that NPC could tell through analysis the difference between a rose knight and a cleric, assuming the rose knight used lay on hands or another ability unique to rose knights.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> 5e doesn't do that, though.  Where more than one class has the same ability, it has the same name.  Expertise is Expertise for both bards and rogues.  Unarmored movement is the same for both barbarians and monks.  Fast movement and unarmored movement, both movement increases, have different names due to having different mechanics.



Actually, mechanics under the same name can be different. Bards can't take thieves tools with expertise, monks can't apply shield to unarmored defense, and such. At the same time extra attack, evasion, and the like have identical text. 
There's very little consistency when it comes to editorial style in 5e.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2020)

Stoutstien said:


> I mean the PC could have been anything and killed said NPC father for zealous reasons and have the same effect. Would said NPC hate paladin's or hate anyone who calls himself a paladin and is a member of a certain sect.
> so said Cleric introduces himself as a paladin the NPC would hate him the same unless the NPC has metaphysical awareness.



Sure.  Perception matters.  That said, we are going afield a bit.  I'm talking about how class abilities affect roleplay, not whether or not you can make claims in the game world and how NPCs might react to such claims.

If you are playing a "paladin," you will have unique abilities that only the paladin class has.  Those impact how you play your PC and how NPCs perceive you when you use those abilities.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> 5e doesn't do that, though.  Where more than one class has the same ability, it has the same name.  Expertise is Expertise for both bards and rogues.  Unarmored movement is the same for both barbarians and monks.  Fast movement and unarmored movement, both movement increases, have different names due to having different mechanics.




Yep, you are analyzing this correctly. Still it does not hurt if you do it. It does not change the mechanic the number of dice to apply, the game balance, or anything else, just the name.

5e is a complete set of crunch, but not a complete set of fluff and you can always add or remove fluff and its associated crunch.

So if I do not want paladins in my game I remove them. If I do want some other class (fluff) e.g. Rose Knights in my setting I add them. So now I think that paladin mechanics (crunch) would be a nice fit so I attach them to the Rose Knight class. 
So I decide they are all bastards not even "antipaladins" and their preferred method is not to smite but "slam", I attach that extra fluff and I am good.
Still no change in balance etc.,  and  absolutely no connection to one of the Paladin orders of the  PHB or how a player might portray them.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> In the game of D&D as written, they are something real within the fiction of the world.  If they weren't, they would just be a collection of mechanics with nothing else attached.  The rules might then give you ideas of different ways to play certain sets of mechanics.




I think the dispute in this thread is strong evidence that classes are "something real within the fiction of the world" only in some campaigns.

More broadly, I think the dispute in this thread is strong evidence that the answer to @Fauchard1520's original question in the OP is "yes". Some DMs and/or players feel that it is possible to "play your class wrong".


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

Xetheral said:


> More broadly, I think the dispute in this thread is strong evidence that the answer to @Fauchard1520's original question in the OP is "yes". Some DMs and/or players feel that it is possible to "play your class wrong".




It also seems as though "play your class wrong" is going to mean different things at different tables, and have different repercussions.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 14, 2020)

Coroc said:


> Yep, you are analyzing this correctly. Still it does not hurt if you do it. It does not change the mechanic the number of dice to apply, the game balance, or anything else, just the name.
> 
> 5e is a complete set of crunch, but not a complete set of fluff and you can always add or remove fluff and its associated crunch.
> 
> ...



Wouldn't it be easier to say you allow refluffing just with DM buy in depending on setting restrictions?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2020)

Xetheral said:


> I think the dispute in this thread is strong evidence that classes are "something real within the fiction of the world" only in some campaigns.




Campaigns that deviate from how the rules present them, sure.  There's nothing wrong with such deviations, though.  Both home brew and house rules are perfectly fine and I encourage the use of both.  Whatever makes the group happy.



> More broadly, I think the dispute in this thread is strong evidence that the answer to @Fauchard1520's original question in the OP is "yes". Some DMs and/or players feel that it is possible to "play your class wrong".



I don't think the disagreement about fluff and crunch necessarily means that we feel that you are playing your class wrong if you home brew changes and/or have your PC call himself something else.  It certainly doesn't have that meaning for me.  I have skipped some posts, though, so someone might have taken that stance and I missed it.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2020)

prabe said:


> It also seems as though "play your class wrong" is going to mean different things at different tables, and have different repercussions.



In my experience "play your class wrong" only really matters at the table you are at.  If the DM or player feels that you are playing your class wrong and says something or acts on it, it will have a negative effect on you and the game.  That negative effect is greater coming from the DM who has correspondingly greater ability to act.  People out here won't have the same or perhaps even any impact.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 14, 2020)

ClaytonCross said:


> uh...
> 
> Oath of Ancients Paladin + Archfey warlock you have a cooperate boss and a branch manager
> Oath Breaker Paladin + any warlock - your just changing directions.
> ...




Right but the general reaction to ban Paladin Warlock is a reaction to perceived munchkinism.  No amount of ironing out the lore and reasoning for such a combination is going to make it more acceptable to DM's that ban it for that reason.  That is, they believe the Paladin Warlock multiclass is too powerful and so they justify the limitation of it by appealing to fluff.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 14, 2020)

Hussar said:


> But, even that doesn't really apply.  A Vengeance or a Conquest Paladin certainly don't give a rat's petoot about standing with good things.  Yes, what they list is A paladin, but, hardly ALL paladins, even the ones that are actually in the PHB.




Well, it seems you know what those paladins are too.  That speaks to there being very little ambiguity as to what they are.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Right but the general reaction to ban Paladin Warlock is a reaction to perceived munchkinism.  No amount of ironing out the lore and reasoning for such a combination is going to make it more acceptable to DM's that ban it for that reason.  That is, they believe the Paladin Warlock multiclass is too powerful and so they justify the limitation of it by appealing to fluff.




I don't disagree, and part of my reason for giving a player bringing a concept dependent on this multiclass combination, and ideas for lore to back it up, the sideeye is exactly what you call "perceived munchkinism." I've been pretty fortunate in not having huge powergamers in the two campaigns I'm running, and I'd prefer to continue not having to deal with the phenomenon.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 14, 2020)

prabe said:


> I don't disagree, and part of my reason for giving a player bringing a concept dependent on this multiclass combination, and ideas for lore to back it up, the sideeye is exactly what you call "perceived munchkinism." I've been pretty fortunate in not having huge powergamers in the two campaigns I'm running, and I'd prefer to continue not having to deal with the phenomenon.




Well powergaming if all agree on it is also cool for a change, but not by using system loopholes. I cannot verify if a paladin / lock multiclass would be overpowered somehow, for me that MC in 5e is considered the way to power does not seem so, since all threads about it  forget the costs of MAD, levels were you not shine so much, and so on and some really only watch the end result and not the way there.
Personally I shun most MC, more often than not I did not want it at my table and I think it is subpar to optimized single classes, if you got a balanced group.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I already agreed that you can call yourself whatever you like.  As for who is going to tell them that they aren't.  Perhaps an NPC who knows the difference between a cleric and paladin and observes the cleric using an ability that paladins don't have, but clerics do.



 It would  take a particularly retentive NPC to go up to this example holy warrior, who is referring to themselves as a paladin, perhaps even proudly wearing the heraldry of their paladinic order, and tell them that they are not a paladin.

I think a more realistic scenario would be that the NPC would decide that they simply have not seen a paladin do that before, whatever it was that they did that didn't fit with the NPCs preconceptions of what a paladin could do.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 14, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> It would  take a particularly retentive NPC to go up to this example holy warrior, who is referring to themselves as a paladin, perhaps even proudly wearing the heraldry of their paladinic order, and tell them that they are not a paladin.
> 
> I think a more realistic scenario would be that the NPC would decide that they simply have not seen a paladin do that before, whatever it was that they did that didn't fit with the NPCs preconceptions of what a paladin could do.



Given the length of time that game worlds tend to be around, which is typically many thousands of years.  And the correspondingly long period of time that paladins are also around, that scenario is unlikely.  Paladins abilities would be very well known.  Unless of course your home brew them to be rare or the paladin class is new to the world or some such.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Given the length of time that game worlds tend to be around, which is typically many thousands of years.  And the correspondingly long period of time that paladins are also around, that scenario is unlikely.  Paladins abilities would be very well known.  Unless of course your home brew them to be rare or the paladin class is new to the world or some such.




assuming that PC adventuring classes aren’t extremely rare...

there also may well be non-PC classes that are a lot more common in your world with any combination of abilities.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Given the length of time that game worlds tend to be around, which is typically many thousands of years.  And the correspondingly long period of time that paladins are also around, that scenario is unlikely.  Paladins abilities would be very well known.  Unless of course your home brew them to be rare or the paladin class is new to the world or some such.



There isn't any rule/text/suggestions on the commonality of each 'class' or even race. The player could be one of 1000s or the only 1.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 14, 2020)

prabe said:


> I think this is something of a false dichotomy (how often do you see the word "dichotomy" without the word "false" in front of it? it's like finding an escutcheon without a blotch). Class is mechanical, in that it has mechanical effects within the game, but it also reflects roles in a party and probably roles in a broader culture/society.




Well, no, because your "class" _may_ be personal to you. There may be no-one else in that world who shares that particular set of abilities. The name of your class is never mentioned by in-world characters.

Or it might be that there are many people who share those abilities, and your class is actually a caste. NPCs in the game world frequently refer to people with those abilities by the name of your class.

There may be some grey areas in between, of course, and some groups haven't even considered the issue. 

Neither interpretation is right or wrong, although there are plenty of people here who will never accept that.

As an example consider the samurai subclass. Is the samurai a dwarf from Mirabar known for his lethal axe flurries and neat handwriting, or the honourable warrior from Kara-Tur?

[The answer is the dwarf, the person from Kara-Tur is a paladin]


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> As an example consider the samurai subclass. Is the samurai a dwarf from Mirabar known for his lethal axe flurries and neat handwriting, or the honourable warrior from Kara-Tur?
> 
> [The answer is the dwarf, the person from Kara-Tur is a paladin]




My answer would have been "What do the players think?" I concur with your implied point, I believe.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Campaigns that deviate from how the rules present them, sure.  There's nothing wrong with such deviations, though.  Both home brew and house rules are perfectly fine and I encourage the use of both.  Whatever makes the group happy.




I disagree that the rules say that classes exist as "something real within the fiction of the world". But I also don't see any utility in precisely identifying what qualifies as a "deviation" from the rules. We agree that campaigns exist where classes are an IC concept and that campaigns exist where classes are not an IC concept. We agree that both approaches are perfectly fine. Those seem to be the important points. Why is it relevant which approach (if either) qualifies as a "deviation"?



Maxperson said:


> I don't think the disagreement about fluff and crunch necessarily means that we feel that you are playing your class wrong if you home brew changes and/or have your PC call himself something else.  It certainly doesn't have that meaning for me.  I have skipped some posts, though, so someone might have taken that stance and I missed it.




Your insistence that fluff changes be classified as homebrew comes across to me as an assertion that changing fluff is impermissible within the rules. In other words, it sounds to me like your position is that, unless the DM permits homebrew, it would indeed be wrong to play a character against type. Am I misunderstanding?


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> In the game of D&D as written, they are something real within the fiction of the world.  If they weren't, they would just be a collection of mechanics with nothing else attached.  The rules might then give you ideas of different ways to play certain sets of mechanics.



In "the game of D&D as written," "rulings not rules" serves as its guiding principle, so it seems antithetical to "the game of D&D as written" suggest that fluff guidelines for a "collection of mechanics with nothing else attached" should somehow be understood in themselves as rules or having some sort of necessary ontological existence in the fiction of the game world.


----------



## Beleriphon (Feb 14, 2020)

Why is that nearly every class discussion of this nature breaks down into arguing about paladins?

Look, I like the class. Especially the 5E version where it is very clear the oaths and _suggested_ tenets don't have to align with D&D good. They do have to align generally with not being D&D evil and working with a group, but beyond that there isn't much the class says about how the paladin plays out as a character past very broad strokes. I'd assume a player wanting to play some variety of paladin wants to at least follow the oaths in principle.

I don't really see the different between that and a Rogue (Thief) having to be a kleptomaniac. I will admint there are players that pick that class as an excuse to be a dingus, but that's a player issue, rather than a general perception that the character is "wrong" if they aren't stealing everything that isn't nailed down and using a pry bar on the stuff that is.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 14, 2020)

Not really.  It's one of those things that people harp about online, but I've never heard it at a game table.


----------



## jayoungr (Feb 14, 2020)

Fauchard1520 said:


> the idea is that you don’t have to be an baby-eating psychopath just because your sorcerer has the Abyssal bloodline. You don’t have to be a purehearted hero just because you know your way around a smite evil.
> 
> I'm curious if this is a real problem that people have encountered, or if it's just a good soundbite. Have you ever encountered a GM or another player who told you that you were "playing your class wrong?"



Nope, I haven't seen this at any of my tables.  And frankly, I'd rather have a player who takes class as prescriptive of personality than a player who just sees the character as a token and a collection of mechanics, with no personality at all.

Re paladins, I think other factors are sometimes at work there--some of which I put into a thread a while back, if people will forgive me for a little self-promotion  by linking my own thread:









						Musings on the "Lawful Jerk" Paladin
					

Fortunately for me, all the paladins I've dealt with have been great characters.  But I've been thinking about the problem of the "lawful jerk paladin" lately, and I thought I'd post my somewhat rambling and definitely incomplete thoughts to test them out.  I think the problem arises largely...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 14, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> This boils down to competing ways of playing for which there is no right answer: is class a purely game mechanic way of describing a character, or is it something that is real within the fiction of the game world?



Yep.  In my games, no character is a "wizard" or a "paladin".


----------



## Beleriphon (Feb 14, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Yep.  In my games, no character is a "wizard" or a "paladin".




Question then, on the wizard part. Could I describe a wizard as a wizard, in the sense of Merlin is a wizard or Harry Dresden is a wizard? Not a mechanical bundle of abilities, but more that that the word is a noun or an adjective depending on use.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 14, 2020)

Beleriphon said:


> Question then, on the wizard part. Could I describe a wizard as a wizard, in the sense of Merlin is a wizard or Harry Dresden is a wizard? Not a mechanical bundle of abilities, but more that that the word is a noun or an adjective depending on use.



Sure.  In my Ravnica game, it tends to get used to as a slang term for magical practitioners of various guilds, normally Izzet and Simic.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> If it was possible for a Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen to be accurately represented with multiple different classes, then that indicates a severe mis-match between the reality and its reflection. We shouldn't be using these classes to represent a reality where they don't hold. The consistent approach would be to define Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen as its own class.




Except it currently _is_ possible to represent a Warrior-Nun of the Raven Queen with multiple different classes: Paladin, Grave Cleric, Fighter/Swashbuckler Rogue with the Acolyte Background (and maybe the Cleric Initiate feat).


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Because the mechanics of the game reflect the reality of the game world. That's why we're using one set of mechanics, instead of some other set of mechanics.
> 
> If it was possible for a Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen to be accurately represented with multiple different classes, then that indicates a severe mis-match between the reality and its reflection. We shouldn't be using these classes to represent a reality where they don't hold. The consistent approach would be to define Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen as its own class.



Seems to me a far greater sin towards simulationism to suppose any two individuals would have access to the exact same set of capabilities.  The only way that class as a concept makes sense in any kind of simulationist sense is if you’re playing one those “MMO but real life” concepts that are so popular in modern anime.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 14, 2020)

Coroc said:


> Well powergaming if all agree on it is also cool for a change, but not by using system loopholes. I cannot verify if a paladin / lock multiclass would be overpowered somehow, for me that MC in 5e is considered the way to power does not seem so, since all threads about it  forget the costs of MAD, levels were you not shine so much, and so on and some really only watch the end result and not the way there.
> Personally I shun most MC, more often than not I did not want it at my table and I think it is subpar to optimized single classes, if you got a balanced group.



Not relevant to the broader point, but the paladin/warlock multiclass reduces MAD, not increases it: a Hexblade Paladin can ignore Str and Dex and fight using Cha.  That, plus regenerating slots for smites and an Eldritch Blast that improves with your total level rather than your Warlock level is why many people consider the paladin warlock multiclass OP.


----------



## Beleriphon (Feb 14, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Seems to me a far greater sin towards simulationism to suppose any two individuals would have access to the exact same set of capabilities.  The only way that class as a concept makes sense in any kind of simulationist sense is if you’re playing one those “MMO but real life” concepts that are so popular in modern anime.




Maybe, but I figure at a certain point D&D is a game, it needs to have structure. If you want to have archetypal abilities/classes/structures those things are going to look the same. I mean a wizard casts spells, that's kind of the whole point of a literary wizard (I'll not argue how that looks in fiction vs D&D, my point is wizards use magic to create effects that do things). D&D uses the spell structure system to represent what a wizard does in the fiction as a game usable mechanic. That usually means repeatable and consistent.

In the end since D&D is a game, it needs rules and consistency. Simulation has never, ever been the point of the rules.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Feb 14, 2020)

Panda-s1 said:


> also not sure how an artsy warrior wouldn't be allowed to lead a small army that terrorizes the countryside. ransacking a town is one big musical number for them!




I got a song for that


----------



## Panda-s1 (Feb 14, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> As an example consider the samurai subclass. Is the samurai a dwarf from Mirabar known for his lethal axe flurries and neat handwriting, or the honourable warrior from Kara-Tur?
> 
> [The answer is the dwarf, the person from Kara-Tur is a paladin]



why is the honorable warrior from Kara-Tur a paladin? do they get divine magic? paladins swear oaths to some sort of virtue and get magical abilities from it, but that's not how samurai work. sure samurai take oaths of fealty, but so does the knight from Faerun, they ain't special. also they get their powers, perceived or otherwise, through years of martial training. this doesn't even begin to touch the wandering samurai archetype, what happened to those oaths? I know 3.5 had a ronin prestige class that covered this, but they too didn't lose all their powers the same way a paladin did.


Beleriphon said:


> Question then, on the wizard part. Could I describe a wizard as a wizard, in the sense of Merlin is a wizard or Harry Dresden is a wizard? Not a mechanical bundle of abilities, but more that that the word is a noun or an adjective depending on use.



yeah this is the issue I have with defining your character by their class. like in a typical D&D world where magic is prevalent but still exclusively used by the elite your average NPC is gonna probably call a sorcerer a "wizard". warlocks, too. all arcane magic users are wizards, the same way your grandma thinks all video game consoles are "nintendo". well except maybe bards, but they sing and stuff, what do you mean "magic"?


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 14, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Seems to me a far greater sin towards simulationism to suppose any two individuals would have access to the exact same set of capabilities.  The only way that class as a concept makes sense in any kind of simulationist sense is if you’re playing one those “MMO but real life” concepts that are so popular in modern anime.



The Arcane Archer is a perfect example of why every member of a class would have access to the same set of abilities. If you want to learn how to launch a Cone of Cold from your arrow, then you need to belong to one specific organization of elvish archers, where they teach you. Otherwise, that specific knowledge is unavailable. And if you do belong to that organization, then they have a standard set of tricks that they teach all of their members.

Other classes are similar. If you want to be a Cleric of Wee Jas, or an Eldritch Knight, then you belong to an organization where they teach you a standard set of tricks. It's just a thing about how the setting works. For generic classes, like Fighter, there are a lot of different organizations that get you to a similar-looking endpoint. And while I suppose you could play in some other setting, where you don't learn your class abilities from an organization, such a setting would really be better represented with a non-class-based system.


----------



## Seramus (Feb 14, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Sure.   You can also call yourself Kool Aid, but it won't make it true.  Your artificer and cleric call themselves paladins, but they are not paladins.



It's true in the only way that matters - the people in the campaign call me a paladin and respond to me as one. I'm recognized as a paladin by other paladins, and my own God calls me 'her paladin' in visions.

Haven't done the artificer yet, but I can easily imagine refluffing it as a Joan of Arc style inspiration. I haven't decided on the best archetypes yet. Maybe battle smith?


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 14, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> I think that we may be using the  terms differently to each other. I was using "crunch" to represent the rules mechanics (Paladin spell list, or tenets of the Oath of Ancients subclass for example,) and "fluff" to represent the flavour (Paladins being heavily-armoured knights who stand for goodness and justice for example.)



I think we're in agreement as to what the terms mean. I'm just saying that the paladin class mechanics exist as they do _because_ they are a reflection of the paladin class fluff. They started with the concept of a heavily-armoured knight who stands for good and justice, and then derived mechanics to reflect that concept. If they had started with a different concept, then they would have used different mechanics to reflect it.

The specific translation from that specific fluff to that specific crunch is a _rule_. For example, that paladins have three spell slots at fourth level is a _rule_. If you extend that translation to some other specific fluff, then it would be a different rule, because it no longer represents the specific connection between the same fluff and the same crunch.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 14, 2020)

Seramus said:


> It's true in the only way that matters - the people in the campaign call me a paladin and respond to me as one. I'm recognized as a paladin by other paladins, and my own God calls me 'her paladin' in visions.




Yes, but some random guy on the Internet calls your character a cleric, so your character’s experience doesn’t count.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> I think we're in agreement as to what the terms mean. I'm just saying that the paladin class mechanics exist as they do _because_ they are a reflection of the paladin class fluff. They started with the concept of a heavily-armoured knight who stands for good and justice, and then derived mechanics to reflect that concept. If they had started with a different concept, then they would have used different mechanics to reflect it.
> 
> The specific translation from that specific fluff to that specific crunch is a _rule_. For example, that paladins have three spell slots at fourth level is a _rule_. If you extend that translation to some other specific fluff, then it would be a different rule, because it no longer represents the specific connection between the same fluff and the same crunch.



That paladins have three spell slots at fourth level is crunch. That those paladin spells are granted by a god is fluff.
That paladins gain the Heavy Armour proficiency is crunch. That paladins are heavily armoured knights is fluff.
The tenets of the Devotion paladin are crunch. That paladins stand for goodness and justice is fluff.

Changing the crunch is house rules. Changing the fluff is not house rules, or home brew, or deviating from the rules. Just re-fluffing.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> That paladins have three spell slots at fourth level is crunch. That those paladin spells are granted by a god is fluff.
> That paladins gain the Heavy Armour proficiency is crunch. That paladins are heavily armoured knights is fluff.
> The tenets of the Devotion paladin are crunch. That paladins stand for goodness and justice is fluff.
> 
> Changing the crunch is house rules. Changing the fluff is not house rules, or home brew, or deviating from the rules. Just re-fluffing.




Mmmmm. Something about your medium example. I get the point you're making, even if @Saelorn disagrees with it, but I'm not sure the distinction between "Paladins get Heavy Armor Proficiency" and "Paladins are heavily-armored knights" is ... entirely a distinction with a difference. I mean, one is rules-speak, and the other is, something like in-setting-speak, but the gap between them is less than the other two.

Geez. I'm quibbling with an argument I *agree with*. I'll stop now.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 14, 2020)

prabe said:


> Mmmmm. Something about your medium example. I get the point you're making, even if @Saelorn disagrees with it, but I'm not sure the distinction between "Paladins get Heavy Armor Proficiency" and "Paladins are heavily-armored knights" is ... entirely a distinction with a difference. I mean, one is rules-speak, and the other is, something like in-setting-speak, but the gap between them is less than the other two.
> 
> Geez. I'm quibbling with an argument I *agree with*. I'll stop now.



I'm mostly just making the point that adherence to those rules does not require adherence to the fluff. Having heavy armour proficiency does not require _your _paladin to wear heavy armour.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> I'm mostly just making the point that adherence to those rules does not require adherence to the fluff. Having heavy armour proficiency does not require _your _paladin to wear heavy armour.




That's true. It's an unusual paladin who doesn't (in most campaigns/settings) but it's neither impossible nor disallowed.

Apologies.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 14, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> I'm mostly just making the point that adherence to those rules does not require adherence to the fluff. Having heavy armour proficiency does not require _your _paladin to wear heavy armour.



Regardless of an individual's personal preference while walking down the street, the fact they have the proficiency on their sheet reflects the fact that they have learned how to wear it effectively at some point in the past. You still went to paladin school (or whatever), even if you make a point of looking like you hadn't.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 14, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> That paladins have three spell slots at fourth level is crunch. That those paladin spells are granted by a god is fluff.
> That paladins gain the Heavy Armour proficiency is crunch. That paladins are heavily armoured knights is fluff.
> The tenets of the Devotion paladin are crunch. That paladins stand for goodness and justice is fluff.
> 
> Changing the crunch is house rules. Changing the fluff is not house rules, or home brew, or deviating from the rules. Just re-fluffing.



That paladins have three spell slots at fourth level, is a reflection of the true capacity for someone with this specific training and experience, to cast spells. It is both fluff and crunch. It is the same sentence written in two different languages.

That paladins learn to wear heavy armor, which is represented by heavy armor proficiency, is both fluff and crunch.

That a paladin will follow a specified code of conduct is both fluff and crunch.

Changing the connection between a given piece of fluff, and its corresponding crunch, requires a house rule. You're changing how the game works. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's a matter for the DM to handle.)

Inventing your own crunch, to represent fluff that is otherwise not present in the book, is just home-brewing. You're adding stuff to the game. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, either, but it's also a matter for the DM to handle.)


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2020)

So, I allow the Order Domain in my setting/campaigns, but I call it the Command Domain, because I think that better reflects what it does. I probably changed the names of the Domain abilities here and there to reflect the domain name I'm using. How am I changing how the domain works in the game by changing those names? Allowing the domain is a house rule; that's not in question here.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 14, 2020)

prabe said:


> So, I allow the Order Domain in my setting/campaigns, but I call it the Command Domain, because I think that better reflects what it does. I probably changed the names of the Domain abilities here and there to reflect the domain name I'm using. How am I changing how the domain works in the game by changing those names? Allowing the domain is a house rule; that's not in question here.



Why is allowing an official printed player subclass option a house rule?


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 14, 2020)

Stoutstien said:


> Why is allowing an official printed player subclass option a house rule?



Some DMs (like me) don't allow everything that gets printed to be automatically added to their campaigns.   All sorts of stuff gets published, but not all of it will fit the tone, setting, or style of the game I'm running.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 14, 2020)

CleverNickName said:


> Some DMs (like me) don't allow everything that gets printed to be automatically added to their campaigns.   All sorts of stuff gets published, but not all of it will fit the tone, setting, or style of the game I'm running.



Which is perfectly fine but it not a houserule. DM providing parameters for players to choose from for an individual campaign is part of the rules.

if I say that I don't like dragonborn so I take it out of my game. Then when I put them back in I called it a houserule. Dragonborn- might not be the best example.

Pretty much all book past the PHB are optional as a rule.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 14, 2020)

Stoutstien said:


> Which is perfectly fine but it not a houserule. DM providing parameters for players to choose from for an individual campaign is part of the rules.
> 
> if I say that I don't like dragonborn so I take it out of my game. Then when I put them back in I called it a houserule. Dragonborn- might not be the best example.
> 
> Pretty much all book past the PHB are optional as a rule.



I think I misunderstood your earlier post, sorry about that.  I thought you were saying something along the lines of "This subclass was published, and therefore it should automatically be allowed."  But that's not what you were getting at. 

I'm gonna go clean my glasses.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 14, 2020)

CleverNickName said:


> I think I misunderstood your earlier post, sorry about that.  I thought you were saying something along the lines of "This subclass was published, and therefore it should automatically be allowed."  But that's not what you were getting at.
> 
> I'm gonna go clean my glasses.



Oh yes, i could see that. Exact opposite intention. Full thought half post


----------



## Azzy (Feb 14, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Re-fluffing died with 4E.




Nope, it's alive and well in 5e, in fact, Eberron: Rising From the Last War goes out of its way in multiple places to draw attention to it.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Feb 15, 2020)

Azzy said:


> Nope, it's alive and well in 5e, in fact, Eberron: Rising From the Last War goes out of its way in multiple places to draw attention to it.



shh don't bring up other official settings, they're avoiding them deliberately lol


----------



## Tallifer (Feb 15, 2020)

I do not mind a player trying to roleplay a class against type, as long as they recognize that their character is acting against others' expectations: NPCs will react in disgust to an immoral paladin, with distrust or hatred towards a good necromancer, with scorn towards a rogue who cannot sneak or disarm traps. In fact as a dungeon master I can tolerate and chuckle at it more; as a player nothing frustrates me more than a cleric who cannot heal and who loots every shrine or tomb he stumbles across.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 15, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Regardless of an individual's personal preference while walking down the street, the fact they have the proficiency on their sheet reflects the fact that they have learned how to wear it effectively at some point in the past. You still went to paladin school (or whatever), even if you make a point of looking like you hadn't.



Yes, a particular piece of rules mechanics/crunch (having proficiency in heavy armour) has given paladins a common associated fluff (they are commonly heavily-armoured knights.
You can't change the crunch. (Your paladin character will have heavy armour proficiency.) You can however change the fluff: your paladin might stick to light armour and thus not follow the usual paladin flavour.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 15, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> That paladins have three spell slots at fourth level, is a reflection of the true capacity for someone with this specific training and experience, to cast spells. It is both fluff and crunch. It is the same sentence written in two different languages.
> 
> That paladins learn to wear heavy armor, which is represented by heavy armor proficiency, is both fluff and crunch.
> 
> ...



This sounds like another issue of the same words having different meanings for different people.

That paladins have three spell slots at fourth level is rules mechanics: pure crunch. 
The power that grants them those slots (and their spellcasting and powers in  general) is fluff. Commonly it is a god. Sometimes it is another power that the paladin swore their oath to. Sometimes it is the power within the paladin themselves, manifesting itself from the oath. All fluff or flavour, and thus variable.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 15, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> That paladins have three spell slots at fourth level is rules mechanics: pure crunch.



In what way is this _not_ fluff? If we're reading a novel about this character, then it will come up at some point that they can only use magic three times in a day. It's a true fact, about this person who lives in that world. As far as the narrative is concerned, it is as true as the fact that their name is Alex, or that they studied swordsmanship at the Temple of Light in the city of Haven.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Feb 15, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> In what way is this _not_ fluff? If we're reading a novel about this character, then it will come up at some point that they can only use magic three times in a day.



Or, it might not.  You might be left wondering why they didn't use an ability they displayed in one scene in another where it'd've been even more useful (of course, it'd be author force in a book, in a game, it might be an arbitrary n/day, or even n/session resource limitation).


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 15, 2020)

[/QUOTE]


Saelorn said:


> In what way is this _not_ fluff? If we're reading a novel about this character, then it will come up at some point that they can only use magic three times in a day. It's a true fact, about this person who lives in that world. As far as the narrative is concerned, it is as true as the fact that their name is Alex, or that they studied swordsmanship at the Temple of Light in the city of Haven.



It's crunch because it's always the same amount regardless of what you call them. The value of each spell slot is a constant and how those spell slots interact with other mechanics have numerical value that every player can relate to.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Feb 15, 2020)

Phazonfish said:


> Honestly I've seen the opposite problem. Whenever the topic of multiclassing comes up around here, I see a lot of "I allow multiclassing, but only if they have a story reason to." Why? If I'm a paladin, and I wanna take levels in Warlock, why can't I just take the mechanical benefits of the Warlock class, but in-story attribute the new powers to where ever my Paladin powers come from?



You'll excuse me if I think this is just someone wanting to avoid the consequences of going into a warlock pact, right?


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 15, 2020)

Stoutstien said:


> It's crunch because it's always the same amount regardless of what you call them. The value of each spell slot is a constant and how those spell slots interact with other mechanics have numerical value that every player can relate to.



I didn't ask why it's crunch. I asked why it isn't fluff.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. They're two sides of the same coin.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 15, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> I didn't ask why it's crunch. I asked why it isn't fluff.
> 
> The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. They're two sides of the same coin.



Which is true for the most part. For most people the order of importance is a factor. Spell slots are crunch first and fluff second because of balance considerations where the colour of a PCs hair is fluff first and crunch almost never.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 15, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> assuming that PC adventuring classes aren’t extremely rare...
> 
> there also may well be non-PC classes that are a lot more common in your world with any combination of abilities.



Er, I mentioned PCs being rare as an exception 

I also mentioned home brew as another exception, which covers your second point.


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 15, 2020)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> You'll excuse me if I think this is just someone wanting to avoid the consequences of going into a warlock pact, right?



it's completely possible for the warlock pact to act exactly like the relationship a Paladin already is in. Ancient pally/ fey pact seems perfectly fine. 

The warlock class does not have any built-in 'consequences' than any other class. if you don't like the mechanical implications of the multi-class then just don't allow it.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 15, 2020)

Stoutstien said:


> Which is true for the most part. For most people the order of importance is a factor. Spell slots are crunch first and fluff second because of balance considerations where the colour of a PCs hair is fluff first and crunch almost never.



Didn't the Mattock of the Titans require someone to be at least six feet tall in order to use? I might be thinking of a different item, and I'd be surprised if they kept that requirement in 5E, but the principal still stands. The crunch is only valid _because_ it accurately reflects the fluff. If you change the fluff, then you need to change the crunch to reflect that, or else it undermines the validity of the model.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 15, 2020)

Xetheral said:


> Your insistence that fluff changes be classified as homebrew comes across to me as an assertion that changing fluff is impermissible within the rules. In other words, it sounds to me like your position is that, unless the DM permits homebrew, it would indeed be wrong to play a character against type. Am I misunderstanding?



Major fluff changes are home brew.  Minor ones wouldn't be.  Any change to fluff, though, should be run past your DM just in case it goes against something in the setting or would be disruptive in some way unknown to the player.  Unless of course the DM gives free reign. I give my players quite a bit of leeway to come up with stuff.  We've been playing together for anywhere from 13 years to 36 years, depending on the person.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Feb 15, 2020)

Stoutstien said:


> it's completely possible for the warlock pact to act exactly like the relationship a Paladin already is in. Ancient pally/ fey pact seems perfectly fine.
> 
> The warlock class does not have any built-in 'consequences' than any other class. if you don't like the mechanical implications of the multi-class then just don't allow it.



Or I could just homebrew in consequences to people's actions. Seem like that would be a lot easier.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 15, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Yep.  In my games, no character is a "wizard" or a "paladin".



But is there a spoon?


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 15, 2020)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Or I could just homebrew in consequences to people's actions. Seem like that would be a lot easier.



You're assuming a Warlock pact that is:
A) ongoing and continuous, and
B) of an adversarial or hostile nature. 

Yet others in the thread have pointed out examples of pacts that weren't so. Homebrewing "consequences" for those situations would be unnecessarily punitive.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Feb 15, 2020)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> You're assuming a Warlock pact that is:
> A) ongoing and continuous, and
> B) of an adversarial or hostile nature.
> 
> Yet others in the thread have pointed out examples of pacts that weren't so. Homebrewing "consequences" for those situations would be unnecessarily punitive.



Still just sounds like wanting to avoid the consequences to your actions.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 15, 2020)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> Still just sounds like wanting to avoid the consequences to your actions.



Still just sounds like being blind to the storytelling possibilities of more benign or even benevolent patrons because of dogmatic one-true-wayism.

Come to think if it, this entire thread stinks of one-true-wayism.


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Feb 15, 2020)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> Still just sounds like being blind to the storytelling possibilities of more benign or even benevolent patrons because of dogmatic one-true-wayism.
> 
> Come to think if it, this entire thread stinks of one-true-wayism.



Because you can never, _ever_ cross your patron, even accidentally, right?


----------



## Phazonfish (Feb 15, 2020)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> You'll excuse me if I think this is just someone wanting to avoid the consequences of going into a warlock pact, right?



I'd certainly excuse you for that being your first thought, but surely you realize this isn't the only possibility? I picked this example because I knew it is polarizing. Personally I love the flavor baked into the Warlock's pact, but if I had a player that had made a Warlock and played out the idea before, and if they pitched me a more interesting character concept, but the Warlock's features modeled it the way they wanted, I wouldn't tell them "no".


----------



## Stoutstien (Feb 15, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Didn't the Mattock of the Titans require someone to be at least six feet tall in order to use? I might be thinking of a different item, and I'd be surprised if they kept that requirement in 5E, but the principal still stands. The crunch is only valid _because_ it accurately reflects the fluff. If you change the fluff, then you need to change the crunch to reflect that, or else it undermines the validity of the model.



The accuracy needed of any giving fluff fitting it's corresponding crunch is purely subjective. I could make my spells magical potatoes and the only people who needed the connection is that table.
I don't think there is a model to uphold


----------



## prabe (Feb 15, 2020)

Stoutstien said:


> Why is allowing an official printed player subclass option a house rule?




Allowing anything outside of the corebooks is technically a house rule, innit? The fact I'm using the UA version because I'm not going to buy a setting book for the five or so pages I'm interested in is a side issue.

EDIT: Sorry; replied before reading the whole thread. I believe we're good.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 15, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Didn't the Mattock of the Titans require someone to be at least six feet tall in order to use? I might be thinking of a different item, and I'd be surprised if they kept that requirement in 5E, but the principal still stands. The crunch is only valid _because_ it accurately reflects the fluff. If you change the fluff, then you need to change the crunch to reflect that, or else it undermines the validity of the model.




That would only be true if you assume the model involves a one-to-one correspondence between fluff and crunch. A model with a many-to-one correspondence, however, could also satisfy your criterion that the crunch accurately reflects (models) the fluff, yet wouldn't lead to your conclusion that changing the fluff requires changing the crunch.

Personally, I don't see any reason to assume that D&D 5e is intended to be such a one-to-one model. I also don't see any advantages from choosing to constrain the model that way. For one thing, a one-to-one model limits the complexity of the fluff to the complexity of the crunch. (In other words, two characters with identical mechanics would necessarily be identical characters.) I'd much prefer that the crunch instead be an _abstraction_ of the fluff, so that the fluff can have far greater complexity and nuance than exists in the crunch.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 15, 2020)

prabe said:


> So, I allow the Order Domain in my setting/campaigns, but I call it the Command Domain, because I think that better reflects what it does. I probably changed the names of the Domain abilities here and there to reflect the domain name I'm using. How am I changing how the domain works in the game by changing those names? Allowing the domain is a house rule; that's not in question here.



You've changed the entire domain with that.  It went from a domain about the order of things to one of dominance over others.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 15, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Didn't the Mattock of the Titans require someone to be at least six feet tall in order to use? I might be thinking of a different item, and I'd be surprised if they kept that requirement in 5E, but the principal still stands. The crunch is only valid _because_ it accurately reflects the fluff. If you change the fluff, then you need to change the crunch to reflect that, or else it undermines the validity of the model.



So, let's say I wanted to create a character who was chosen by the god Krom to be their champion.  I want them to be a paladin ruleswise.  I want to slavishly devote myself to everything the god stands for.

But I also want to say that a farmer went to bed one night and woke up the next day possessed with the divine spirit of Krom and that is the source of all his paladiny powers.  No training.  No paladin school.  Literally a momentary transformation of thought and knowledge.

Are you saying I am now asking to play a "Homebrew" character because my origin story doesn't match the basic description of paladins in the PHB?  Are you further saying that if I do want to play a character with this background I can't use the rules for paladins because "that's how paladins work, not possessed divine champions"?

I literally could pick ANY class and use this same origin story "I am possessed by Gord, the trickster god, now I'm a rogue."


----------



## Coroc (Feb 15, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> The Arcane Archer is a perfect example of why every member of a class would have access to the same set of abilities. If you want to learn how to launch a Cone of Cold from your arrow, then you need to belong to one specific organization of elvish archers, where they teach you. Otherwise, that specific knowledge is unavailable. And if you do belong to that organization, then they have a standard set of tricks that they teach all of their members.
> 
> Other classes are similar. If you want to be a Cleric of Wee Jas, or an Eldritch Knight, then you belong to an organization where they teach you a standard set of tricks. It's just a thing about how the setting works. For generic classes, like Fighter, there are a lot of different organizations that get you to a similar-looking endpoint. And while I suppose you could play in some other setting, where you don't learn your class abilities from an organization, such a setting would really be better represented with a non-class-based system.




Yes, and those arcane archer or Cleric of Wee Jas "Special tricks" are part of the fluff, as well as that elves, arcane archer class or Wee Jas exist in your world (as fluff)

Cone of cold is also fluff. The ruleset has Cone of cold as one example of fluff as how to resolve a fifth level spell with a cone shaped area effect, aka how much damage dice, what progression if upcast, what saving throws.

I could refluff that in an instance to arcane slingers, prerequisites being halflings and be able to cast a cone of poison by using their slings (Same damage dice different damage type same save just other name)


----------



## Coroc (Feb 15, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> So, let's say I wanted to create a character who was chosen by the god Krom to be their champion.  I want them to be a paladin ruleswise.  I want to slavishly devote myself to everything the god stands for.
> 
> But I also want to say that a farmer went to bed one night and woke up the next day possessed with the divine spirit of Krom and that is the source of all his paladiny powers.  No training.  No paladin school.  Literally a momentary transformation of thought and knowledge.
> 
> ...




If your DM is cool with it yes to both cases. No to homebrew, because you chose standard PHB classes with teir standard mechanics. 
It is just a backstory. Whether your DM requires your Paladin to go to the next church to learn his skills is his decision. It is not mandatory, since you might have had a life before the campaign starts where you accumulated some of your tricks alraedy.

Let us asume you went to bed, dreamt of Gord, and in the next morning you are a single class rogue, but your character also wants to be able to lay on hands, like a paladin. That is homebrew.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 15, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> No gaming is better than bad gaming.



For you, maybe. For me? A game has to be pretty bad before it's worse than not gaming. In no small part, because Gaming is 50% of my social life.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 15, 2020)

Way to miss the point.


Panda-s1 said:


> why is the honorable warrior from Kara-Tur a paladin?



Because the player decided to roll a paladin.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 15, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Way to miss the point.
> 
> Because the player decided to roll a paladin.



It depends.  If there's a class or subclass that is actually called Samurai, then he's not a Samurai.  Samurai were more than just honorable warriors.  Samurai had very specific training and requirements. 

If there is an actual class or subclass that fulfills those, then a Paladin will be unable to fulfill them and it will be obvious to real Samurai that this Paladin is not one of them.  Outside of some rare event like happened in the Shogun mini-series or the Last Samurai. Even then, those outsiders still received Samurai training.  If Samurai is reduced to just a background or even less, then any fighting class will serve as a kludge, so the Paladin could be one.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 15, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> It depends.  If there's a class or subclass that is actually called Samurai, then he's not a Samurai.  Samurai were more than just honorable warriors.  Samurai had very specific training and requirements.
> 
> If there is an actual class or subclass that fulfills those, then a Paladin will be unable to fulfill them and it will be obvious to real Samurai that this Paladin is not one of them.  Outside of some rare event like happened in the Shogun mini-series or the Last Samurai. Even then, those outsiders still received Samurai training.  If Samurai is reduced to just a background or even less, then any fighting class will serve as a kludge, so the Paladin could be one.



This is, frankly, rubbish.

The most important feature to make someone a samurai (real world) is noble birth (and gender). The training goes along with that, and there is nothing in the paladin class (or a rogue swashbuckler, or a battlemaster fighter, etc) that contradicts that.

Suddenly adding a subclass called samurai in a splat book does not mean the noble born paladin from Kara-Tur is no longer a samurai. Because _class_ describes what the character _does_, not what the character _is_. So our dwarf, who is not from kara-tur, is not a noble, and does not use a katana, is a samurai (subclass), because he is good at sudden bursts of accuracy and ignoring minor wounds.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 15, 2020)

I like that we're back hip deep into the 'canon' argument without anyone mentioning it. @Paul Farquhar - I agree, using one class to 'invalidate' another is indeed rubbish in game where the DM decides what to use. Also rubbish is the idea that the fluff is somehow inviolable and that changing it is tantamount to changing a rule (i.e. homebrew, used a pejorative). Both notions are complete bollocks - they are personal takes on how to play the game, not immutable rules of D&D. Feels are not facts.


----------



## prabe (Feb 15, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> You've changed the entire domain with that.  It went from a domain about the order of things to one of dominance over others.




I'm prepared for mockery about this, but my sarcasmometer is on the fritz at the moment, and I'm new enough here (and don't know you well enough) to feel certain without it. Is this sarcasm or no?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 15, 2020)

prabe said:


> I'm prepared for mockery about this, but my sarcasmometer is on the fritz at the moment, and I'm new enough here (and don't know you well enough) to feel certain without it. Is this sarcasm or no?




It makes me happy to see people asking that question instead of just assuming.  Thank you prabe.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 16, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> It makes me happy to see people asking that question instead of just assuming.  Thank you prabe.



To be fair, though, given past history, it unfortunately isn't sarcasm.  

As far as "class powers define character" goes, well, that's pretty easy to disprove.

My character, hunting through the wilds comes across an ogre and gets into a fight.  I cast Hunter's Mark on the ogre.  What class am I?

Later on, another character smites a foe with his sword.  What class is he?  

After a bunch of fighting, another character casts cure wounds.  What class is he?  That same character dropped a lightning bolt earlier in the day.  Does that change your answer?

So on and so forth. There are so many different ways for different classes to do the same thing.  Clerics gain smite abilities, and, my Forge Priest had paladin spells.  An Oath of Vengeance paladin gains Hunter's Mark.  A druid can cast Lightning Bolt, as can a cleric.  The notion that you could positively identify class by observing spells cast and whatnot is simply not true.  There are almost no abilities in any class that aren't also done by another class.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 16, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> It depends.  If there's a class or subclass that is actually called Samurai, then he's not a Samurai.  Samurai were more than just honorable warriors.  Samurai had very specific training and requirements.




No. A big no. Samurai had different training throughout the centuries. Also, not all samurai were warriors. Just because a class or sublass called "samurai" exists doesn't mean that it's the only way to model a samurai. That's just dumb.


----------



## Krachek (Feb 16, 2020)

I played a paladin of vengeance that was  a kind of mafia leader.
its background was a fallen noble, struggling to recover title and power to protect its family.
not the usual paladin, but a lot of fun with the rest of the party.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 16, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> Are you saying I am now asking to play a "Homebrew" character because my origin story doesn't match the basic description of paladins in the PHB?  Are you further saying that if I do want to play a character with this background I can't use the rules for paladins because "that's how paladins work, not possessed divine champions"?



Yes. There is enough complexity within the setting already, without you trying to play something that isn't covered yet. There's no benefit to allowing your concept into the setting. All it does is dilute our knowledge about how the world works, so that now we know less than we did before.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 16, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Yes. There is enough complexity within the setting already, without you trying to play something that isn't covered yet. There's no benefit to allowing your concept into the setting. All it does is dilute our knowledge about how the world works, so that now we know less than we did before.



I don't know what setting you're playing, but it sounds boring.


----------



## Don Durito (Feb 16, 2020)

I think part of the issue is that subclasses, like Paragon Paths and Prestige classes before them exist in a kind of nebulous space where there sort of supposed to correspond to game world institutions and realities and sort of not.

On the one hand Samurai is just a fighting style with an evocative name, on the other hand they get Elegant Courtier at level 7, which only syncs with the rest of what the class does if we take the title seriously.

Certainly we get enough fluff thrown in about various Paladin Oaths that it hardly seems out of line for the DM to take that fluff seriously and insist that players stick to it (otherwise what exactly is it for?).  On the other hand, many of us aren't playing in the default setting (which is mostly non-existent anyway), so we feel free to ignore a lot of the fluff.

There is something very annoying and basically...inelegant, about the idea of a setting that has a Samurai social class, and a samurai subclass, but these don't sync up in anyway.  But at the same time it would seem wrong to insist someone play the subclass when a battlemaster can fulfill the concept just as well (and of course if a knight can be a paladin then why not a Samurai?).


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Feb 16, 2020)

Fauchard1520 said:


> You guys have heard the phrase "your class is not your character," right? the idea is that you don’t have to be an baby-eating psychopath just because your sorcerer has the Abyssal bloodline. You don’t have to be a purehearted hero just because you know your way around a smite evil.
> 
> I'm curious if this is a real problem that people have encountered, or if it's just a good soundbite. Have you ever encountered a GM or another player who told you that you were "playing your class wrong?" I may just be lucky in my groups, but I haven't ever encountered that mess out in the wild.
> 
> *Comic for illustrative purposes.*




I take the view that the PC's choice of a class reflects their outlook. They chose an intensive course of training for a specific outcome.

Being a Druid who hangs out in town, a Cleric who neglects the tenants of his faith, a Paladin who does not set the moral example, is going to be penalized in my campaigns. A class is not a character, but it still must be depicted properly.

Now the vanilla classes such as fighter, barbarian, bard, those don't carry that responsibility because they are just skill packages.

I don't allow multi-classing. I've never liked that aspect.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Feb 16, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> I strongly disagree. If PCs don't reflect the setting at large, then you aren't really playing in that setting.
> 
> If I tell you that I'm playing a Paladin, and that doesn't tell you anything about who my character is or how they act, then you've just squandered the rich history of fantasy tropes. We might as well be playing a sci fi game, at that point.




Well said!


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The most important feature to make someone a samurai (real world) is noble birth (and gender). The training goes along with that, and there is nothing in the paladin class (or a rogue swashbuckler, or a battlemaster fighter, etc) that contradicts that.




Except that while all Samurai were nobles, not all nobles were Samurai.  Training made the Samurai, not the nobility.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2020)

prabe said:


> I'm prepared for mockery about this, but my sarcasmometer is on the fritz at the moment, and I'm new enough here (and don't know you well enough) to feel certain without it. Is this sarcasm or no?



No.  How are order and command the same?  They aren't.  By changing the fluff, it changes how the domain works in the world.  A god who would have the order domain, might not offer the command domain.  It doesn't matter if the spells are the same.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Feb 16, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Except that while all Samurai were nobles, not all nobles were Samurai.  Training made the Samurai, not the nobility.




No. All nobles were Samurai, but not all Samurai were Bushi (warriors).


----------



## Hussar (Feb 16, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> I take the view that the PC's choice of a class reflects their outlook. They chose an intensive course of training for a specific outcome.
> 
> Being a Druid who hangs out in town, a Cleric who neglects the tenants of his faith, a Paladin who does not set the moral example, is going to be penalized in my campaigns. A class is not a character, but it still must be depicted properly.
> 
> ...




But, here's the thing - those are extremely broad elements.  A druid that hangs out in a town - well, in Waterdeep, there is a druid's grove right in the city where the faction of Emerald Enclave has their headquarters.  So, it makes perfect sense for an Emerald Enclave druid to spend considerable amount of time in Waterdeep.  

What moral example should my Vengeance paladin be setting?  Or my Oath of Conquest paladin?  Neither have any sort of interest in setting anything remotely like a "moral example".  While I've never played the video game, the Witcher TV show on Netflix would make a textbook Oath of Vengeance paladin.  

And, of course, I notice that the examples you focus on are the classes that come parceled with probably the most amount of flavor.    What about a ranger or a sorcerer?  What is the "proper" depiction of those classes?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 16, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> No.  How are order and command the same?  They aren't.  By changing the fluff, it changes how the domain works in the world.  A god who would have the order domain, might not offer the command domain.  It doesn't matter if the spells are the same.



A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

Cleric A follows Ohsidee the Compulsive. They have the Order Domain.

Cleric B follows Su-Zan the Bossy. They have the Command Domain.

They have exactly the same domain spells, channel divinity etc. In fact, they are the same character, only the names are different.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 16, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> No.  How are order and command the same?  They aren't.  By changing the fluff, it changes how the domain works in the world.  A god who would have the order domain, might not offer the command domain.  It doesn't matter if the spells are the same.



Why are you insisting that a meta-game/narrative concept, namely the name or label of a cleric class domain, has any actual meaning in the fiction? That may be one of the strangest arguments I have ever heard from someone who purportedly hates metagame concepts in their game.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 16, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Except that while all Samurai were nobles, not all nobles were Samurai.  Training made the Samurai, not the nobility.



No.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Feb 16, 2020)

Hussar said:


> But, here's the thing - those are extremely broad elements.  A druid that hangs out in a town - well, in Waterdeep, there is a druid's grove right in the city where the faction of Emerald Enclave has their headquarters.  So, it makes perfect sense for an Emerald Enclave druid to spend considerable amount of time in Waterdeep.




No, it doesn't. 



Hussar said:


> What moral example should my Vengeance paladin be setting?  Or my Oath of Conquest paladin?  Neither have any sort of interest in setting anything remotely like a "moral example".  While I've never played the video game, the Witcher TV show on Netflix would make a textbook Oath of Vengeance paladin.
> 
> And, of course, I notice that the examples you focus on are the classes that come parceled with probably the most amount of flavor.    What about a ranger or a sorcerer?  What is the "proper" depiction of those classes?




Those type of Paladins are pretty lame, IMO; its just a munchkin method to get abilities without the obligation of alignment. But there's nothing to prevent the GM from whipping up and enforcing codes of conduct .

A Ranger should be someone who by preference operates in the environment of his specialty, same as a Druid. 

A sorcerer is just a vanilla class, so you wouldn't expect anything from that player.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 16, 2020)

All types of paladins are lame, that goes without saying.

But even by the strictest application of RAW, Vengeance and Conquest paladins do not seek to set a "moral example".

As for munchkins, I find that they are quite happy to play a cliché lawful stupid paladin, since they are only interested in what the character can do, not who they are. It's the hard-core role-players who will want to take the character in a different direction.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 16, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> No, it doesn't.



You think the Emerald Enclave HQ is being staffed solely by temp workers and interns?


Jd Smith1 said:


> A sorcerer is just a vanilla class, so you wouldn't expect anything from that player.



Which classes to are vanilla and which aren't? Because the PHB draws no such distinction.


----------



## Warpiglet (Feb 16, 2020)

This is true.

However it doesn’t say who taught you and helped you learn.

e.g. I want to play a bard who learned skills from a hag—-blackish fey magic.  the rules do not say I MUST belong to a bard college.  Which is good because I do not to want to pretend my creepy guy learned at a college.

giving people some latitude is paramount for a fun rpg.

I once played a hex blade but tied his ability to wear armor to his noble background
NOT warlock class.

I like playing a dragon sorcerer but am not into dragon bloodline stuff.  It’s just as easy to say it’s fiend blood for me and redefining the mechanics as coming from something other than a dragon.

Its make believe afterall




Saelorn said:


> Regardless of an individual's personal preference while walking down the street, the fact they have the proficiency on their sheet reflects the fact that they have learned how to wear it effectively at some point in the past. You still went to paladin school (or whatever), even if you make a point of looking like you hadn't.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
> 
> Cleric A follows Ohsidee the Compulsive. They have the Order Domain.
> 
> Cleric B follows Su-Zan the Bossy. They have the Command Domain.




You're moving the goal posts.  The post I was responding to says order is now called command.  That means order no longer exists.  If you are now moving the goal posts and you have two different domains with identical spells, well, that really crappy design.  

Look at the domains in 5e.  How many are even close to one another, let alone identical?  As a player and DM I would be really upset with WotC if they tried to pull something like that.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Why are you insisting that a meta-game/narrative concept, namely the name or label of a cleric class domain, has any actual meaning in the fiction? That may be one of the strangest arguments I have ever heard from someone who purportedly hates metagame concepts in their game.



There is absolutely nothing metagame about an in-fiction domain called order meaning order, and an in-fiction domain called command meaning command.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> There is absolutely nothing metagame about an in-fiction domain called order meaning order, and an in-fiction domain called command meaning command.




Are you defining his setting?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Are you defining his setting?



I'm not.  I'm refuting his claim that it is metagame in MY game.  It's also not metagame in the PHB.  If he wants to home brew his game to give domains that aren't domains, he can do that.  Here's what he said by the way.

"Why are you insisting that a meta-game/narrative concept, namely the name or label of a cleric class domain, has any actual meaning in the fiction? That may be one of the strangest arguments I have ever heard _from someone who purportedly hates metagame concepts *in* *their game*."_


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I'm not.  I'm refuting his claim that it is metagame in MY game.  It's also not metagame in the PHB.  If he wants to home brew his game to give domains that aren't domains, he can do that.  Here's what he said by the way.
> 
> "Why are you insisting that a meta-game/narrative concept, namely the name or label of a cleric class domain, has any actual meaning in the fiction? That may be one of the strangest arguments I have ever heard _from someone who purportedly hates metagame concepts *in* *their game*."_




Then why are you telling him what the Order Domain is in his setting?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Then why are you telling him what the Order Domain is in his setting?



I didn't, and I was clear about that.  He moved the goal posts with his response to me.  If he wants to intrude into a conversation, he can't move the goal posts like that.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I didn't, and I was clear about that.  He moved the goal posts with his response to me.  If he wants to intrude into a conversation, he can't move the goal posts like that.




So why are you telling him what the Command Domain is in his setting?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> So why are you telling him what the Command Domain is in his setting?



Show me where I said what it was in his setting?  I told him it was crappy design.  He can use crappy design in his game if he wants.  I really don't care.  I told him he was moving the goal posts.  He was.  Where did I say what it was in his game?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Show me where I said what it was in his setting?  I told him it was crappy design.  He can use crappy design in his game if he wants.  I really don't care.  I told him he was moving the goal posts.  He was.  Where did I say what it was in his game?




Here



Maxperson said:


> The post I was responding to says order is now called command.  That means order no longer exists.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Here



That wasn't his post.  The post I was responding to, that he intruded on, was by @prabe.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> That wasn't his post.  The post I was responding to, that he intruded on, was by @prabe.




Doesn't matter what his post was.  You said that and it's meaning is clear.


----------



## prabe (Feb 16, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> No.  How are order and command the same?  They aren't.  By changing the fluff, it changes how the domain works in the world.  A god who would have the order domain, might not offer the command domain.  It doesn't matter if the spells are the same.




The "order" in the Order Domain is about social order, not anything larger than that;  one might say its about ordering people around (look at what it does). I changed the name to one that I thought better reflected the character of the domain as written (and replaced references to "Order" with "Command"). I do not see how I could be said to have changed how the domain works in-game, and I wouldn't call it anything but the lightest touch as homebrew.


----------



## prabe (Feb 16, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> You're moving the goal posts.  The post I was responding to says order is now called command.  That means order no longer exists.  If you are now moving the goal posts and you have two different domains with identical spells, well, that really crappy design.
> 
> Look at the domains in 5e.  How many are even close to one another, let alone identical?  As a player and DM I would be really upset with WotC if they tried to pull something like that.




More accurately, the Order Domain has never existed in my setting. The Command Domain exists there.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Doesn't matter what his post was.  You said that and it's meaning is clear.



Yep.  You CLEARLY didn't get it.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 16, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Yep.  You CLEARLY didn't get it.




Maybe if you would use the correct words it would have been clear to the rest of us instead of just yourself...


----------



## trentonjoe (Feb 16, 2020)

These threads are fascinating to me. The game is so flexible that you can have people who have such wildly different attitudes on how the game should be played.

With that being said, I am currently playing a shaman of the Great Snow Leopard from a barbarian tribe.   He’s a barbarian 1/bard 2/ sorcerer 1/ warlock 1. I have a 13 or 14 in every stat but intelligence. He’s super fun, and I reskin everything. Heck, I am a long tooth shifter mechanically but just say that I am human and all the racial abilities are a product of my connection to the snow leopard.

I suspect this character would be welcome and encouraged in some games but given a big fat NO in others. To each his/her own!


----------



## Charlaquin (Feb 16, 2020)

Ogre Mage said:


> I encountered this problem more in previous editions of D&D.  Paladins tended to be the worst offenders, to the point where their dogmatic ideals and policing of other characters actions caused a lot of inter-group tension.  Fortunately, 5E has diversified paladins a great deal via subclasses so that has not been an issue in any of my 5E games.
> 
> Of the 5E PHB subclasses, the warlock fiend pact seems like the one most likely to raise the "character is the class" problem.  There are certainly reasons why a good-aligned character might be in a pact with a fiend and it could make for a rich (if difficult) role-playing experience.  But that might not be obvious to less experienced players, who would assume you should be playing an evil character to make a pact with a fiend.



In my experience, most new players who are attracted to the warlock class are interested in playing an anti-hero, rather than an evil character. They want to emulate characters like Ghost Rider or Spawn who are stuck in a contract with some evil entity but attempt to put an evil power to the most good use they can.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 16, 2020)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> You think the Emerald Enclave HQ is being staffed solely by temp workers and interns?
> 
> Which classes to are vanilla and which aren't? Because the PHB draws no such distinction.




Well, vanilla classes are not quite defined. The basic four are part of it, with their subclasses as in the basic rules, at least i would say that. On top of that? Ask a Grognard and he would answer: why do you need more? Ask someone who grew int othe game with 3e + and he would say: each class and subclass in the PHB.

Still, vanilla is normally not defined so much by fluff. What is vanilla these days anywhere? 2e greyhawk is kind of vanilla, 2e FR eventually also. Dragonlance? It looks vanilla but i would say it is not, to much extra special rules.

Some classes require more backstory fluff than others:

Example: 
a cleric can be basically played without church and does work perfectly without deities, purely following a principle (good/ light / evil etc.)

A druid normally requires druid circles, forests etc. etc. Still e.g. Darksun tied them to elemental specialities in the landscape e.g. a (water-) oasis.

A fighter is most universal (except EK).

A rogue comes second to it (except AT). 

A mage reuires magic to exist in your game world. 

A sorcerer? According to PHB there has to be either wild magic or dragons present in the campaign world.

Whereas as pointed out a cleric does need no "patron", a Warlock does need one.
Bang, you need some other planes or other mystic thing going on in your campaign so a lock does function.

Ok let us go on, Ranger, hm would basically work on its own. 

Paladin hm eventually yes but it is tied to some ethics or codex so such things must be there. Would not make much sense in a very uncivilised setting. 

Barbarian? That is also a cultural thing somehow, it requires some tribal or primal culture otherwise it is a lot of shoehorning. You do not believe me? Imagine a modern setting and try to define a meaningful barbarian.

Monk requires order, religious/philosophical  organisation, so no except some hermit or so.

A bard? Cultural and best high culture required, at least plus it needs magic. 

So, i hope i did not forget anything.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 16, 2020)

trentonjoe said:


> These threads are fascinating to me. The game is so flexible that you can have people who have such wildly different attitudes on how the game should be played.
> 
> with that being said, I am currently playing a barbarian shaman to the great snow leopard. He’s a barbarian 1/bard2/sorcerer 1/ warlock 1. I have a 13 or 14 in every stat but intelligence. He’s super fun And i reskin everything. Heck, I am a long tooth shifter mechanically but just say I am human an all the race abilities are a product of my connection to the snow leopard.




Most here have no attitude how "the game should be played". It is looking like that sometimes when the discussion gets heated up but:

1. There is no badwrongfun.
2. Everybody has his own preferences.

Most explain why they have these and those preferences in their game, and why they like it.
You can do Gestalt characters with 5e like in your example, the rules are absolutely flexible enough for that. But if you like such kind of classless systems, maybe try out DSA (The black eye) i bet you like it. I do.


----------



## NotAYakk (Feb 16, 2020)

MichaelSomething said:


> If my character isn't my class, what's the point of playing a Bard if I can't sing a musical number during the game?



What stops you from singing a musical number?


> If my character isn't my class, can I be a multi class Bard/Fighter and call myself a Warlord?



Yes?  Others might be confused because "Warlord" usually refers to the leader of an army.

You could also call yourself "kermit".


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 16, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Yes. There is enough complexity within the setting already, without you trying to play something that isn't covered yet. There's no benefit to allowing your concept into the setting. All it does is dilute our knowledge about how the world works, so that now we know less than we did before.



With this one clear example we can safely say that our two gaming styles are world's apart.  As a player and GM I allow and expect to be able to use any fluff I want as long as the end result is that there crunch I am using is something already in a book.

I have played swashbuckling pirates who were mechanically monks.  I have played devil's possessing a statue using rules for warforged artificers.  I have Tarzan-like natives who were monks.  I have played a wolf turned  sentient as a shape hanging druid.

All of these concepts fit in "the world" just fine.  Maybe not in your game, but they do in ours.


----------



## Charlaquin (Feb 16, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> With this one clear example we can safely say that our two gaming styles are world's apart.  As a player and GM I allow and expect to be able to use any fluff I want as long as the end result is that there crunch I am using is something already in a book.



I think there’s a happy medium somewhere between this and what Saelorn is suggesting. Personally, I am happy to allow reskinning, but I wouldn’t want to hand my players free reign to use any fluff they want as long as the mechanics match something in the book. Your character should still make sense within the setting, and I’m willing to be flexible, but let’s work together to find something that satisfies what you want to play in a way that fits into the setting’s lore.


----------



## prabe (Feb 16, 2020)

Charlaquin said:


> I think there’s a happy medium somewhere between this and what Saelorn is suggesting. Personally, I am happy to allow reskinning, but I wouldn’t want to hand my players free reign to use any fluff they want as long as the mechanics match something in the book. Your character should still make sense within the setting, and I’m willing to be flexible, but let’s work together to find something that satisfies what you want to play in a way that fits into the setting’s lore.




I think I'm probably closer to this than to @Sabathius42 in most ways. I have some pretty strong ideas for the setting, and I want characters that don't contradict those, and I usually have something in mind for at least the start of the campaign, and I want characters that at least can fit in with those. If someone wants something completely re-fluffed/reskinned, I'm willing to make an effort, but I don't make any promises. That (I hope obviously) doesn't make what @Sabathius42 is doing wrong, but it doesn't make what I think @Saelorn or @Maxperson are describing wrong, either.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 16, 2020)

prabe said:


> I think I'm probably closer to this than to @Sabathius42 in most ways. I have some pretty strong ideas for the setting, and I want characters that don't contradict those, and I usually have something in mind for at least the start of the campaign, and I want characters that at least can fit in with those. If someone wants something completely re-fluffed/reskinned, I'm willing to make an effort, but I don't make any promises. That (I hope obviously) doesn't make what @Sabathius42 is doing wrong, but it doesn't make what I think @Saelorn or @Maxperson are describing wrong, either.



So first, I don't think anyone here is wrong.  Whether you go by the book, use house rules, home brew, reflavor or a combination of those things, as long as the group is having fun it's all good.

Second, when I'm here, unless I'm explicitly saying what it is that I do in my game, don't assume it's what I do in my game.  Most discussions here are about the the game in general, which means as written, so I discuss what I view the rules to be and mean.  As an example, some time ago there was a discussion about what happens to a druid who gets hit by a disintegrate while wildshaped and hits 0 hit points.  I argued(correctly) that the specific rule in disintegrate that dusts a creature who hits 0 triggers and turns the druid to dust, even if that druid has more hit points waiting in his true form.  That is RAW.  However, that is not what I would do to a druid in my game.  I would go with what later was verified by Crawford to be the RAI of the game and allow the druid to revert first.  

In my game re-flavoring to small degrees is in player control.  I don't care if an ice themed PC wants Coldball and Cold Hands, though there are mechanics tied to that as well, or if they want their magic missiles to look like leering skulls.  They can make those decisions, but they do have to let me know in advance what they are going to do.  More major re-flavoring takes my approval, but will often happen.  I try to accommodate reasonable requests, unless they will be disruptive to the game in some way.


----------



## prabe (Feb 16, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> So first, I don't think anyone here is wrong.  Whether you go by the book, use house rules, home brew, reflavor or a combination of those things, as long as the group is having fun it's all good.
> 
> Second, when I'm here, unless I'm explicitly saying what it is that I do in my game, don't assume it's what I do in my game.  Most discussions here are about the the game in general, which means as written, so I discuss what I view the rules to be and mean.




Fair enough. Apologies if I misunderstood.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 16, 2020)

prabe said:


> I think I'm probably closer to this than to @Sabathius42 in most ways. I have some pretty strong ideas for the setting, and I want characters that don't contradict those, and I usually have something in mind for at least the start of the campaign, and I want characters that at least can fit in with those. If someone wants something completely re-fluffed/reskinned, I'm willing to make an effort, but I don't make any promises. That (I hope obviously) doesn't make what @Sabathius42 is doing wrong, but it doesn't make what I think @Saelorn or @Maxperson are describing wrong, either.



I subscribe to "play the way you want" pretty strongly, however, I do say that there is always a solid "As long as the GM says it's OK" that is implied.

In my current campaign players can't be Gnomes for story purposes, but they could be Gnomes (as in using the rules for gnomes in the PHB to make their character) if they want.  They would just have to come up with an alternate story for their PC.

Could be a brownie  or some other fey or a halfling with a weird magical backstory, or anything else they can think of.

There are setting expectations sure , but they are only as strict as necessary because I view the PCs as "the strange band that bucks the trend".


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Feb 16, 2020)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> You think the Emerald Enclave HQ is being staffed solely by temp workers and interns?




I think the entire Waterdeep situation in Faerun is silly. I don't use it.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 16, 2020)

prabe said:


> So fluff is the same as rules? Even if nothing changes about how something plays, mechanically?




Yes.

All that stuff that people call 'fluff' is, actually, rules.

If you remove that from the game it ends up being a very lengthy and poorly thought out cooperative combat game.

A board game would make for a much better implementation of such a game.


----------



## prabe (Feb 16, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> All that stuff that people call 'fluff' is, actually, rules.
> 
> If you remove that from the game it ends up being a very lengthy and poorly thought out cooperative combat game.
> 
> A board game would make for a much better implementation of such a game.




I'll ask you a question I asked someone else who seemed to be taking a similar position, then:

I allow the Order Domain in my setting/campaigns, but I call it the Command Domain, because I think that better reflects what it does. I probably changed the names of the Domain abilities here and there to reflect the domain name I'm using. It's the only version of this Domain I've ever allowed in this setting.

Am I understanding you to be saying that I have substantially altered the domain, here? All I've done is change the name/s, what I would call "fluff." It seems to me that you're calling the name of something is a rule, whereas I think of it as, well, a name for a rule, and the rule is the same with a different name (that which we call a rose etc etc).


----------



## Don Durito (Feb 16, 2020)

prabe said:


> I'll ask you a question I asked someone else who seemed to be taking a similar position, then:
> 
> I allow the Order Domain in my setting/campaigns, but I call it the Command Domain, because I think that better reflects what it does. I probably changed the names of the Domain abilities here and there to reflect the domain name I'm using. It's the only version of this Domain I've ever allowed in this setting.
> 
> Am I understanding you to be saying that I have substantially altered the domain, here? All I've done is change the name/s, what I would call "fluff." It seems to me that you're calling the name of something is a rule, whereas I think of it as, well, a name for a rule, and the rule is the same with a different name (that which we call a rose etc etc).



I'm sympathetic to the basic point others are making in this thread* but this seems such an edge case.

Interestingly in 13th Age every cleric domain explicitly has two alternative names.  Eg "Love" or "Beauty", "Justice or Vengeance", etc.

*And I think the fluff/crunch distinction is only really meaningful when you have systems which are explicity desgined openly so they can be "skinned" (not "reskinned" - which implies you had to remove a layer before putting something new on.)


----------



## prabe (Feb 16, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> I'm sympathetic to the basic point others are making in this thread* but this seems such an edge case.
> 
> Interestingly in 13th Age every cleric domain explicitly has two alternative names.  Eg "Love" or "Beauty", "Justice or Vengeance", etc.
> 
> *And I think the fluff/crunch distinction is only really meaningful when you have systems which are explicity desgined openly so they can be "skinned" (not "reskinned" - which implies you had to remove a layer before putting something new on.)




Seems to me to be exactly at the core of the dispute. My feeling is the Domain is the same, and that my name for it actually fits what it does *better* than their name. There seem to be others who think I've radically altered the Domain into something entirely different, just by renaming it. It's a convenient example for me to bring up, because it's literally exactly what I did.


----------



## nharwell (Feb 16, 2020)

Coroc said:


> Well, vanilla classes are not quite defined. The basic four are part of it, with their subclasses as in the basic rules, at least i would say that. On top of that? Ask a Grognard and he would answer: why do you need more? Ask someone who grew int othe game with 3e + and he would say: each class and subclass in the PHB.
> 
> Still, vanilla is normally not defined so much by fluff. What is vanilla these days anywhere? 2e greyhawk is kind of vanilla, 2e FR eventually also. Dragonlance? It looks vanilla but i would say it is not, to much extra special rules.
> 
> ...





Well, I'm not sure if I'm a Grognard or not - I've been playing D&D since LBB but I certainly won't pretend to speak for others.  I do agree with your suggestion the we ("grognards", if I may) would say that the original game played such that you could define your character without specific subclasses or with particular 'fluff'. But we did constantly invent new classes, modify existing classes/races, etc, to allow playing many ideas and concepts.  I personally can't think of anything then that defined 'vanilla' classes vs tightly constrained (?) classes like you are doing - and definitely not in 5e. I have no problem with it - I think it's a reasonable approach in your own game. But to suggest that it's the default or official rules frankly baffles me.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 17, 2020)

prabe said:


> I'll ask you a question I asked someone else who seemed to be taking a similar position, then:
> 
> I allow the Order Domain in my setting/campaigns, but I call it the Command Domain, because I think that better reflects what it does. I probably changed the names of the Domain abilities here and there to reflect the domain name I'm using. It's the only version of this Domain I've ever allowed in this setting.
> 
> Am I understanding you to be saying that I have substantially altered the domain, here? All I've done is change the name/s, what I would call "fluff." It seems to me that you're calling the name of something is a rule, whereas I think of it as, well, a name for a rule, and the rule is the same with a different name (that which we call a rose etc etc).




You've made a change to the rules, yes.

There is nothing wrong with doing that.

Without the 'fluff' as people call it there is no game. It's just a loose collection of math formulas.

A board game can have a tacked on theme that doesn't matter. An RPG cannot. The theme is the game. 

All the parts of the class descriptions are rules. Class has a large impact on the identity of a character. I think people who throw that out are missing out and I would not mesh well with a game like that.


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> You've made a change to the rules, yes.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with doing that.
> 
> ...




That's clear enough, and a place where we differ.


----------



## Greg K (Feb 17, 2020)

prabe said:


> I'll ask you a question I asked someone else who seemed to be taking a similar position, then:
> 
> I allow the Order Domain in my setting/campaigns, but I call it the Command Domain, because I think that better reflects what it does. I probably changed the names of the Domain abilities here and there to reflect the domain name I'm using. It's the only version of this Domain I've ever allowed in this setting.
> 
> Am I understanding you to be saying that I have substantially altered the domain, here? All I've done is change the name/s, what I would call "fluff." It seems to me that you're calling the name of something is a rule, whereas I think of it as, well, a name for a rule, and the rule is the same with a different name (that which we call a rose etc etc).



Substantial, perhaps not. However, in my opinion, you still have made  a setting rule (if it is not intended to be used in every setting/campaign ) as have you made a change from what is in the rule book and, thus, would need to inform players of such as change so people are on the same page.


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2020)

Greg K said:


> Substantial, perhaps not. However, in my opinion, you still have made  a setting rule (if it is not intended to be used in every setting/campaign as have you made a change from what is in the rule book and, thus, would need to inform players of such as change so people are on the same page.




Oh, no question about that. It's listed in the documentation that's available as a handout or as a link to a Google Drive folder. In fact, since I imported it when it was UA, It typed it up and added it to the other homebrew/third-party Domains I use.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 17, 2020)

Refluffing/reskinning is just part of the game, both the DMG and Eberron: Rising from the Last War mention utilising it in several spots.


----------



## Charlaquin (Feb 17, 2020)

I remember at one point in one of the DNDBeyond YouTube videos where Todd Kenrik interviews Jeremy Crawford (might have been one of the early Artificer UA videos? I’m not sure), Todd brought up how much he appreciated that the text explicitly said, “you decide how [whatever class feature they were talking about] looks,” and Jeremy commented that the design intent is that players can always describe those things however they want. He went on to say that he recognized that they were not as explicit about that as they should have been in the Player’s Handbook and a lot of descriptions that were meant as thematic examples are taken by many groups as hard rules, and so they are now making a conscious effort to provide multiple examples of possible descriptions, and to explicitly state that the player can describe things any way they want.

So, I guess what I’m saying is, the Order Domain may indeed be FAW (fluff as written), the Command Domain is absolutely permitted by FAI (fluff as intended).


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2020)

Gonna stick a couple of quotes together.



Jd Smith1 said:


> No, it doesn't.






Jd Smith1 said:


> I think the entire Waterdeep situation in Faerun is silly. I don't use it.




Fair enough, but your opinion here is countered by pesky things like facts.  Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.  Here is a clear example of druids that hang out in a major city. 



> Those type of Paladins are pretty lame, IMO; its just a munchkin method to get abilities without the obligation of alignment. But there's nothing to prevent the GM from whipping up and enforcing codes of conduct .
> 
> A Ranger should be someone who by preference operates in the environment of his specialty, same as a Druid.
> 
> A sorcerer is just a vanilla class, so you wouldn't expect anything from that player.




Again, just because you don't like it doesn't mean anything.  You keep trying to set out your opinion as fact and your person preferences as fact.  These "facts" are easily countered by actual facts, as in, things that are actually in the game.  It does make the discussion rather pointless if you're actually just going to ignore any elements of the game that counter your points.



Maxperson said:


> There is absolutely nothing metagame about an in-fiction domain called order meaning order, and an in-fiction domain called command meaning command.




However, the idea that there is something in fiction called a domain of any name is a completely meta-gaming construct.  There is nothing in the rules which states that domains are actual things in the game world.  You aren't a cleric of a domain - you are a cleric of a deity or a concept and that deity or concept grants you access to a list that is compiled under a particular heading.  Those headings and those lists are entirely game constructs and have no actual existence in game fiction.  They could, I suppose, but, there's nothing there that says that they should..


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 17, 2020)

Hussar said:


> However, the idea that there is something in fiction called a domain of any name is a completely meta-gaming construct.




This is utterly false.  You might as well argue that there's nothing in fiction called Fireball.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> This is utterly false.  You might as well argue that there's nothing in fiction called Fireball.




You mean Meligan's Sphere of Conflagration?  

But, again, no.  Domain has no actual existence in the game world.  It's simply a game term for extra spells on a given cleric's spell list.  Which, itself, is a meta-game collection of themed effects.  There is no in game existence of "cleric spells".  After all, virtually no cleric spells are specific to clerics.  They are repeated by other classes.  

Now, you can play these as having real in game world existence, if you prefer an "Order of the Stick" fourth wall breaking style world.  But, there are exactly zero rules which state that you have to.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 17, 2020)

Hussar said:


> You mean Meligan's Sphere of Conflagration?
> 
> But, again, no.  Domain has no actual existence in the game world.




Prove your claim.  Show me where it says that they don't have game world existence.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Feb 17, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Fair enough, but your opinion here is countered by pesky things like facts.  Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.  Here is a clear example of druids that hang out in a major city.




Not in my Sword Coast.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 17, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Prove your claim.  Show me where it says that they don't have game world existence.



Or better yet, prove to us that domain names have an in-game world existence.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 17, 2020)

You know, I would be more sympathetic to this fluff=mechanics if we were talking about a game with a singular, defined setting like Deadlands or Eclipse Phase.

But this is D&D. There are dozens of settings, most of which have enough differences between each other for the default fluff presented in the PHB and the splats to not be one size fits all.

But apparently my Vadalis Monarch who is of the Druid class but couldn't give a single darn about living in harmony with nature isn't valid.


----------



## Charlaquin (Feb 17, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Prove your claim.  Show me where it says that they don't have game world existence.



The burden of proof isn’t really on @Hussar here, because they’re not making a positive claim. They are challenging the positive claim that the concepts of domains exist in the game world.

My 2 cents: the game intentionally leaves it up to the DM to decide if Domains (or Bard Colleges, or Druid Circles, or whatever) are actual things in the setting or not.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 17, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Not in my Sword Coast.



I know #InMyEberron is a thing, and similar sentiments most likely exist for all the settings, but this just seems petty.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 17, 2020)

Charlaquin said:


> The burden of proof isn’t really on @Hussar here, because they’re not making a positive claim. They are challenging the positive claim that the concepts of domains exist in the game world.
> 
> My 2 cents: the game intentionally leaves it up to the DM to decide if Domains (or Bard Colleges, or Druid Circles, or whatever) are actual things in the setting or not.



The PHB uses the term domains and applies them to portfolios for deities.  Nothing there implies that it's a game term, or that any of those are game terms.  That also follows prior editions where they were in-fiction terms.  If @Hussar is going to claim that somehow the strong implication in 5e, which follows the in-fiction state of the term domain in prior editions is somehow changed, he needs to show proof.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 17, 2020)

From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Page 18:

"The typical cleric is an ordained servant of a particular god *and chooses a divine domain *associated with that diety."

Not the player picks the domain.  The Cleric chooses the domain.  Domain is clearly an in-fiction thing.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 17, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Not in my Sword Coast.



Quite. You are free to rule how you like in your own setting. But that doesn't mean people who rule otherwise are _wrong_.


Charlaquin said:


> My 2 cents: the game intentionally leaves it up to the DM to decide if Domains (or Bard Colleges, or Druid Circles, or whatever) are actual things in the setting or not.



Exactly. (athough as an aside, I think there might be some confusion over the meaning of the word "college" - it does not necessarily refer to a physical building).

But, as I said earlier:


> Neither interpretation is right or wrong, although there are plenty of people here who will never accept that.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 17, 2020)

nharwell said:


> Well, I'm not sure if I'm a Grognard or not - I've been playing D&D since LBB but I certainly won't pretend to speak for others.  I do agree with your suggestion the we ("grognards", if I may) would say that the original game played such that you could define your character without specific subclasses or with particular 'fluff'. But we did constantly invent new classes, modify existing classes/races, etc, to allow playing many ideas and concepts.  I personally can't think of anything then that defined 'vanilla' classes vs tightly constrained (?) classes like you are doing - and definitely not in 5e. I have no problem with it - I think it's a reasonable approach in your own game. But to suggest that it's the default or official rules frankly baffles me.




I did not suggest that these are official or even intended rules. What I tried to point out is that vanilla - something is vague. Across the editions some settings are vanilla some are not, simply because newer editions included things e.g. like drow as a PC class self evident whereas the prominence of drow as mob in 2e FR and the 2e FR underdark as such made the setting different from totally vanilla back then (also the dead magic and wild magic zones, the weave and the mythals but they were not declared standard later on) .

What I also tried to do with my posting, was to show that some classes require more in-game context than others.

Both facts are pretty generic, no matter if you are grognard  or what your individual playstyle is.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 17, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Page 18:
> 
> "The typical cleric is an ordained servant of a particular god *and chooses a divine domain *associated with that diety."
> 
> Not the player picks the domain.  The Cleric chooses the domain.  Domain is clearly an in-fiction thing.



I should point out that the phrase you just quoted says "typical cleric" not "all clerics". So a PC cleric can, RAW, be atypical and do whatever they please.

But if you rule that "Domain" is a thing that exists in your setting, it gives the DM more reason to change the names of the domain, if, say there setting doesn't include any gods (powers/philosophies) associated with X, but does have Y, where Y would also suit the powers granted by X.

If domain isn't a thing, then you just choose based on which powers best suit your concept, such as using the Tempest domain to model powers granted by a Greater Mark of the Storm, as suggested in the Wayfinders Guide.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 17, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Not in my Sword Coast.




Just get a bit intuitive and creative about it. In my greyhawk homebrew I use the blue box city map. There is a druid stone circle right beneath one of the southern gates. Although my settings tech level is quasi renaissance and I prefer nature cleric for the PCs they also might have chosen druid.
The stone circle might have been there before the city has been founded. In the official material it suggests that the circle is an area where you cannot be scryd or be spied upon by any magical means, so perfect for meetings with secret topics. I use that. I also use it as an area to fight out trial by combat scenes.
It is the perimeter for duels.

If you do not want druids in your (FR) setting at all, that is totally ok, then I misinterpreted your post. But if you have got them, there is no reason why they only should exist in very secluded areas. It is ok to rule that they shun (big) cities, but also even a garden in the center of the town which is left a bit more natural as their living place is also fine imho.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 17, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Page 18:
> 
> "The typical cleric is an ordained servant of a particular god *and chooses a divine domain *associated with that diety."
> 
> *Not the player picks the domain. * The Cleric chooses the domain.  Domain is clearly an in-fiction thing.



Actually, yes, if you read a little bit further in the same section: 


> Talk with your DM about the divine options available in your campaign, whether they're gods, pantheons, philosophies, or cosmic forces. Whatever being or thing *your cleric* ends up serving, *choose a Divine Domain that is appropriate for it,* and if it doesn’t have a holy symbol, work with your DM to design one.
> 
> The cleric's class features often refer to your deity. If you are devoted to a pantheon, cosmic force, or philosophy, your cleric features still work for you as written. Think of the references to a god as references to the divine thing you serve that gives you your magic.



Because as you see, Max, the language of the text blurs "you the player" and "you the character," using both interchangeably.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 17, 2020)

FrogReaver said:


> Right but the general reaction to ban Paladin Warlock is a reaction to perceived munchkinism.  No amount of ironing out the lore and reasoning for such a combination is going to make it more acceptable to DM's that ban it for that reason.  That is, they believe the Paladin Warlock multiclass is too powerful and so they justify the limitation of it by appealing to fluff.




Sure, but that's a GM opinion in total disregard to if the player actually picked it for that reason, if the player actually successfully made a powerful build, or if they just made something they thought was cool and fit the sorry in their head that kind of works and that they did not optimize for anything particular (aka power gaming). So a GM making a blanket ban, is punishing all players even when the reasons are not true at all. To me blankets bans are bad jerk reactions that often lead to tables becoming toxic. I have had to leave a few because of this mentality. Its better to work characters out between the GM and player before bringing them to table (why I am a fan of session 0 planning) and if a player starts power gaming talk to that player about power gaming. Also, munchkinism is not always power gaming and often leads to crap designs that are interesting in concept and story but don't function well. _To be honest I see more players abandoning bad munchins that don't work then succeeding, with the exception of 1 level dips into fighter or cleric for plate armor.  As a result of that I actually cheer on muchikins at my table as a sign of players leaning to role-playing over power-gaming_. *Most of the power gamers I know tend to stick with rogues and bards* because of insane skills between expertise and Jack of all trides (not bad at anything they care about).  Rogues insane damage doesn't  burn any resource. Bards have some pretty powerful spells and they can give them selves bardic inspiration so they don't have to bother with failing things. 

The Paladin / Warlock build for example, is not that powerful unless our a GM that *loves* whittling your parties resources down with a ton of short combats in the same adventure day. If your a GM who typically does one combat per adventure day the Paladin / Warlock is actually far weaker than a pure paladin. When you see players pull out monks, battlemasters, and rogue builds it likely a reaction to players getting tired of always being out of resources so they are adapting to the GMs play style. *Why shouldn't they?* If they are tied of something and want to lighten the load to have more fun at the table with the same group... that seems like a natural chain of events. If the GM doesn't like it then he should adapt to include more long rests the way the players adapted to short classes and sub-classes.


----------



## Beleriphon (Feb 17, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> There is something very annoying and basically...inelegant, about the idea of a setting that has a Samurai social class, and a samurai subclass, but these don't sync up in anyway.  But at the same time it would seem wrong to insist someone play the subclass when a battlemaster can fulfill the concept just as well (and of course if a knight can be a paladin then why not a Samurai?).




That's becasue anything attempting to model a Japanese inspired social class would have a samurai as a title and say bushi (ie. a warrior) as a class. So you can have a samurai bushi, or a samurai sorcerer, or whatever.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 17, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Actually, yes, if you read a little bit further in the same section:
> Because as you see, Max, the language of the text blurs "you the player" and "you the character," using both interchangeably.



Then you have no basis to argue that it's entirely metagame.  Besides, the interchangability is because the cleric itself is just words on a paper.  The player has to choose on behalf of the in-fiction PC what his in-fiction domain is.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 17, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I should point out that the phrase you just quoted says "typical cleric" not "all clerics". So a PC cleric can, RAW, be atypical and do whatever they please.
> 
> But if you rule that "Domain" is a thing that exists in your setting, it gives the DM more reason to change the names of the domain, if, say there setting doesn't include any gods (powers/philosophies) associated with X, but does have Y, where Y would also suit the powers granted by X.




Regardless of whether or not the cleric chooses a god, it's clear that clerics themselves choose domains.  Gods don't own domains.  They are just able grant access to them, so clerics who gain their in-fiction domains other ways, still gain an in-fiction domain.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 17, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Then you have no basis to argue that it's entirely metagame. Besides, the interchangability is because the cleric itself is just words on a paper.  The player has to choose on behalf of the in-fiction PC what his in-fiction domain is.



You are muddling three separate arguments here, Max.



Maxperson said:


> Regardless of whether or not the cleric chooses a god, it's clear that clerics themselves choose domains.  Gods don't own domains.  They are just able grant access to them, so clerics who gain their in-fiction domains other ways, still gain an in-fiction domain.



How is it clear, Max? You had to dig through a side bar in Xanathar's Guide to Everything directed to players who choose atypical deities (e.g., concepts, entire pantheons, etc.) for the only piece of supporting evidence you could cite, and even then it's not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

So are you honestly arguing that in the fiction of D&D that Max the Cleric says to themselves that "I pick the 'Light Domain' as part of my clerical veneration of Pelor"? IMHO, it seems fairly clear that the names of domains exist for the sake of the players' understanding rather than having any actual in-fiction reality.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 17, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Page 18:
> 
> "The typical cleric is an ordained servant of a particular god *and chooses a divine domain *associated with that diety."
> 
> Not the player picks the domain.  The Cleric chooses the domain.  Domain is clearly an in-fiction thing.



DMG 150:  Adamantine Armor

This suit of armor is reinforced with Adamantine, one of the hardest substances in existence.  While you're wearing it, any critical hit against you becomes a normal hit.

Are you saying this passage applies to me, Sabathius42, and not my character?  Is it possible the books interchange reference to player choice and character choice inconsistently?


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 17, 2020)

Also, ruminating on this further, does this mean that the deity has no say in the domain of the cleric, since the wording indicates that the cleric is the actual agent for selecting the domain and not the deity?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 17, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Also, ruminating on this further, does this mean that the deity has no say in the domain of the cleric, since the wording indicates that the cleric is the actual agent for selecting the domain and not the deity?



It also says that the cleric chooses from the domains offered by the deity, so the deity would have say.  Deity says, you can pick from X, Y and Z.


----------



## mrpopstar (Feb 17, 2020)

Fauchard1520 said:


> You guys have heard the phrase "your class is not your character," right? the idea is that you don’t have to be an baby-eating psychopath just because your sorcerer has the Abyssal bloodline. You don’t have to be a purehearted hero just because you know your way around a smite evil.
> 
> I'm curious if this is a real problem that people have encountered, or if it's just a good soundbite. Have you ever encountered a GM or another player who told you that you were "playing your class wrong?" I may just be lucky in my groups, but I haven't ever encountered that mess out in the wild.
> 
> *Comic for illustrative purposes.*



I have managed players who hold expectations of class contribution. For example, it is expected that clerics have access to healing magic. When the player of a cleric fails to deliver on that expectation when healing magic is needed, I might anticipate another player's frustrated disappointment resulting in criticism.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 17, 2020)

Fauchard1520 said:


> You guys have heard the phrase "your class is not your character," right?




Honestly... never heard it. But I take your meaning!



Fauchard1520 said:


> I'm curious if this is a real problem that people have encountered, or if it's just a good soundbite. Have you ever encountered a GM or another player who told you that you were "playing your class wrong?"




I've seen it a few times, but almost exclusively with paladins. And far more in earlier editions, when there actually was a "right way" to paladin (e.g. you had to play with the morals and ethics of Superman or Captain America or lose your status) and there were consequences for failing to do so (you are now a fighter who takes extra xp to level up!). 

I do think that with, for instance, a cleric of a god, the DM should inform the player as to the expectations of the god empowering that pc, and I don't have an issue with a setting in which the gods are willing and able to penalize misbehavior. But that stuff should be made clear before the game starts rather than after a pc has already invested a dozen sessions and four levels into the character and class.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 17, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> The PHB uses the term domains and applies them to portfolios for deities.  Nothing there implies that it's a game term, or that any of those are game terms.  That also follows prior editions where they were in-fiction terms.  If @Hussar is going to claim that somehow the strong implication in 5e, which follows the in-fiction state of the term domain in prior editions is somehow changed, he needs to show proof.




I've played since 2nd edition, and until reading this thread it never occurred to me to treat domains as in-fiction terms. At most (in a setting civilized enough to permit academic philosophy), maybe some NPC comparative theologians have devised terms for patterns they see as they study the similarities and differences between the deities, but I wouldn't expect such NPCs to use the same terminology as is found in the book (or the same terminology as each other, for that matter).

I can definitely see a campaign setting existing where domains are in-fiction terms, and have no problem with that (although until reading this thread I have would have assumed that such settings were parody settings that break the fourth wall for comedic effect--I see now that this assumption would have been incorrect). I've just never interpreted any of the rulebooks in any edition in a way that led to me to think that such was an expectation.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 17, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Yes.
> 
> All that stuff that people call 'fluff' is, actually, rules.
> 
> ...




Removing or changing the fluff that appears in the book doesn't mean running a game without _any_ fluff at all. For example, consider official settings like Dark Sun that are rich in fluff that differs from the fluff in the PHB.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 17, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> It also says that the cleric chooses from the domains offered by the deity, so the deity would have say.  Deity says, you can pick from X, Y and Z.



Actually, it says a _typical _cleric chooses from the domains offered by the deity. So a non-typical cleric, when offered X, Y and Z could choose Horned Viper.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 17, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Actually, it says a _typical _cleric chooses from the domains offered by the deity. So a non-typical cleric, when offered X, Y and Z could choose Horned Viper.



Why do you even bother to respond if you aren't going to say anything that pertains to the discussion?  @Aldarc was specifically talking about gods and clerics, so anything outside of that is irrelevant.  In the context of gods and clerics, gods have say in what domains the cleric gets.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 17, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Why do you even bother to respond if you aren't going to say anything that pertains to the discussion?  @Aldarc was specifically talking about gods and clerics, so anything outside of that is irrelevant.  In the context of gods and clerics, gods have say in what domains the cleric gets.



Not according to *your *quote. If you want to use a quote in an argument, you can't just use the bits you like, and ignore any words you don't like.

What I am doing is not to suggest that clerics should simply make up their own domains, I am showing that taking *your quote *literally leads to ridiculous conclusions.

Obviously, in a real game, the player and the DM work together when creating the character to choose what works for the setting.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 17, 2020)

Xetheral said:


> I've played since 2nd edition, and until reading this thread it never occurred to me to treat domains as in-fiction terms. At most (in a setting civilized enough to permit academic philosophy), maybe some NPC comparative theologians have devised terms for patterns they see as they study the similarities and differences between the deities, but I wouldn't expect such NPCs to use the same terminology as is found in the book (or the same terminology as each other, for that matter).
> 
> I can definitely see a campaign setting existing where domains are in-fiction terms, and have no problem with that (although until reading this thread I have would have assumed that such settings were parody settings that break the fourth wall for comedic effect--I see now that this assumption would have been incorrect). I've just never interpreted any of the rulebooks in any edition in a way that led to me to think that such was an expectation.



In 3e the Deities and Demigods went into detail about how when gods surrender their divinity, other gods have to take up the abandoned domains and so on.  They have clearly been in game things.  You don't have to play it that way, but the game assumes domains are in-fiction.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 17, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Not according to *your *quote. If you want to use a quote in an argument, you can't just use the bits you like, and ignore any words you don't like.




This is the quote I was responding to.  Respond in context or please don't respond to me.  I don't like wasting my time on things that are irrelevant.

"Also, ruminating on this further, does this mean that the deity has no say in the domain of the cleric, since the wording indicates that the cleric is the actual agent for selecting the domain and not the deity? "


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 17, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> This is the quote I was responding to.  Respond in context or please don't respond to me.  I don't like wasting my time on things that are irrelevant.
> 
> "Also, ruminating on this further, does this mean that the deity has no say in the domain of the cleric, since the wording indicates that the cleric is the actual agent for selecting the domain and not the deity? "



Did you, or did you not, say this:



> From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Page 18:
> 
> "The typical cleric is an ordained servant of a particular god *and chooses a divine domain *associated with that diety."
> 
> Not the player picks the domain.  The Cleric chooses the domain.  Domain is clearly an in-fiction thing.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 17, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Did you, or did you not, say this:



You're seriously trying to drag a different discussion into this?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 17, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> You're seriously trying to drag a different discussion into this?



It's not a different discussion, it's the same discussion, you just can't abide to be wrong, so you look for any feeble excuse to rule out anything that proves you wrong, don't you?

That quote actually contains an answer to the question you just raised:


> "Also, ruminating on this further, does this mean that the deity has no say in the domain of the cleric, since the wording indicates that the cleric is the actual agent for selecting the domain and not the deity? "



A cleric _typically_ chooses the domain, but a non-typical cleric could have a domain thrust upon them. See Jonah: chosen by god, given powers by god, but doesn't want them and tries to run away.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 17, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> It's not a different discussion, it's the same discussion, you just can't abide to be wrong, so you look for any feeble excuse to rule out anything that proves you wrong, don't you?
> 
> That quote actually contains an answer to the question you just raised:
> 
> A cleric _typically_ chooses the domain, but a non-typical cleric could have a domain thrust upon them. See Jonah: chosen by god, given powers by god, but doesn't want them and tries to run away.



Here.  Let me help you out since you're having trouble.  I said,

"From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Page 18:

"The typical cleric is an ordained servant of a particular god *and chooses a divine domain *associated with that diety."

Not the player picks the domain. The Cleric chooses the domain. Domain is clearly an in-fiction thing. "

Had you answered with your response above, it would have actually made sense conversationally.

However, Aldarc responded with,

""Also, ruminating on this further, does this mean that the deity has no say in the domain of the cleric, since the wording indicates that the cleric is the actual agent for selecting the domain and not the deity?"

Thereby limiting this portion of the discussion to clerics with deities.  At which point I responded with,

"It also says that the cleric chooses from the domains offered by the deity, so the deity would have say. Deity says, you can pick from X, Y and Z. "

Dealing with clerics with deities as appropriate.

Your response to me regarding the current tangent was completely inappropriate.  If you want to have this discussion, you need to quote, you know, the ACTUAL post you are responding to.  Do that and I will talk to you about it.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 17, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> In 3e the Deities and Demigods went into detail about how when gods surrender their divinity, other gods have to take up the abandoned domains and so on.  They have clearly been in game things.  You don't have to play it that way, but the game assumes domains are in-fiction.




Hmm. There is a single sentence on page 12 of that book that says "The other gods must take over the surrendered domains, and squabbling may result". I acknowledge that the sentence qualifies as evidence supporting the idea that in 3rd edition the designers may have viewed domains as an in-fiction concept. However, I don't find that evidence persuasive, for two reasons:

First, 



Spoiler: textual analysis spoilered for length



that sentence is directed to the DM to indicate that a turf war may result as other gods fight over the abdicated responsibilities. I think we can agree that there was no deliberate intent in that sentence to make an affirmative statement that domains are in-fiction concepts, because organizationally it would be a very strange place to provide that information? Accordingly, the question becomes whether the sentence's implication that domains are in-fiction reveals the author's expectation that domains are in-fiction concepts, or whether that's reading far too much into the language on the page.

I think it's the latter, because the usage of "domains" on page 12 appears to me to be a casual reference to the idea of divine responsibilities in general.  Evidence for my interpretation can be found on page 19, where the death (rather than abdication) of a god is discussed, and the discussion of transferred responsibilities uses the word "portfolio" rather than "domains". Accordingly, it appears to me that the author's intent of the sentence on page 12 would be fully realized if "domains" were replaced with "portfolio". I'm thus not willing to put much weight on the fact that the author happened to use the word "domains" on that page rather than "portfolio". Notably, the implication that domains are in-fiction disappears if the author had used "portfolio".



Second, the first paragraph on page 4 of Deities and Demigods makes it very clear that the_ entire book_ is meant to be a tool for the DM to help them figure out how they want to treat issues relating to the divine in their campaign, and there that there are no right or wrong answers. Accordingly, even if Deities and Demigods contained a direct statement to the effect that "domains are in-fiction concepts", I wouldn't be willing to assume the designers meant the statement to apply generally. I'm definitely not going to find an implication that domains are in-fiction concepts to be dispositive.

Regardless of any of the above, my original point was that I've played D&D since 2nd edition, and the interpretation of domains as in-fiction concepts _never even occurred to me_ until now. That fact undermines the idea that its obvious that domains are in-fiction concepts. Sure, maybe there is text out there that I've overlooked that demonstrates that the designers expect(ed) domains to be in-fiction concepts, but even if there is, I can't credit the idea that it was obvious if I was able to entirely miss it for over 25 years. (If a consensus were to emerge that it was obvious, and I somehow just missed it, then I might reconsider.)


----------



## Charlaquin (Feb 17, 2020)

ClaytonCross said:


> The Paladin / Warlock build for example, is not that powerful unless our a GM that *loves* whittling your parties resources down with a ton of short combats in the same adventure day. If your a GM who typically does one combat per adventure day the Paladin / Warlock is actually far weaker than a pure paladin.



Err... Whittling down the party’s resources with multiple short combats per adventuring day is how the game is designed to work. The DM certainly has the ability to run fewer combats per adventuring day, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume the former as the baseline when evaluating how strong a class (or multiclass combo) is.



ClaytonCross said:


> When you see players pull out monks, battlemasters, and rogue builds it likely a reaction to players getting tired of always being out of resources so they are adapting to the GMs play style. *Why shouldn't they?* If they are tied of something and want to lighten the load to have more fun at the table with the same group... that seems like a natural chain of events. If the GM doesn't like it then he should adapt to include more long rests the way the players adapted to short classes and sub-classes.



You say that like monks, rogues and Battlemasters become overpowered in games with several encounters per adventuring day, but that’s not the case at all. They, like all 5e classes, are balanced around the assumption of several encounters per adventuring day, and are actually underpowered in games with only one or two big encounters per day.


----------



## Charlaquin (Feb 17, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> In 3e the Deities and Demigods went into detail about how when gods surrender their divinity, other gods have to take up the abandoned domains and so on.  They have clearly been in game things.  You don't have to play it that way, but the game assumes domains are in-fiction.



5e is not 3e.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2020)

Huh, well, I was going to respond to @Maxperson but, well, you folks have pretty much stolen my thunder and said everything I was going to say, only better.

Funny thing is, in 5e, you're generally not a cleric of light or a cleric of war, that's just what people on message boards call them for short hand.  There's a whole section in the PHB listing all sorts of deities with their related cleric domains to help players choose to be a cleric of ((Insert Deity Here)).  

Now, if you want to interpret domains as having actual existence in the game world, that's groovy, but, funnily enough, no game world actually presents them that way.  What gets presented is a list of deities for the player to choose from and then domain gets chosen based on the deity.  IOW, you're a cleric of Pelor or Lathander or whatever.  My forge cleric wasn't a forge cleric.  He was a cleric of Khossuth with the forge domain.  Why did he have the forge domain?  Because that's the domain that closest fit the concept I had for the character.  

But in character?  I would never, ever describe myself as a Forge Domain Cleric.  I was Khorbach Angist, high flame of Khossuth, long may the guilty burn in the pyre.  

Seems a rather shallow way to play to refer to myself as Khorbach Angist Forge Cleric.    Bleahhh Snore.  Come back when you've actually got an interesting character thanks.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 17, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> "From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Page 18:
> 
> "The typical cleric is an ordained servant of a particular god *and chooses a divine domain *associated with that diety."
> 
> Not the player picks the domain. The Cleric chooses the domain. Domain is clearly an in-fiction thing. "




Wow, I read that completely and entirely differently than you do. 

You added some emphasis there in your quote from XGtE. I'd do so differently: 

"The typical cleric is an ordained servant of a particular god and chooses a divine domain* associated with that diety."*

Yes, the player chooses the domain- from the list of those that the deity offers, i.e. those associated with that deity. And I really don't see how that supports the notion that domain is an in-fiction term when it comes up when discussing the mechanics of the class.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 17, 2020)

Charlaquin said:


> 5e is not 3e.



You're absolutely right.  Nothing in prior editions has anything to do with 5e.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 18, 2020)

Charlaquin said:


> I remember at one point in one of the DNDBeyond YouTube videos where Todd Kenrik interviews Jeremy Crawford (might have been one of the early Artificer UA videos? I’m not sure), Todd brought up how much he appreciated that the text explicitly said, “you decide how [whatever class feature they were talking about] looks,” and Jeremy commented that the design intent is that players can always describe those things however they want. He went on to say that he recognized that they were not as explicit about that as they should have been in the Player’s Handbook and a lot of descriptions that were meant as thematic examples are taken by many groups as hard rules, and so they are now making a conscious effort to provide multiple examples of possible descriptions, and to explicitly state that the player can describe things any way they want.
> 
> So, I guess what I’m saying is, the Order Domain may indeed be FAW (fluff as written), the Command Domain is absolutely permitted by FAI (fluff as intended).




This depends on the degrees that we're talking about. 

Making your Firebolt look like green flame rather than standard fire is one thing. That's a very simple rule to change and I doubt people at the table would care.

Deciding that you're playing a Fighter but you're going to use the Warlock class to do so is another.

Another example would be showing up to the table with a Jedi character.

The rulebooks state what things are in the fiction. Drastically changing that because "it is my character and I can do what I want" is not acceptable to me.

I have expectations established by the rulebooks and if they're going to be changed I want to know what those changes are so I can decide if I want to play.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 18, 2020)

the Jester said:


> Yes, the player chooses the domain- from the list of those that the deity offers, i.e. those associated with that deity. And I really don't see how that supports the notion that domain is an in-fiction term when it comes up when discussing the mechanics of the class.



I actually agree with @Maxperson that its not much of a stretch to believe that the concept of a "domain" would be an in-character thing.  It would be easy to refer to Ra as "The god of light and fire" and then have clerics choose which path they wish to follow.

That being said, it then is a pretty big stretch to imagine clerics discussing the following, which is the logical conclusion of "Everything in the PHB is a rule and is reflected in-game similarly as it is described in the book".

Cleric 1:  I think I am going to sign up for the Fire domain.  While the First Level spells it grants me are pretty much the same as if I chose Light, I kind of like the Channel Divinity power it grants a lot more.   Plus someday when I have gained enough levels I really want that Fireball spell.
Cleric 2:  Yea, I see your point, but I think later i'm going to multiclass into a Sorcerer and get Fireball that way.  That way I can also get some metamagic...I think i'll probably choose to maximize that sucker!
Cleric 3:  So, what are you guys going to pick later when we get feats?
Cleric 1:  Actually....i'm one of those types of Humans that learned one already.  I chose to learn Heavy Armor Specialization because they rated my Constitution at only a 10, and I feel like I need to beef myself up to go fight some goblins.  I'm totally going to be focusing on my Wisdom instead of learning a new feat later, though.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 18, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> I actually agree with @Maxperson that its not much of a stretch to believe that the concept of a "domain" would be an in-character thing.  It would be easy to refer to Ra as "The god of light and fire" and then have clerics choose which path they wish to follow.
> 
> That being said, it then is a pretty big stretch to imagine clerics discussing the following, which is the logical conclusion of "Everything in the PHB is a rule and is reflected in-game similarly as it is described in the book".
> 
> ...



No,  but this conversation might happen.

Cleric 1: Ra is the god of light and fire and those are his domains.  Ever since I was a child I have loved to watch things burn.  My devotion to him is such that he has granted me access to his domain over fire.
Cleric 2: Ra lit the way for me when I was lost.  He guided to me to his temple and I studied the ways of the light.  That is the domain which he has granted to me.


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Feb 18, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> This depends on the degrees that we're talking about.
> 
> Making your Firebolt look like green flame rather than standard fire is one thing. That's a very simple rule to change and I doubt people at the table would care.



There are a few people who seem to be arguing that this is not the case.


ad_hoc said:


> Deciding that you're playing a Fighter but you're going to use the Warlock class to do so is another.



Depends on what you mean by fighter - in fiction, that's anyone who uses a weapon - which many warlocks do.


ad_hoc said:


> Another example would be showing up to the table with a Jedi character.



In most games, yes, although a Kensei is pretty close.


ad_hoc said:


> The rulebooks state what things are in the fiction. Drastically changing that because "it is my character and I can do what I want" is not acceptable to me.
> 
> I have expectations established by the rulebooks and if they're going to be changed I want to know what those changes are so I can decide if I want to play.



That is entirely fair.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 18, 2020)

I'm not the thread OP, but this Reddit thread is gonna make the heads of some people here explode lol: 
Amazing how wide a gulf there is between the player base.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 18, 2020)

Charlaquin said:


> Err... Whittling down the party’s resources with multiple short combats per adventuring day is how the game is designed to work. The DM certainly has the ability to run fewer combats per adventuring day, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume the former as the baseline when evaluating how strong a class (or multiclass combo) is.




I know that has been said time and time again, however in my experience that is rarely true. Outside of my personal experience,  I have not seen it to be the normal standard any of the multitude of streamed games or people I have asked playing under other GMs. *More to the point that no way nullifies what I said about GMs being able to adapt play style just as players adapted*. 



Charlaquin said:


> You say that like monks, rogues and Battlemasters become overpowered in games with several encounters per adventuring day, but that’s not the case at all. They, like all 5e classes, are balanced around the assumption of several encounters per adventuring day, and are actually underpowered in games with only one or two big encounters per day.




*I have actually had GMs complain about all these classes being over powered at one time or another for the reasons I said*. L*ike wise I have had players complain they are under powered in 1 encounter a day games*. Despite your claims of "balanced for multiple encounters a day", When all the full casters are out of spell slots and other non-casters out of expendables like shape change or rage it has come up. Again, intent maybe that they are "balanced for multiple-encounters per day" but in practice it very much depend on the GMs play style. There is a limit of sustainment and I have seen GMs push players to run entire dungeons on without a long rest breaking down each room in minutes. When that happens these classes absolutely dwarf the others in power.  It makes since that players will pick one or the other in reaction to the GMs style.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 18, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> No,  but this conversation might happen.
> 
> Cleric 1: Ra is the god of light and fire and those are his domains.  Ever since I was a child I have loved to watch things burn.  My devotion to him is such that he has granted me access to his domain over fire.
> Cleric 2: Ra lit the way for me when I was lost.  He guided to me to his temple and I studied the ways of the light.  That is the domain which he has granted to me.




Would it not be closer to - Ra is the king of the gods.  I worship Him as ruler of the gods.  His wisdom shines through me and lights the way of Maat.  

IOW, worshippers of Ra (or Re depending on spelling) would have zero concept of "domains" since the teachings of the faith would most likely never refer to them.  You don't pick and choose your faith - you worship that deity, even if your character's spells and special abilities might favor one or another facet of that deity.  

Meh, you could do it your way @Maxperson, but, it's certainly not required.  There are multiple alternatives available, which, because those alternatives are available, puts paid to your notion that mechanics MUST be represented by the character in the game world.

Note, we don't even have to disagree with your idea that mechanics CAN be represented.  All we have to show is that they are not required in order to prove you wrong.  The fact that you can incorporate the mechanics into the game world is irrelevant.  The fact that you don't have to is all that matters.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 18, 2020)

I think this long rambling discussion has kind of glossed over an important point. 

You walk into a bar. In the corner sits an old elf, scribbling a series of notes from an Ancient Tome (Lore Bard, background Librarian). On the stage a young woman dances with flames leaping from her hands, patrons whisper about how the finally is "memorable" (Evoker Wizard, background Entertainer) 

At a table across the way a sullen halfling in armor (Fey Warlock, background Folk Hero) talks to a dwarf in priests robes with an iron book (GOO Warlock, background Charlatan) and a Dragonborn Knight in halfplate (Barbarian, background Knight)

Ect Ect Ect. 

These are all characters I have made for one-shots. Their class is important, but they are also more than their class. And that I think is the point being made. Sure, wizards study magic. How do they study, why do they study, how does it manifest, what are their goals. 

I have a wizard transmuter who is a thief, using his magic to break into safes by transmuting the base material. I have my entertainer who is obsessed with fire and studies magic to be able to use and explore fire. I have a diviner who is more of the classical sage, stuck in his books and doing it because he can and he wants to see how far he can take his gift. 

Their class is not the sum total of their character. And, like my Barbarian who is a Knight, or another Barbarian who is a tribal shaman, their character can be at odds with what people perceive to be what the class requires.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 18, 2020)

jmartkdr2 said:


> There are a few people who seem to be arguing that this is not the case.




Then they can say that?



> Depends on what you mean by fighter - in fiction, that's anyone who uses a weapon - which many warlocks do.




Fighter is defined under Fighter in the PHB. In D&D 5e a Fighter is not just anyone who uses a weapon. Fighter has the least well defined identity of all the classes so it wasn't the best example.

Do you not know what I mean? Or do you and you're being pedantic?

If someone sat down with me and said they are taking the Warlock class but they don't have a patron, and they don't want their spells described as spells but maneauvers instead, etc. I would not want to play with them.

I don't accept the cry of 'it's just fluff, the mechanics are what matters'. 

All the rules are important.



> In most games, yes, although a Kensei is pretty close.




No, I mean a Jedi. 

A type of character from Star Wars. 

The player sits down and says 'my character is a Jedi from the Star Wars Universe'. I will use X class to represent them but their character is that they are a Jedi.

The table says, no we are playing D&D and our game doesn't have Jedi. So the player says 'well it's my character and you can't decide who they are'.

It's true that it is their character but that doesn't mean the table must play with them.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 18, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> No, I mean a Jedi.
> 
> A type of character from Star Wars.
> 
> ...



That's utterly ridiculous, and far, far beyond the scope of this topic. It should be obvious that's not what the people in favour of flavour adjustments are advocating for. I can't tell whether you're arguing in bad faith or if you have so bad players that your perception of the normal play experience is warped.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 18, 2020)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> I'm not the thread OP, but this Reddit thread is gonna make the heads of some people here explode lol:
> Amazing how wide a gulf there is between the player base.




Why would my head explode because 1 more person is saying something I disagree with?

Because it is on Reddit? Yelling and ranting on Reddit doesn't make what they are saying have more weight.

The idea of 'fluff' and 'hard rules and mechanics' as separate things is wrong. The idea that one is mutable while the other is not is doubly wrong.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 18, 2020)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> That's utterly ridiculous, and far, far beyond the scope of this topic. It should be obvious that's not what the people in favour of flavour adjustments are advocating for. I can't tell whether you're arguing in bad faith or if you have so bad palyers that your perception of the normal play experience is warped.




If you're going to respond to me then go back and read my post.

Stop being ridiculous.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 18, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Why would my head explode because 1 more person is saying something I disagree with?
> 
> Because it is on Reddit? Yelling and ranting on Reddit doesn't make what they are saying have more weight.
> 
> The idea of 'fluff' and 'hard rules and mechanics' as separate things is wrong. The idea that one is mutable while the other is not is doubly wrong.



My linking that Reddit post was more to show that the dominant metanarrative, if you will excuse my use of the term, leans more towards the mechanics and the lore not being synonymous, and open for change as setting creators and even players see fit. It's not universal - there's plenty of disagreement about it in that thread - but it is, in my view, further evidence that the position you are expressing is a minority one.

I am aware that this disagreement in the ideology and methodology of game design is probably irreconcilable, but that doesn't stop me from breathing fire and wanting to smash my computer about how far your head appears to be up somewhere unmentionable. Because I find that you are being very sanctimonious about how obviously right you must be and how stupid all of us must be. If you were in charge, my House Vadalis agent who wields Druidic power but couldn't give a darn about living in harmony with nature, instead viewing it as a resource to be controlled and exploited, wouldn't be valid, despite the idea being endorsed and even originated from Eberron's creator, a professional game designer who has worked with WotC in the past. So screw that.


ad_hoc said:


> If you're going to respond to me then go back and read my post.
> 
> Stop being ridiculous.



We are not arguing for tearing settings apart so that we can roleplay as time displaced Jedi. I have no idea where you got that idea. That's stupid. Everybody in this thread would agree that it's stupid. It's stupid.

If we were talking about a game with a single, well-defined setting integrated into the rules, such as Deadlands or Eclipse Phase or Exalted or Shadowrun, I'd actually be agreeing with you on this topic. *But Dungeons and Dragons is a system that lacks that.* That's not to say that it is a truly generic system - go to GURPS for that - but the core rules are built so as to be able to be used in multiple settings without snapping in half. The Forgotten Realms, Ravnica, Eberron, and the upcoming Wildemount; the 5e system supports mechancially supports those settings despite them having wild amounts of differences between each other, to the point that the "default" presented in the PHB and the splats surely can't be one-fits-all. *For Dungeons and Dragons to be able to support more than one setting, its mechanics and its "default" fluff must be able to be dissociated from each other to some extent, so that the mechanics can support the various settings released for it without irreparably contradicting one another.*

Not to mention that vast number of third party settings on the market - Midgard, Primeval Thule, Mists of Akuma, Odyssey of the Dragonlords, the list goes on and on. Hell, the Ptolus Kickstarter launch is on the front page of ENWorld right now! And it goes even farther when we get to the personal worlds of every DM creating a homebrew setting for themselves. Are those worlds using the 5e system a violation of some axiom of game design? Is playing them sacrilege against a cold, uncaring god? If it is, then let me be the devil.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 18, 2020)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> We are not arguing for tearing settings apart so that we can roleplay as time displaced Jedi. I have no idea where you got that idea. That's stupid. Everybody in this thread would agree that it's stupid. It's stupid.




Why are you arguing that I am?

I won't be responding to you anymore.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 18, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Why are you arguing that I am?
> 
> I won't be responding to you anymore.



I would appreciate if you responded to the bolded part about D&D supporting multiple settings and thus a rules system being tightly integrated with one specific setting's fluff being counterproductive.

But eh. Screw you too.

I'll go support Monte Cook's Kickstarter just to spite you. Though Ptolus does look genuinely interesting.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 18, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> If someone sat down with me and said they are taking the Warlock class but they don't have a patron, and they don't want their spells described as spells but maneauvers instead, etc. I would not want to play with them.
> 
> I don't accept the cry of 'it's just fluff, the mechanics are what matters.



I guess you will never get to play with my Githzerai Psionic Warrior (who is a reskinned bladelock).  It's a shame you and/or your table shuts out creativity and misses out on many interesting characters because you and/or your group has the inability to separate the fluff from the rules in the books.


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> I guess you will never get to play with my Githzerai Psionic Warrior (who is a reskinned bladelock).  It's a shame you and/or your table shuts out creativity and misses out on many interesting characters because you and/or your group has the inability to separate the fluff from the rules in the books.




That sounds like a really free-wheeling table/game. I'm not at that point with the tables I'm DMing, but I applaud your creativity and the trust you and your DM clearly share.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 18, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> If you're going to respond to me then go back and read my post.
> 
> Stop being ridiculous.



So @PsyzhranV2 was saying sure magic wielding fighter with no armor and magic sword that can stop and redirect ranged projectile at the person shooting at the is a Monk Kensai. In fact, the Psychic Warrior Fighter Class UA by Wizards of the coast was made with  Jeremy Crawford saying "More Darth Vader". That link to it in his own words.

Wanting to play a Kensai Monk/Wizard mutli-class with a magic flaming sword, mage hand, jump spell, ,telekinesis spell, haste spell, and who can stop and redirect projectiles back at attackers (monk Deflect Missiles) as targets stylized after a Jedi like order is a more realistic response. Just as I have seen players want to come to the table with an Artillerist Artificer with an urban bounty hunter back ground basically playing a character based of the Mandalorian series. We allowed it. The player was not called a Mandalorian and the GM used Criticial Role's "Slayer's Take" as template for them to take their back ground front and center. A monk with magic could easily be played as a sect of mystics *BASED* of the Jedi *but still well with in the fantiacy world of D&D*. In part because STARWARS is actually fantasy in a science fiction setting not true science fiction. Gorge Lucas has said so many times. It is not abnormaly for players to want to play a character created form any number of other non-D&D fantacy sources. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, STAR WARS, the Wheel of time series, The Shannara Chronicles, Game of thrones, He-man, or even Power rangers with there dino mounts and improved Pact of the Blade Weapons. I don't know a single GM that never steels from sources out side of D&D.

I read your posts and actually think @PsyzhranV2's reply makes since. Players can deviate from the normal style of a D&D character without pulling form another universe. So you example does seem like a jaded extreme response that does not reflect the topic of playing "Your Class is Not Your Character" style. You have moved beyond that to "I am playing a different game at your table and you have no choice" that is huge leap from the argument from the argument your trying to contrast. I don't see player "bulling GM's" this way. Arguing for a style of character based on something else, though is both common and expected.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 18, 2020)

prabe said:


> That sounds like a really free-wheeling table/game. I'm not at that point with the tables I'm DMing, but I applaud your creativity and the trust you and your DM clearly share.



It's not really a stretch.  Githzerai exist and have a set of official race rules.  They have a preexisting history of being psionicists throughout DnD editions.  There aren't any psionic rules that are official...so the trick is to pick the next closest thing mechanically.

You can, by choosing warlock powers that have also traditionally been psionic abilities , come close to replicating a Psionic Warrior.

The trick is to not optimize, but instead choose things that feel "psionicy" so no fireballs or other clearly arcane feeling things.  Instead Expeditious Retreat or Charm Person.

If nothing else just see how far you can go off the reservation as a thought process.  It's actually very fun yet challenging to create an entire in-world retheme like that.


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> It's not really a stretch.  Githzerai exist and have a set of official race rules.  They have a preexisting history of being psionicists throughout DnD editions.  There aren't any psionic rules that are official...so the trick is to pick the next closest thing mechanically.
> 
> You can, by choosing warlock powers that have also traditionally been psionic abilities , come close to replicating a Psionic Warrior.
> 
> ...




Oh, I get how to bend the rules for it. I'm just playing in one really limited game (PHB only, for the luvvagawd) and in my setting I haven't allowed the Gith races yet (though the Githzerai are more likely than the Githyanki, because reasons), so just seeing that kind of thinking feels like a breath of fresh air.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 18, 2020)

Heh, our current group has an orc bard that doesn't realize that he's casting spells.  He just thinks that he is really, really persuasive and people just naturally want to do what he says.  It really is a blast watching him play.

Guess I couldn't see that at other tables.  Seems a shame really.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 18, 2020)

ClaytonCross said:


> So you example does seem like a jaded extreme response that does not reflect the topic of playing "Your Class is Not Your Character" style. You have moved beyond that to "I am playing a different game at your table and you have no choice" that is huge leap from the argument from the argument your trying to contrast. I don't see player "bulling GM's" this way. Arguing for a style of character based on something else, though is both common and expected.




You're putting meaning where it isn't there.

You're also ascribing characteristics to me which I don't appreciate. I'm not making an 'extremely jaded response', I'm just posting in a thread about D&D. Come on now.

I gave an example of something very minor - changing the colour of firebolt.

Then I gave an example of something extreme - Wanting to play a Jedi.

The point is that the majority of players are going to fall somewhere in between that for what they find is acceptable. The point of that is that there is a line somewhere for most people. It's not just 'everything is fluff' do what you want. People do have expectations about what things mean in the game.

This is evidenced by people here getting actually angry about the notion of playing a Jedi and calling it an extreme thing that no one would ever do.

My position is that I don't think there can be a delineation of "fluff" and "hard rules" or "mechanics" in an RPG. 

They're all rules. Saying some are mutable while others aren't because they're math is wrong. If a table wants to change a rule then they're allowed to do so.

The rules of the game create a shared expectation. Everyone at the table is there to have fun and should be playing within the rules in good faith. If the table wants to change the rules then do so. If they want to add a new book like Xanathar's or a setting book then do so. It's not a big deal.

I fail to see how my view is extreme at all or jaded.

Side note though - I personally find the most creativity comes from creating something within boundaries or parameters. When I watch improv I want them to have rules on their games that limit what they're able to do. I'm then entertained when they come up with creative and imaginative things within those rules. I would be bored if the improv troupe just started talking about whatever it was they were thinking about. That's not really improv then, it's just poorly thought out writing. Using an exotic race isn't more creative than using a human, and is usually less so.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 18, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> I guess you will never get to play with my Githzerai Psionic Warrior (who is a reskinned bladelock).  It's a shame you and/or your table shuts out creativity and misses out on many interesting characters because you and/or your group has the inability to separate the fluff from the rules in the books.



Bravo.  When I get players like you who understand the rules are there to be bent like that, it makes me want to cry tears of joy.


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2020)

So, I think it's easier to have the trust needed for more-thorough reskinning if the DM and player know each other outside (or before) the game. The campaigns I'm running are in game stores, specifically because I wanted to expand the circles of people I game with, so I ended up not knowing half the people at my tables before sitting down to game with them. This isn't a problem--in fact it's worked out well--but I wouldn't have been as willing to do some of the more-radical reskinning that's come up in this thread (like what @Sabathius42 has mentioned) because the ones I didn't know I didn't trust, and I wouldn't have wanted to show favoritism toward the ones I know. (Also, it turns out I'm possessive enough about the setting that writing-in player requests can leave me cranky. That's on me.)


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 18, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> The rules of the game create a shared expectation. Everyone at the table is there to have fun and should be playing within the rules in good faith. If the table wants to change the rules then do so. If they want to add a new book like Xanathar's or a setting book then do so. It's not a big deal.




I think the clearest take-away from this thread is that the text of the game does not create a shared expectation. Perhaps it was intended to, or perhaps not, but evidentally it fails to do so in practice.

Accordingly, I think "playing within the rules in good faith" in this case requires asking the DM outright whether they expect characters to adhere to the class descriptions in the book. Some DMs think the default is "yes" and some DMs think the default is "no", so asking is the only way to be sure.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 18, 2020)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> ... but that doesn't stop me from breathing fire and wanting to smash my computer about how far your head appears to be up somewhere unmentionable.






PsyzhranV2 said:


> But eh. Screw you too.




*Mod Note:*

Somewhere, you got the idea that this was acceptable behavior.  Please allow me to disabuse you of this notion.  

You are done in this thread.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 18, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> The idea of 'fluff' and 'hard rules and mechanics' as separate things is wrong. The idea that one is mutable while the other is not is doubly wrong.



And, yet, both the DMG and Eberron show that fluff is mutable.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 18, 2020)

Xetheral said:


> I think the clearest take-away from this thread is that the text of the game does not create a shared expectation. Perhaps it was intended to, or perhaps not, but evidentally it fails to do so in practice.
> 
> Accordingly, I think "playing within the rules in good faith" in this case requires asking the DM outright whether they expect characters to adhere to the class descriptions in the book. Some DMs think the default is "yes" and some DMs think the default is "no", so asking is the only way to be sure.




I wouldn't go that far. I mentioned Jedi and people got upset at the example. Yet you are saying there is no shared expectation. Everyone else in this thread seems to agree that there is a shared expectation that Jedi aren't a thing in D&D.

I think people also inherently know when they want something that is outside the rules. Now, many of them might assume that there would be no problem with it, but I think most people would still bring up their changes to the table.




Azzy said:


> And, yet, both the DMG and Eberron show that fluff is mutable.




And where is it written that the stuff some call 'hard rules' or 'mechanics' are not allowed to be changed?


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 18, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> The player sits down and says 'my character is a Jedi from the Star Wars Universe'. I will use X class to represent them but their character is that they are a Jedi.
> 
> The table says, no we are playing D&D and our game doesn't have Jedi. So the player says 'well it's my character and you can't decide who they are'.



This is a completely separate issue.  I recently started a new campaign.  I explained to my players that the campaign would draw strongly on Arthurian legends and Celtic myths of the Fae.

The bard whose magic came not from his class but from being half-Fae?  Not a problem, and an excellent thematic addition to the campaign.

The Oath of Vengeance paladin who was just the Punisher with a different name? Problem, despite being 100% in line with the PHB.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 18, 2020)

FrozenNorth said:


> This is a completely separate issue.  I recently started a new campaign.  I explained to my players that the campaign would draw strongly on Arthurian legends and Celtic myths of the Fae.
> 
> The bard whose magic came not from his class but from being half-Fae?  Not a problem, and an excellent thematic addition to the campaign.
> 
> The Oath of Vengeance paladin who was just the Punisher with a different name? Problem, despite being 100% in line with the PHB.




So you changed some rules and now some character concepts are possible and others are not.

Sounds right to me?

(Though a character who is actually The Punisher transported to fantasy land (like the Jedi example) would be outside the PHB rules. Also, depending on which Punisher the player is drawing from, the Oath of Vengeance will be close or not too. Personally I have a rule of 'no evil characters'. I think this is encouraged by the PHB though not explicitly a rule so I make it one. In this case it would limit the interpretation to a softer Punisher.)


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 18, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> I wouldn't go that far. I mentioned Jedi and people got upset at the example. Yet you are saying there is no shared expectation. Everyone else in this thread seems to agree that there is a shared expectation that Jedi aren't a thing in D&D.
> 
> I think people also inherently know when they want something that is outside the rules. Now, many of them might assume that there would be no problem with it, but I think most people would still bring up their changes to the table.




I'm asserting that the debate in this thread shows that there is no shared expectation that characters adhere to the class descriptions in the book.

I don't think the objection to Jedi stems from their failure to adhere to class descriptions. Rather, I think the objection to Jedi is a belief that sci-fi/sci-fantasy elements usually aren't appropriate in medieval fantasy settings.

Considering the disagreement in this thread regarding how far away from the class descriptions one can venture before a concept becomes "outside the rules", I can't agree with your statement that people "inherently know when they want something that is outside the rules". How could they know if there no consensus on where the line is?


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2020)

Xetheral said:


> I'm asserting that the debate in this thread shows that there is no shared expectation that characters adhere to the class descriptions in the book.




I think maybe there *should* be such a shared expectation at a given table, even if there's not a global one. If (to use the going example) one person wants to bring in a literal Jedi (as opposed to a character that looks like a D&D character but does Jedi Stuff) and everyone else wants to play something more like standard D&D characters, both mechanically and fluffily, there's probably a disconnect that needs to be resolved before play.

I think if everyone is clear, the people at a given table can probably work something out, and I suspect most of the time in the real world things wouldn't get quite so heated as they do here, sometimes. Heck, if @ad_hoc or @Maxperson is running (to pick people who've seemed on kinda the other side from me) and they're clear how they see changing text as changing rules, I can probably figure out something I can get my head into and play. I might be the most boring player at the table with the most boring character in the party if @Sabathius42 is running, and I'd be OK with that, too.


----------



## aazard (Feb 18, 2020)

This is the issue with DnD in the 5e era... the "era" its released in lol. 

Unlike being _cast for a role_, your casting the "role" to your personal "wants".

Be whatever _you_ want, cast yourself appropriately. If you want to be a serial killer, then you do it...if you want uphold goodness, then you do. Because its what _you_ want.

If your role is to up hold the tenets of purity and goodness, and then you want to go become a serial killer... ok, YOU MIGHT HAVE MISCAST, _YOURSELF._


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 18, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> I wouldn't go that far. I mentioned Jedi and people got upset at the example. Yet you are saying there is no shared expectation. Everyone else in this thread seems to agree that there is a shared expectation that Jedi aren't a thing in D&D.
> 
> I think people also inherently know when they want something that is outside the rules. Now, many of them might assume that there would be no problem with it, but I think most people would still bring up their changes to the table.
> 
> And where is it written that the stuff some call 'hard rules' or 'mechanics' are not allowed to be changed?





People got upset because the Jedi, as you presented it, is such a far extreme to the discussion that it is nearly a parody of the discussion. 

The issue being discussed is the idea that you class is an immutable aspect of character. To use an example featuring barbarians: 

John brings a barbarian to the table named Ragnar. Ragnar's personality could be summed up thusly "Ragnar hate fancy talky man, Ragnar will kill talky man with bare hands, Ragnar not even wear stupid armor because Ragnar strong. Strong always kill weak."

To a different table, we have Fred bringing a barbarian named Clement the Third of Agnor. Clement is a knight of the realm, wears armor and carries a shield with his family crest. He is well spoken, educated (though more interested in matters of honor and battle than scholarly pursuit) and fights like a demon when combat is engaged. 

Under the theory that "your class is your character", Clement is being played wrong. Barbarians are not supposed to be well-spoken characters who wear armor and care about honor. But, people point out, reflavoring the class to fit into this other mold is not difficult, and showcases the character they want better than making Clement a paladin or fighter. 

Your Jedi example is more similiar to bringing up, "but what if the player wants to play Jerry Sienfield, stand up comic from New York City." 

That has nothing to do with the actual discussion, it is a huge stretch to even see how it could apply to the idea of reflavoring a class or a concept to get the character the person wants. 

Like the example earlier of the Rogue who was an ordained priest of a god. That is playing against type for both a holy man and a rogue, defying the expectations of the class and the concept, but it is a coherent character in the fiction who makes perfect sense. 

That is the discussion, not whether or not this rule or that rule should be inviolable. Especially since some of the details are most definitely meant to be broken. Just flipping to the page on Elves I see "Most elves dwell in small forest villages hidden in the trees" 

Except for the Forgotten Realms where they have kingdoms and massive cities. 
Or Dark Sun where there are no forests, and elves are thieving sand dwellers.
Or Eberron where elves live on an island and worship their undead ancestors. 
Heck, or two pages over where they talk about the Drow, who are elves, and live underground. 

So, if even something as basic as "where do elves live" is mutable, why does my monk have to hail from a monastery? Why does my cleric have to be doe-eyed and naive about the world? Why does my rogue have to be greedy and know criminal elements?

There are details that can be changed, that can be seen from another perspective. If you want to say that playing a cleric who was a jaded drug user and smuggler who was granted a god's power when snowed in a humble monastery and conscripted to serve a god of justice is "changing the rules" then go ahead I guess, but you are putting rules where none exist.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 18, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> People got upset because the Jedi, as you presented it, is such a far extreme to the discussion that it is nearly a parody of the discussion.




That's exactly the point. To find something everyone would agree was a step too far. So we can all agree that there are limits, here is an example of one (which, of course, someone argued against anyway).

This will be the last time I explain this.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 18, 2020)

prabe said:


> Heck, if @ad_hoc or @Maxperson is running (to pick people who've seemed on kinda the other side from me) and they're clear how they see changing text as changing rules, I can probably figure out something I can get my head into and play. I might be the most boring player at the table with the most boring character in the party if @Sabathius42 is running, and I'd be OK with that, too.




Let's be clear - I never said that changing rules is a bad thing. 

I have gotten the feeling that some people who have been getting very upset with me about this are putting intentions to me that I do not represent.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Feb 18, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> That's exactly the point. To find something everyone would agree was a step too far. So we can all agree that there are limits, here is an example of one (which, of course, someone argued against anyway).
> 
> This will be the last time I explain this.



man I like how you had to reach all the way into a completely different genre (and franchise!) to find a "step too far".

FWIW swordmage in 4e felt like a Jedi, at least in terms of combat abilities.


Maxperson said:


> Except that while all Samurai were nobles, not all nobles were Samurai.  Training made the Samurai, not the nobility.





Azzy said:


> No.



okay hang on, it was possible for someone of low birth to become a samurai. this was most notably accomplished by Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who also notably, and controversially, ended this upward mobility.

ficitonal examples of samurai who weren't nobles would include Kikuchiyo from Seven Samurai (note that it's seven samurai, not six samurai and some weirdo fighter), and hell I'd also include dude from Yojimbo, like he's regarded as a samurai but iirc he's never really given the respect his position would give him.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 18, 2020)

Panda-s1 said:


> man I like how you had to reach all the way into a completely different genre (and franchise!) to find a "step too far".
> 
> FWIW swordmage in 4e felt like a Jedi, at least in terms of combat abilities.




I can easily come up with a lot that is too far for me. That's not the point. 

And it's also not too far for everybody. Someone out there is playing D&D as a Jedi.

That doesn't mean I want to play in that group. It also doesn't mean that the way I like to play is invalid.

The point is that players are not free to make whatever character they want. They need approval of the group they are playing with. If that character is in line with the PHB that approval should be expected unless the rules have been advertised as changed (such as with a setting).


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Let's be clear - I never said that changing rules is a bad thing.
> 
> I have gotten the feeling that some people who have been getting very upset with me about this are putting intentions to me that I do not represent.




Apologies if you felt singled out. The entirety of my point was that there's room in the game for varying table styles, on many axes. There's room for varying opinions on this, even at the same table, and finding common ground for play is possible.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 18, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Let's be clear - I never said that changing rules is a bad thing.
> 
> I have gotten the feeling that some people who have been getting very upset with me about this are putting intentions to me that I do not represent.



My biggest takeaway from this thread is going be that I remember that @ad_hoc and @Maxperson have a very different idea of what "rules" are than I do.  Your stance, that fluff is indistinguishable from rules, isn't one that I would have expected to encounter because the concept is so foreign to how I have viewed D&D (and games in general) in the too many years I have been playing them.

I'm not telling you that your opinion is wrong...because it is an opinion after all, but I do hope you realize that it is one that may not (and I would be confident saying is not) be reflective of "The Average ENWorld User".

With that in mind it seems strange that what I do would be considered "changing the rules" by you when I 100% do not change anything that, in my mind, I consider a rule.  I very strictly limit myself to changing anything EXCEPT the rules because I value the balance that went into giving each class each power and each spell.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 18, 2020)

Sabathius42 said:


> I'm not telling you that your opinion is wrong...because it is an opinion after all, but I do hope you realize that it is one that may not (and I would be confident saying is not) be reflective of "The Average ENWorld User".



It's interesting to consider how the average contributor to these forums may differ from the average person playing the game. I think that a lot of us here are probably current or former rules-lawyers, simply because that's the kind of person who would seek out an online community to back them up on things. (Or at least, they would have, back in 2001.)


Sabathius42 said:


> With that in mind it seems strange that what I do would be considered "changing the rules" by you when I 100% do not change anything that, in my mind, I consider a rule.  I very strictly limit myself to changing anything EXCEPT the rules because I value the balance that went into giving each class each power and each spell.



I'm sure you're being very sincere about this, but honestly, the balance of existing classes is probably not something you should place too much value in. You could increase the efficiency of any class by twenty percent, and its relative performance would still depend mostly on the players and the table. And that's before you start getting into optional rules.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Feb 18, 2020)

I must say I find the whole conversation weird. Fascinating but weird. From years of playing HERO system and other non-class based systems I just don't think in terms of game mechanics being that strongly related to fluff. For me it's a case of decide the character you want to play, think of a way to model it using the game mechanics, re-skin game mechanics as you wish to fit with the campaign and feel of the game.

The third point is the most important to me. If someone wanted to play a Jedi in my bog standard DnD in Greyhawk game I'd ask "In what sense a Jedi?" Coz if they want someone who can mechanically do a pile of Jedi stuff - suggestion, missile deflection, a little light telekinesis - I'd say "Okay, no wakkas. How can we model that with the game mechanics? " But if they say "I am a representative of the Galactic Council trying to bring balance to the Force." I'm gonna have to say "Ain't no Galactic Council in these here parts."

The problem for me in this scenario is that the fluff the player wants to bring does not mesh with the fluff I have already set for the campaign.* The game mechanics is just how we're going to roll dice during those parts of the game where we are going to roll dice.

So, I guess in relation to the OP I'm gonna have to say class does not have to inform the fluff. (Clearly it does for some folks, and that's fine.) Class is just game mechanics that we use to make sure we're all playing the mechanical part of the game by the same (hopefully balanced) rules. 


*Don't worry, I do my best to get player input for tone, style, genre, etc. before sitting down to set the campaign guidelines. I then ask for feedback on them. yada yada yada.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 18, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> That's exactly the point. To find something everyone would agree was a step too far. So we can all agree that there are limits, here is an example of one (which, of course, someone argued against anyway).
> 
> This will be the last time I explain this.




But your step too far doesn't make sense in context of the discussion.

No one was talking about reflavoring characters in a way that would disagree with the game setting (at least not that I saw), so you have come in and created and extreme position that did not exist before to find a line in the sand.

It would be like discussing how best to organize your pantry and someone chiming in with "Getting a solid gold bathtub is out of the question.", you've come so far out of left field that we were left trying to figure out why you were even standing over there.

And, since you were so far out of the way, people thought you must have meant something else, and tried to figure that out, leading to the various bits about Kensai being close and such, because they were thinking you meant a mechanical jedi, because that is the only context which your example seemed relevant to the discussion.




ad_hoc said:


> The point is that players are not free to make whatever character they want. They need approval of the group they are playing with. If that character is in line with the PHB that approval should be expected unless the rules have been advertised as changed (such as with a setting).





And no one, not a single person, had brought up doing this sort of refluffing against the DMs permission. So, while you are correct, changes to a concept should be approved by the DM and other players if it is warranted, playing a pious rogue isn't exactly something I feel like I need to go and discuss with everyone, unless you must discuss all choices a player makes and get them approved by the DM. 

Again, you seem to have a different idea of what was being discussed than was actually being discussed.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 19, 2020)

DrunkonDuty said:


> So, I guess in relation to the OP I'm gonna have to say class does not have to inform the fluff. (Clearly it does for some folks, and that's fine.) Class is just game mechanics that we use to make sure we're all playing the mechanical part of the game by the same (hopefully balanced) rules.




Do you see an RPG as having 2 distinct parts? There is the time when you're doing the mechanics of the game; and then there is the time when you're doing the story part?

Not trying to assume things, actually asking for clarification.

For me everything is integrated. 

In contrast, I don't feel that way for many boardgames. The theme in many of them could be replaced or changed and it wouldn't matter. What I'm there for is the challenge of the game and how the mechanics create interesting tactical and strategic decisions.

For me, in an RPG the theme is the game. They are fully intertwined. There are no 'mechanics' to be separated from 'theme' that can make sense on their own. The descriptive passages in RPG rulebooks are essential to me to explain what things are and why they are. That knowledge is important to know how interactions work and how to resolve things.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 19, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> You're putting meaning where it isn't there.
> 
> You're also ascribing characteristics to me which I don't appreciate. I'm not making an 'extremely jaded response', I'm just posting in a thread about D&D. Come on now.
> 
> ...




So re-read my post, I didn't ascrib any characteristic to you, PsyzhranV2 did and was saying that his response was not out of place as he could reasonably think that based of your supper out of place example (which I will explain below). But while I can agree with him that it looks that way, I never claimed to *know* how you feel I am point out that when you make examples that don't even track with the topic but are outside of game complaints it sounds like a highly emotional charged complaint based on personal grievances you have that might or might not have anything to with D&D. This is where *the impression* of Jaded comes from. So PsyzhranV2 says you have I emotional response, you say "Stop being ridiculous." , I said I can see why PsyzhranV2 would feel that way based on your statements. That said, I can see your extra step, in me taking a defensive of his comment as being as entire agreement with his position. Your doing the same thing to me that he did to you, that garnered, "Stop being ridiculous." to. I am saying in both cases its not being ridiculous, is making reasonable jumps *right or wrong* based on context. 

--

*I get your point and I don't entirely disagree*. Each person has there own line and players have to agree to play behind that line or move to a different game. I have said as much before. *This is a matter of personal preference and opinion to which each person is entitled*.

Where I disagree is that there is some rule about playing classes a specific way. Clearly that is not intent in design when Wizards of the coast is building a fighter subclass which they say is intended to be a "Darth Vader like character option". Wizards, has said this kind of thing many times and Wizards the creators of the rules have continually pushed in videos and articles that these fluff limits are only guides not rules.

The reaction causing the "extreme" response is not to someone wanting to play a type a character, but  using an example of someone wanting to play *a different game entirely and force it at a D&D table*.... that doesn't track with the character choices "your class is your character" or "your class is not your character" debate. No one on this thread has suggested that you a player should be able to come to the table with a STARWARS RPG book build  a jedi and play in a D&D game. That would be a break in mechanics, ignore class features, and ignore mechanics. Since the debate is on using the class features and mechanics to play while not being tied to an undisclosed fluff like warlock and paladins can multi-class even though their is not rule against it or even fluff that says other wise. You specifically said, your not adapting a D&D character at all, they ARE a jedi from a different game. *That's not a character choice, that's a universe choice being pushed on a GM who sets the universe*. I get that you want to analog all player choices to adapting the world the GM has created, but that's not the same thing as changing  preconceived "rules" in D&D that don't exist in any book.



ad_hoc said:


> My position is that I don't think there can be a delineation of "fluff" and "hard rules" or "mechanics" in an RPG.
> 
> They're all rules. Saying some are mutable while others aren't because they're math is wrong. If a table wants to change a rule then they're allowed to do so.






ad_hoc said:


> The rules of the game create a shared expectation.




I re-quote you here again, because your position of Fluff, hard rules, or mechanics being all rules, but some mutable while others aren't. Other _aren't for who_? Everything is pretty mutable as GM. GMs control the setting, the whole world, players control only their character but your saying "fluff rules" that don't fit your math as GM like Warlock + Cleric = not allowed, your limiting those choices players choices and saying the are not mutable or changeable in the least because GM word is law. *Here is the thing, I don't think that is entirely wrong*. If your GM you have to be able to live with the characters at your table, however, I think you have to very very careful of not over stepping "how you would do it" or "how you think is should be done" into controlling your Players characters like NPCs. When you say in the same quote above rules are rules, but they change, but some don't change... its important to say for who and why. If the answer is GM preference every time then I have to ask *do you write down these rules and hand them out to new players at the table?* As I have said multiple times where this creates conflict is when these rules show up after 5 sessions and character investment or because the GM decided after last session he doesn't like how one character is built or being played. These "fluff rules" are rarely written down and so do not create shared expectations because they are not shared before hand. I mentioned this iin previous post as why I like session 0 (I bring a list of things I ask, such as an thing you don't allow such as paladin/warlock mutli-classing etc). I have never had a GM that didn't say "your class is not your character" but thin did not have at lease one class where they enforced "your class is your character" (usually warlock, paladin, cleric, or druid because of religious over tones and that they receive power from out side). So I am not advocating that your opinion is wrong (I actually mostly follow it and agree), only that your opinion is an opinion and doesn't over rule any one else's opinion. My conflict point with you is not that players and GMs have lines of tolerance, I have said is much in many posts on this thread already, it is  "_some are mutable while others aren't because they're math is wrong_" which is an assertion (as far as I can tell) that somethings just don't make since to anyone any where because they don't add up. However, *that is an opinion trying to draw on the imagery of the absolutes of math to pretend its universal and unarguable fact*. Warlock + Cleric = not allowed, is not true at every table. Arch Fey Warlock with a Nature Domain Cleric for example is completely reasonable to many people, and 100% I can write a background for perceived fluff conflict.

Example: Fiend patron Warlock of Orcus + Life Cleric of Parlor multi-class = Repentant Soul who made a "deal with the devil" and then having to acknowledge the existence of "the devil" and regretting this mistake turns to the light (because if good exists then so does evil), Turing against his master... Marvel Comics has Ghost Rider, Image Comics has Spawn, and another strange example might be the Orginal Green Power ranger. I am sure there are multiple and older examples.

Not everyone is ok with that. Its not going to be allowed at every table. That's fine. However, when ever someone says "It doesn't add up so you can't do it" That's simply opinion and not factually correct. The example above is as about as opposite as you can get but of the top of my head I know 3 examples of it in stories where it was pretty awesome. Which is why a player may want to do this.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 19, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Do you see an RPG as having 2 distinct parts? There is the time when you're doing the mechanics of the game; and then there is the time when you're doing the story part?
> 
> Not trying to assume things, actually asking for clarification.




Not addressed to me, but i'll provide an example.  I am cut-and-pasting from the Earth Elemental entry in the freely downloadable Basic Rules.  Everything in black is a rule (from my definition).  Everything in red is fluff (from my definition).

****
Earth Elemental Large elemental, neutral
Armor Class 17 (natural armor)
Hit Points 126 (12d10 + 60)
Speed 30 ft., burrow 30 ft.
STR 20 (+5)
DEX 8 (−1)
CON 20 (+5)
INT 5 (−3)
WIS 10 (+0)
CHA 5 (−3)
Damage Vulnerabilities thunder
Damage Resistances bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical attacks
Damage Immunities poison
Condition Immunities exhaustion, paralyzed, petrified, poisoned, unconscious 
Senses darkvision 60 ft., tremorsense 60 ft., passive Perception 10
Languages Terran 
Challenge 5 (1,800 XP) 
Earth Glide. The elemental can burrow through nonmagical, unworked earth and stone. While doing so, the elemental doesn’t disturb the material it moves through.
Siege Monster. The elemental deals double damage to objects and structures. 

Actions 

Multiattack. The elemental makes two slam attacks. 
Slam. Melee Weapon Attack: +8 to hit, reach 10 ft., one target. Hit: 14 (2d8 + 5) bludgeoning damage.

An earth elemental plods forward like a walking hill, club-like arms of jagged stone swinging at its sides. Its head and body consist of dirt and stone, occasionally set with chunks of metal, gems, and bright minerals.
****

Therefore, with the red items being "fluff" I can freely adjust the description of the Earth Elemental as not plodding if I want (it has a speed of 30, just like most PCs), no having club-like arms...or even arms at all.  Its body being only dirt, or only stone, and not having any chunks of metal, gems, or bright minerals.  It could be 100% made of worked stone and look like an animated statue.  It could be made of dripping mud and shoot out tentacles.   It could just look like a big walking rock that just charges into you.

Note that none of the changes mentioned above in the description of the earth elemental changes its abilities in combat.  It strictly changes how I describe it at the table.  Once I begin changing how it works "in combat" by changing something written in black then I am starting to "homebrew" the rules.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 19, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> That doesn't mean I want to play in that group. It also doesn't mean that the way I like to play is invalid.
> 
> The point is that players are not free to make whatever character they want. They need approval of the group they are playing with. If that character is in line with the PHB that approval should be expected unless the rules have been advertised as changed (*such as with a setting*).




*We are entirely in agreement here*. Your arguments was that "The rules of the game create a shared expectation" and you asserted that "They're all rules. Saying some are mutable while others aren't because they're math is wrong." *seemed/seems* like your saying that some of your personal preferences are based on undisputable math making it sound like your saying your opinion is based on undisputable logic so is fact not openon. So this post says your completely reasonable while other posts read as though your imposing opinion on others. *This is not me putting words in your mouth or intent in your language, this is people reading your posts and trying to interprets your meaning which is how all information on forums is passed*.  So you point of view* in text form* may just be open to interpretation you didn't intend by people (to include me) who look at things from a different prospective angle. So all everyone arguing against you and whom you are arguing against may very well be saying the same thing just between person inflection added by the reader and wording that can be interpreted two different ways... because English is that way, we are missing each other making the same points.

The dispute here seems to be what "in line with the PHB" means. Mechanical, we all fallow the book. Fluff, tends to create a lot of in between rules like the warlock/cleric muti-class not being ok, even though there is no fluff or mechanical statement in all of the PHB that prevents it. *"Fluff" then is always a matter of setting* which uses the same PHB in every setting. So Homebrew, forgotten Realms, etc... ultimately that means ask the GM about fluff and come to some agreement, since no "fluff" in the PHB is universally static and is instead setting dependant.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 19, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> I can easily come up with a lot that is too far for me. That's not the point.
> 
> And it's also not too far for everybody. Someone out there is playing D&D as a Jedi.
> 
> ...




That is the point though.  What is "in line with the PBH"?  Considering the _ahem_ interpretations of the PHB that I've seen in this thread alone, that's not exactly the easiest thing to follow.  But, my point is, in what way is my cleric with a criminal background who has a drug dependency out of line with the rules?  And, since we're straying pretty far from "your class is not your character", how does having a given class preclude a given way of depicting that class?

Since a given class can be depicted in multiple and often contradictory, ways, how can it be claimed that your class MUST be the driving force behind the depiction of your character.

It's funny.  I've suggested multiple times in the past that the character's race should have a big impact on how the character is played, and I was told in no uncertain terms that I was wrong and that I was badwrongfunning folks for even suggesting that a dwarf or an elf should be played differently from a human.

And, I'm pretty sure that at least one of those folks is in this thread telling folks that changing how a class is portrayed is home brewing and breaking the rules.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Feb 19, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Do you see an RPG as having 2 distinct parts? There is the time when you're doing the mechanics of the game; and then there is the time when you're doing the story part?
> 
> Not trying to assume things, actually asking for clarification.
> 
> ...




I see the 2 parts (mechanical and role play) as integrated. One sits down and role plays their character. Now and then the game requires that one use dice to decide the outcome of the choices made during the role play. Odds are good that one has made choices during role play that play to the mechanical strengths of the character. The outcomes from the mechanical test can then inform your next RP decision.  RP leads into mechanics leads back into RP. Due to the limits of language I am having to describe this as distinct parts moving back and forth but this is not how I feel it is happening at the table. It's much more integrated.

I completely agree that the theme is the game. I think we disagree on how the theme is set. 

I don't much care what the rule books say about characterisation, whether based on class or race. Now don't get me wrong - this is an attitude I came to over time. Back in the early 80's I was as guilty as everyone else for thinking that Paladins MUST be played as described in the PHB. But I eventually decided that that way of doing things was too restrictive for the games I wanted. If someone wants to be a Paladin of Chaotic Good I'm happy to let them. If someone wants to play a character that has smiting and healing and decent melee bonus, but has no interest in playing them a champion of any ethos, that's cool too. Just let me know ahead of time so I don't come in with incorrect assumptions.

I DO care about what my table says about characterisation. We need to be on the same page (Thematically, setting-wise, tone, etc.) when playing the game. And that's something we sort out in session 0 when setting campaign assumptions. Obviously, in real life, there will be misunderstandings and disagreements later at the table. That's cool, we'll sort them out as they come up.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 19, 2020)

Xetheral said:


> That would only be true if you assume the model involves a one-to-one correspondence between fluff and crunch. A model with a many-to-one correspondence, however, could also satisfy your criterion that the crunch accurately reflects (models) the fluff, yet wouldn't lead to your conclusion that changing the fluff requires changing the crunch.



While that is true, it also greatly increases the complexity of the world, and it easily gets to a point where it threatens suspension of disbelief. We have enough of that with the dragons and the wizards, so there's no reason to add to that burden if we can easily avoid it.

If we imagine one sort of upbringing which leads to a character who can accurately be represented as a Devotion Paladin, then that's the minimum amount of lore complexity which is necessary to get those mechanics into the game. If we imagine an entirely different sort of upbringing, which nevertheless bring a character to the exact same mechanical representation, then that's... odd.

If you have a thousand different origin stories, and they somehow all funnel down to the same ten mechanical models, then something really weird is going on. You shouldn't be able to follow two different roads, and have them both end up in the same place.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 19, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> So you changed some rules and now some character concepts are possible and others are not.
> 
> Sounds right to me?



No, it isn't.  The problem was never that a player chose to play an Oath of Vengeance paladin: the problem was that the Oath of Vengeance paladin that he proposed to play (and which was 100% compatible with the PHB as described) was completely tonally and storywise inconsistent with the campaign.

I may be misunderstanding your post, but it suggests that you believe that there are very few ways to play an Oath of Vengeance paladin, and that the player choosing to do so was violating an unspoken rule.  To me, this is a very restrictive way of looking at the archetypes made available by the PHB.  I would go every further: applied strictly, I'm not sure it would be even possible to multiclass at all using this interpretation.


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Feb 19, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> While that is true, it also greatly increases the complexity of the world, and it easily gets to a point where it threatens suspension of disbelief. We have enough of that with the dragons and the wizards, so there's no reason to add to that burden if we can easily avoid it.
> 
> If we imagine one sort of upbringing which leads to a character who can accurately be represented as a Devotion Paladin, then that's the minimum amount of lore complexity which is necessary to get those mechanics into the game. If we imagine an entirely different sort of upbringing, which nevertheless bring a character to the exact same mechanical representation, then that's... odd.
> 
> If you have a thousand different origin stories, and they somehow all funnel down to the same ten mechanical models, then something really weird is going on. You shouldn't be able to follow two different roads, and have them both end up in the same place.



You will never have a thousand different origin stories in a single campaign. We are talking about one or two players in a party who want to have a character that is a bit unorthodox. That is both easy to justify within a setting and adds little to the complexity of the setting (and it won't be hard at all for the players to process since they are the ones who came up with it).


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 19, 2020)

An interesting thread ….
"your class is not your character" vs "your class is your character" both being a *problem* and inconsistent not only between players/GMs but also with one player/gm and different classes.

Problem *defined* as agreement trying to resolve "The rules of the game create a shared expectation." pointing to the PHB as source of resolution.

Then *redefined* by the simple fact that different settings have different fluff for races, classes, and subclases. The choice of setting is the GMs to make and players just agree to play in it or not join the game.  So Fluff is basically at GM discursion for character choices.

That introduces the *source of conflict* as GMs changing Fluff after a games starts or not introducing in a session 0 before players have settled on and invested in a character, breaking the shared expectations that fluff is intended to create.

*The resulting lesson I get from this discussion is two rule*s:

1. In order to ensure those shared expectations GMs should write setting fluff rules down and present them on *session 0* for players to build within that they as GM are willing to except, then not change them until they start a new campaign so that they don't stick it to a player whos expectations based on presented GM setting Fluff rules allowed a build, then the rules changed preventing them from playing as they wanted. This session 0, also allows player collaboration in defining setting rules removing, adding, or adjusting to what degree the GM can except after discussion points are made. After player argument are made, the GM holds final say and players get a chance to walk or play with a copy of these rules. (My current GM did this, and I thought it was novel but I didn't really understand how much trouble he avoided with this and one player declined to play under the setting rules, while another got the GM to loosen a rule with week long debate by adding a specific condition being basically if you cause the problem I am trying to avoid, your character will die a sudden and immediate death... that player character has had a few near death experiences, lol)

2. Single exception for changing the rules during a campaign would be a player deliberately causing table disruption such as power gaming or munchkin builds that steal a character role from an existing party member (not filling and empty role) or "poking the bear" with direct conflict to players or the GM like a player multi-classing to cleric of raven queen in a party with a Palor Paladin who's back story is to hunt down the followers of the Raven Queen. Alternatively yes you could kick a player form your game, however I find in most cases a group vote to add a rule that prevents a specific action causing conflict tends to be sufficient and usually your playing with friends and don't want to kick anyone you unless a rule like this doesn't work as sufficient deterrent / warning.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 19, 2020)

Huh. Having that Palor Paladin and a Cleric of the Raven Queen in the same party mostly sounds pretty awesome to me. Conflict builds story. Those two characters trying to find common ground would be really interesting. Voting people off the island for making a strong character or story choice seems ... off to me. The idea of a group veto seems to imply a pretty huge lack of trust at the table, which in turn indexes a whole host of other potential issues. I mean, sure, if someone's doing that just to piss another player off that sucks, but _why are you playing with that jerkwad anyway_ would be my first question.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 19, 2020)

HomegrownHydra said:


> You will never have a thousand different origin stories in a single campaign. We are talking about one or two players in a party who want to have a character that is a bit unorthodox. That is both easy to justify within a setting and adds little to the complexity of the setting (and it won't be hard at all for the players to process since they are the ones who came up with it).



Why, though? Why insist on adding something to the setting, beyond what's already there? Why do you even want to play in that setting, if you don't want its rules to apply to your character? Why not play in some other setting, where your new lore is the law of the land?

You already get to be a rad adventurer who saves the world. You don't need to be some unique figure who defies categorization on top of that.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 19, 2020)

DrunkonDuty said:


> I see the 2 parts (mechanical and role play) as integrated. One sits down and role plays their character. Now and then the game requires that one use dice to decide the outcome of the choices made during the role play. Odds are good that one has made choices during role play that play to the mechanical strengths of the character. The outcomes from the mechanical test can then inform your next RP decision.  RP leads into mechanics leads back into RP. Due to the limits of language I am having to describe this as distinct parts moving back and forth but this is not how I feel it is happening at the table. It's much more integrated.
> 
> I completely agree that the theme is the game. I think we disagree on how the theme is set.
> 
> ...




Maybe this comes from your earlier comment about playing non-class based games. 

D&D is a class based game and I think if you try to turn it into one that isn't you're losing out.

Classes are packaged themes that strongly marry different design components together into cohesive themes. The classes as a whole provide a solid thematic framework to create characters, parties, and as a result, campaigns from.

I think if you are going to play a class based game you should embrace it. Square pegs for square holes.

I think 5e did many great things one of which was the inclusion of subclasses and relegating multiclassing to an optional rule. Smashing chassis and archetypes together with multiclassing is a mess. Subclasses work with the class based system to expand upon the base chassis/framework that is the class. Subclasses are the way to do multiclassing right. 

We agree about needing the group to be on the same page. It is a collectively played game. I don't think people are free to create and play their characters however they want. Not if it diminishes the fun of others in the group. 

These discussions come up in forums regularly but I've only had 1 situation come up in real life in the last 6 years. Everyone else I've played with has seen their choices, read about the classes and races and designed characters from what it says in the books. And many were creative and interesting characters. Different tastes of course but I tend to find the gimmick and exotic race characters less interesting in general as players tend to just rely on the gimmick and 'newness'.

Anyway, to the issue. The player wanted to play a Cleric but had no interest in being religious. At all. I tried to work with her. I said, well, she can worship the divine essence or ideal of the domain and the appropriate deity will step in to get her, her powers. She even wanted the Trickery Domain which makes total sense to not have direct worship with such a deity. But nope, she just wanted her character to have those powers and abilities.

So I said no. That character was incompatible with the game we were playing.

Whether or not you would say no for whatever game you imagine playing, is that not a reasonable stance to take on some character concepts?

I think it is a strength of the game to have classes create a large part of the identity of a character. There is a lot of room there for how and why that manifests and for many other characteristics outside of class.





FrozenNorth said:


> No, it isn't.  The problem was never that a player chose to play an Oath of Vengeance paladin: the problem was that the Oath of Vengeance paladin that he proposed to play (and which was 100% compatible with the PHB as described) was completely tonally and storywise inconsistent with the campaign.




You've lost me. How is this not agreeing with me?

Like, I don't see a problem with your game, but you have a problem with me not having a problem with it? 

You changed some rules to allow some characters and not allow others and there is nothing wrong with that.

Why should people see something wrong with that?

I'm confused.


----------



## prabe (Feb 19, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Why, though? Why insist on adding something to the setting, beyond what's already there? Why do you even want to play in that setting, if you don't want its rules to apply to your character? Why not play in some other setting, where your new lore is the law of the land?
> 
> 
> > In some instances, this is because the GM has left room in the setting for the players to add stuff. Or, the player pitched it to the GM as something that might fit, and the GM agreed.
> ...


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 19, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> While that is true, it also greatly increases the complexity of the world, and it easily gets to a point where it threatens suspension of disbelief. We have enough of that with the dragons and the wizards, so there's no reason to add to that burden if we can easily avoid it.
> 
> If we imagine one sort of upbringing which leads to a character who can accurately be represented as a Devotion Paladin, then that's the minimum amount of lore complexity which is necessary to get those mechanics into the game. If we imagine an entirely different sort of upbringing, which nevertheless bring a character to the exact same mechanical representation, then that's... odd.
> 
> If you have a thousand different origin stories, and they somehow all funnel down to the same ten mechanical models, then something really weird is going on. You shouldn't be able to follow two different roads, and have them both end up in the same place.




I don't really think so. 

Let us take something somewhat real world, an person sewing a wound closed. How did they learn to do this?

1) Well, the first answer is going to medical school. Simple enough. 
2) But, they could also be a veteran, having done most of their medical training through the army. Similar training, but it is different. 
3) Or, perhaps they went to veterinarian school. Sewing flesh closed is pretty similar between people and animals, so it would cover the same basics. 
4) Or, perhaps they did not learn sewing because of medical school, perhaps they know how to sew from patching their clothing constantly. 
5) Perhaps they were taught sewing as a way to bond with their grandmother, and it is a favorite past time
6) Perhaps they are a costume designer, and being good with needle and thread came from that job
7) Fishermen are good with hooks, needles, and thread, could easily translate into the type of sewing we are talking about.

The real world is complicated, and similiar skills can arise from vastly different experiences. And, in the game, a similiar skill is reflected by the exact same mechanics. Because you aren't going to have a different skills for every different way you can do something. So, having a dozen different interpretations of how you have your skills and what they mean does not make the world incoherent or remove suspension of disbelief. If anything, I find it makes the world more realistic and easier to believe in. There is never a single way of doing something, so people with different expeirences would naturally find different ways to accomplish the same goals.


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Feb 19, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Why, though? Why insist on adding something to the setting, beyond what's already there? Why do you even want to play in that setting, if you don't want its rules to apply to your character? Why not play in some other setting, where your new lore is the law of the land?
> 
> You already get to be a rad adventurer who saves the world. You don't need to be some unique figure who defies categorization on top of that.



 Why? Because:
1) It's a collaborative game.
2) The PC is the only thing the player gets to control.
3) Players don't have an infinite number of games to choose from. Rather they usually have limited options, especially if they want to play with their friends. So it is extremely unlikely that a player will have a game available to them that is a perfect fit for their desired character.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 19, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Why, though? Why insist on adding something to the setting, beyond what's already there? Why do you even want to play in that setting, if you don't want its rules to apply to your character? Why not play in some other setting, where your new lore is the law of the land?
> 
> You already get to be a rad adventurer who saves the world. You don't need to be some unique figure who defies categorization on top of that.




Why do you insist that we are changing lore? 

If I make a barbarian with the background of knight, what lore am I changing? Must all barbarians be semi-literate savages who eschew the comforts of civilization? I still rage, I still am using the barbarian mechanics, after all, barbarians get access to medium armor and shields, using those and a longsword are completely within the realm of possibility. 

Does the nobility not exist in your game? 

If I want to play a sinner who was forced into a pact with a Celestial, and is being forced to commit good deeds to make up for the stealing of a powerful holy relic, am I breaking the lore of the world? Do holy relics not exist? Celestials? Do the forces of good never compel people to take on quests?

And frankly, all good characters are unique. What makes Gandalf different from Dumbledore? They are both old, wise wizards. But, they are different characters. They approach problems differently. They see the world and their role in it differently. Neither one of them is the same as Merlin either.

Friar Tuck, Judge Frolo, and Saint Peter would all be religious figures, following the same religion too. They are vastly different characters, in fact, other than that single connection point of religion, they share nothing in common with each other. 

So, why must we say "all clerics must follow the personality and path to clerichood" why must we say "all wizards are the exact same". Look up "gandalf ripoffs", they are all generic versions of gandalf, none of them are as interesting as the unique take that the original used.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 19, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> If we imagine one sort of upbringing which leads to a character who can accurately be represented as a Devotion Paladin, then that's the minimum amount of lore complexity which is necessary to get those mechanics into the game. If we imagine an entirely different sort of upbringing, which nevertheless bring a character to the exact same mechanical representation, then that's... odd.



Backgrounds already do this.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Feb 19, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Maybe this comes from your earlier comment about playing non-class based games.
> 
> D&D is a class based game and I think if you try to turn it into one that isn't you're losing out.
> 
> Classes are packaged themes that strongly marry different design components together into cohesive themes. The classes as a whole provide a solid thematic framework to create characters, parties, and as a result, campaigns from.




I don't see classes as being cohesive themes. I see them as stuff that writers wrote. Certainly one can be inspired by what the writers wrote. I have been, probably will be again. But I also get my inspiration from a wider array of sources. Also, I find a lot of the fluff that gets tacked on to classes as kinda "meh" in terms of quality. So I'm still perfectly happy if a player, or the group as a whole, wish to re-skin the mechanics of a given class and say it works because X, Y, Z.



ad_hoc said:


> We agree about needing the group to be on the same page. It is a collectively played game. I don't think people are free to create and play their characters however they want. Not if it diminishes the fun of others in the group.
> 
> These discussions come up in forums regularly but I've only had 1 situation come up in real life in the last 6 years. Everyone else I've played with has seen their choices, read about the classes and races and designed characters from what it says in the books. And many were creative and interesting characters. Different tastes of course but I tend to find the gimmick and exotic race characters less interesting in general as players tend to just rely on the gimmick and 'newness'.
> 
> ...




An absolutely reasonable stance.  You have your campaign/setting fluff. The characters need to fit within it. This players' cleric did not. I see it as being exactly the same as my Jedi example from my post (#325) above.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 19, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Huh. Having that Palor Paladin and a Cleric of the Raven Queen in the same party mostly sounds pretty awesome to me. Conflict builds story. Those two characters trying to find common ground would be really interesting. Voting people off the island for making a strong character or story choice seems ... off to me. The idea of a group veto seems to imply a pretty huge lack of trust at the table, which in turn indexes a whole host of other potential issues. I mean, sure, if someone's doing that just to piss another player off that sucks, but _why are you playing with that jerkwad anyway_ would be my first question.




Well to be clear some of my friends are jerks. We full well know they don't do this to having an interesting back story but to cause trouble. Which perhaps makes it strange that creating a rule actually works. At the same time people constantly ask why I don't pick non-jerk friends to witch I must reply, I am may not be a jerk but I am absolutely a bit weird and an acquired taste. I typically end up in a group of people largely rejected by ordinary groups of people. There is a mutual bond of friendship formed by the difficulty of trying to fit into groups of "normal" people much less D&D tables with "normal gamers". So they are friends, but because they are friends its not that I think some might be liars or cheats, its that I KNOW them and which ones are in fact liars and cheats. We make the liars role in the open so we can double check there math for inconstancies and we know the rules and call out the cheats when they try to pull something. At the same time they tolerate my oddities that would perhaps drive away others who were around me too long. The thing is despite all this we still have fun playing together. We call out the liars, we call out the cheats, and we call out the weirdos like me laughing all the time. I guess its as they say, Birds of a feather and all. In our case we are the outcasts, which breads a weird tolerance and expectance for extremely different ideas of morality, fun, and styles of play. It also makes it hard to fill holes at the table so we actually really don't want to kick a player unless we really have to because we can't fill those seats with "normal players" that will not stick around.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 19, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> You shouldn't be able to follow two different roads, and have them both end up in the same place.



But...that’s literally how roads work.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 19, 2020)

DrunkonDuty said:


> I don't see classes as being cohesive themes. I see them as stuff that writers wrote.




This can be said of everything really.



> Certainly one can be inspired by what the writers wrote. I have been, probably will be again. But I also get my inspiration from a wider array of sources. Also, I find a lot of the fluff that gets tacked on to classes as kinda "meh" in terms of quality. So I'm still perfectly happy if a player, or the group as a whole, wish to re-skin the mechanics of a given class and say it works because X, Y, Z.




Maybe something that sets me apart is that I am glad D&D isn't just generic fantasy. I like the cohesive writing of the books.

When people seek to 'refluff,' 'retheme,' or minimize the effects of things Crawford warns them against turning the game into a 'mush'.

Take for example the idea of removing powers or stats or what have you from races. I've seen people suggest this as it would 'allow for more choices of races for character ideas' but the downside of doing this is that the races become more of a mush. They lose much of their identities.

I've also seen people say that it is a failing of D&D that it isn't supportive of all types of fantasy. People think it is designed to be a general fantasy game, probably because it is the most popular one.



> An absolutely reasonable stance.  You have your campaign/setting fluff. The characters need to fit within it. This players' cleric did not. I see it as being exactly the same as my Jedi example from my post (#325) above.




I think we're agreeing on a lot but showing differing taste.

All I've been saying I think, is that it is not wrong to take a game and mold it into something else. I just think people shouldn't assume that's what everyone wants and is okay with doing that. If everyone sits down to play a game of 5e the baseline is what is in the book. 

Anything can be changed by a group. I don't buy into a 'fluff' and 'mechanics' delineation where the 'fluff' can be discarded and changed at will by any player of the group. All changes should be made with concern about what is being gained and what is being lost.

I think people are more likely to think hard about a change to whether a character gets a +1 in this or that than they are about a change that shapes what it means to be a class. And that can be to the detriment of the game. The latter likely having more impact than the former.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 19, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> While that is true, it also greatly increases the complexity of the world, and it easily gets to a point where it threatens suspension of disbelief. We have enough of that with the dragons and the wizards, so there's no reason to add to that burden if we can easily avoid it.
> 
> If we imagine one sort of upbringing which leads to a character who can accurately be represented as a Devotion Paladin, then that's the minimum amount of lore complexity which is necessary to get those mechanics into the game. If we imagine an entirely different sort of upbringing, which nevertheless bring a character to the exact same mechanical representation, then that's... odd.
> 
> If you have a thousand different origin stories, and they somehow all funnel down to the same ten mechanical models, then something really weird is going on. You shouldn't be able to follow two different roads, and have them both end up in the same place.




But... the descriptions of the classes themselves include different origin stories.  The writeup of fighter includes the following:



			
				PHB said:
			
		

> All of these heroes are fighters, perhaps the most diverse class of characters in the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons. Questing knights, conquering overlords, royal champions, elite foot soldiers, hardened mercenaries, and bandit kings—as fighters, they all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat. And they are well acquainted with death, both meting it out and staring it defiantly in the face.




So, right in the rules, there are a thousand different origin stories that end up in the same mechanical space.

And this is true of every class.  Even more "limited" classes like, say a monk.  After all, a monk could be a ninja (Shadow monk) or a more anime style martial artist tossing fireballs from his hands with a HADOKEN!  A monk could be sent out in to the world with the blessings of his teacher, or he could be exiled from fellows because of some past transgression.  

So, yeah, you could have two monks standing side by side that look and act virtually nothing alike.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 19, 2020)

@ClaytonCross - ok, well, if we're talking about jerks and that's your table then sure, make whatever rules seem appropriate to mitigate the gaminess, sure. You have more patience than I would for that sort of behavior. Good on you.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Feb 19, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> But...that’s literally how roads work.



As long as you're going to Rome, anyway.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 19, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> You’ve lost me. How is this not agreeing with me?
> 
> Like, I don't see a problem with your game, but you have a problem with me not having a problem with it?
> 
> ...



Perhaps because I myself don’t understand your perspective.  You say that I have changed the rules.  From my perspective, it is not clear that I changed any rules. 
So, to clarify, what rules do you think I’ve changed?

Edit: From your initial response, my impression was that you thought I had instituted a “No Oath of Vengeance Paladins rule”.  I did not.  My reply to your response was based on that impression.  Read
my initial response with this in mind.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 19, 2020)

In another thread, on another board, the fluff/mechanics distinction was used to treat fluff as secondary and justify restrictions that the poster felt would make the character “weaker”, specifically, the druid’s restriction to non-metal armor. (It can’t be mechanics, no consequences are described if you don’t adhere to the restriction.  Also, “won’t” is weaker than “can’t”).

However, given the language used in the PHB, it is clear to me that the designers did not intend patrons to be a constant presence in the lives of warlocks nor all oath of vengeance paladins to be morally ambiguous ‘90s antiheroes. (What the h*** was wrong with us in the ‘90s?)

At some point, you have to consider that by shutting the door on those who would abuse the system (personal and subjective take on people who argue that druids should wear armor, there are other threads to argue this), you are also shutting the door on a bunch of really cool concepts that fit the theme of the game and would be super fun to play. (Staying on the druid theme, I’m toying with a follower of Anansi, access to thorn whip, spider climb and web, plus spider wild shapes).


----------



## Captain Panda (Feb 19, 2020)

I'm very much of the Treantmonk mindset here. I really don't understand how some can view fluff as core to the rules as crunch. Crunch is math, change it and the system starts to buckle and fail. Fluff, within reason and at the discretion of the DM, can be changed much more easily. Crunch is harder to change, and in my experience most gamers who try to homebrew entirely new classes to suit their vision are just not very good at homebrew and would have been better suited reflavoring something that exists already. It's much easier to adjust the flavor than the math, and it allows a lot more fun at the table. 

Obviously there are bounds of reason, someone shouldn't bring a Jedi or the Terminator to a table where that sort of thing isn't welcome, but there is a clear distinction between fluff and crunch and an obvious reason one would tweak fluff in lieu of trying to master game design and homebrew your own unique idea.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 19, 2020)

Azzy said:


> Backgrounds already do this.



Backgrounds don't try to explain your class mechanics. Whether you're a Noble or a Hermit, neither of those try and explain where your Paladin or Wizard powers come from.  They exist to add depth to a character, instead of anyone _just_ being their class. They don't change the lore behind the class mechanics, though.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 19, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Why do you insist that we are changing lore?
> 
> If I make a barbarian with the background of knight, what lore am I changing? Must all barbarians be semi-literate savages who eschew the comforts of civilization? I still rage, I still am using the barbarian mechanics, after all, barbarians get access to medium armor and shields, using those and a longsword are completely within the realm of possibility.



Barbarian comes with quite a bit of baked-in lore, which goes to explain how and why they are able to rage. If you use your Knight background to replace that lore, rather than supplement it, then you are changing how the world works in regard to raging. You are saying that there is a new path within the world, which manifests in this way, where previously that path did not exist.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 19, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> The real world is complicated, and similiar skills can arise from vastly different experiences. And, in the game, a similiar skill is reflected by the exact same mechanics.



And as far as skills are concerned, that makes perfect sense. There's a difference between knowing how to sew a wound closed, though, and knowing how to channel eldritch energies in order to make your sword more dangerous to undead while simultaneously wearing heavy armor and generating a healing aura.

There are a lot of ways to bake a cake, but there's only one way to make an iPad.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 19, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Backgrounds don't try to explain your class mechanics. Whether you're a Noble or a Hermit, neither of those try and explain where your Paladin or Wizard powers come from.  They exist to add depth to a character, instead of anyone _just_ being their class. They don't change the lore behind the class mechanics, though.



True they don't expand your class but they do expand your character, which supports "you class is not your character" since if "your class is your character" you should get nothing from your background. You do get skills, tool proficiencies, and a special feature that informs your character regardless of your class. I will admit, sometimes a player has little more than bonus skills, but other times it completely changes the personality and play style of a character. A good example might be my human variant *Urchin* The Great Old One Patron Pact of the Tome Warlock scout. He and Observant from human variant, stealth and thieves tools from Urchin and was essentially the party Scout sniper with Devil's sight and Agonizing Blast. He hide and sniped like a ranger and scouting, searching for traps, and unlocking doors like a rogue (Had gloves of thievery). 100% pure warlock so it was not a munchkin and when we built the party we choose roles not classes and I choose party scout. That was my job in the party so I was stepping on no ones toes from session 1 to the end of the campaign. I simply chose to do it in a different way, which actually worked very well. Darkness + Devil's sight while in the dark is kind of like casting invisibility that doesn't fail if you attack. I also means I was completely obscured so I could hide literally anywhere, but I didn't even need to do that to have advantage on attacks from being unseen and enemies attacks on me at disadvantage for blind firing at a heavily obscured opponent. 

The cool thing about The Great Old One patron is that my GM at the time was a "_You class is your character_" GM for warlock and cleric (and nothing else), so he originally tried to tell me I could not play a non-evil warlock then I showed him this, "_The Great Old One might be *unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you*, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it._" So as I said before you have to form some level of agreement with your GM if the two of you disagree about "_You class is your character_" or "_You class is not your character_", I did this by excepting my GMs stance and picking a sub-class that specifically says that is ok. This still came up around level 8 because despite my background explaining how I got my pact without the Great Old One knowing about me, My GM made my patron become aware of me then tried to force a conflict between my patron and the Deity of the Party Paladin. I sided with the Paladin which surprised and Angered the GM, not because of PHB fluff or because it didn't fit the story (my character was established as the very loyal second in command to the party leader/paladin due to mutual suffering at the hands of the same cult that started both our paths). No, he was made because it was not how he would have played it or wanted me to play it. He had agreed to my character at level one, after me showing the PHB fluff but as it turned out his "_You class is your character_" stance on warlocks extends to Celestial Warlocks being evil because they turned to a creature for power, which says to me "_You class is your character_" really means "_I have this personal stance on what a class is in D&D and I want to enforce my stance on your character design and play using "fluff" I create and if you have "fluff" that counters it I will still change the world to make you wrong and push you into playing the way I want because I am GM and my desire is your law_" …. I played a that table a while more but this kept coming up. I would create a character, he would approve it, then when I played it he didn't like how, then he would alter the world and claim innate fluff to force me to play my character a specific way that suited him. After a few short campaigns, I told him "I am not an NPC" to which he basically said "yes you are! you all are! this is my world!  My story! In my world my story is the only thing that matters! I just let you tag along! Play your part!" … I left the group after that. 

As a result of this I have learned 3 things. 
1. Fluff is more often an excuse for a GM to control player style than not. That is not always the case but it often seems that way to the player, true or not. So anytime I see a GM pushing fluff, I can't say they are wrong and I recommend players and GM working it out between them. I also, try to keep this in mind when I GM, so that I don't use fluff to attempt to trap my player into my personal feelings even if its subconscious. (That doesn't ignore all since, it means the player needs to work on background that brings something around that I want to no to, bringing it fare enough I can bare to say yes to it. I will then hold them to that background)

2. You know if the GM is "_You class is your character_" or not if they are presented with fluff from the rules they argue your going against the proves they are wrong or that you can make a character that does not have the quality they are saying you must have, then alters their setting/story to make themselves right, this is not a debate about fluff. You just have a Narrator instead of a GM. If your GM constantly says "story comes first" that is also a good indicator of this. Run from this table if you don't want to be an NPC in there story. When I GM, I try to remember the concept of role playing games is a *shared* story. To me that means, the story a player wants to tell is just as important as what the GM wants to tell. The GMs job is not to narrate, but mediate the rules and give the game direction through story hooks when players don't have a direction. If a player drops a story hook that players or the GM want to grab, that's is completely expectable. My current GM is really good at that. I need work on it, since I get a bit frantic and cough up in keeping track of things when I run games. So I try to listen more to the players when its not "my turn" the way I expect them to listen to me when I am describing a scene or feeding a story arch. I also try to listen to feedback desires in conversations between sessions. 

3. I am jaded about being controlled like an NPC as player and so I don't want to do this to my players. If the book says I can choose and option that my patron is not a nuisance and a GM tries to force Patron nuisance on me despite my background, player choices of subclass, and conversations explaining what I am trying to avoid, then  I am done at their table. At the same time, that means reading players back grounds and knowing that sometimes backgrounds are empty because players don't want to look back but move forward. Sometimes they clearly cut of allies and hooks and I need to respect that the way I want it respected when I play. Sometimes a player who has played a warlock leave a juicy hook to their patron in their back ground so I as GM will run that story while other times they have done that and they just want to be a warlock class without the patron drama so they have fulfilled their pact with their patron before the game started.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Feb 19, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Maybe something that sets me apart is that I am glad D&D isn't just generic fantasy. I like the cohesive writing of the books.
> 
> When people seek to 'refluff,' 'retheme,' or minimize the effects of things Crawford warns them against turning the game into a 'mush'.
> 
> ...




Crawford? I do not know this thing.

I should point out that no-one (no-one on pages 1-2 or pages 16-18 anyway) is suggesting changing mechanics. A poster above (Sorry, too lazy to check who. But you know who you are and I think it's a great idea!) suggests that one can play a knight using barbarian mechanics. That's not changing mechanics. That's just saying "Lady Smashalot is known for the great rages that come over her." Assuming the setting has knights then one wouldn't even need to change any campaign background to accommodate that.



ad_hoc said:


> I think we're agreeing on a lot but showing differing taste.
> 
> All I've been saying I think, is that it is not wrong to take a game and mold it into something else. I just think people shouldn't assume that's what everyone wants and is okay with doing that. If everyone sits down to play a game of 5e the baseline is what is in the book.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I think we agree. For instance I agree that the the fluff-stuff in the rule book can be a good baseline. From there a table can change it or not, as works for that table. And I think that's all anyone here is saying: that one CAN change fluff, not that anyone SHOULD change fluff.

Peace Out!


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 20, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> Barbarian comes with quite a bit of baked-in lore, which goes to explain how and why they are able to rage. If you use your Knight background to replace that lore, rather than supplement it, then you are changing how the world works in regard to raging. You are saying that there is a new path within the world, which manifests in this way, where previously that path did not exist.




I generally don't like just saying people are wrong, but I can't see what point you think you are making here. What lore am I changing?

I'm not even trying to be obtuse here, you are saying I'm changing how rage works, but I'm explicitly not. The knight still "come alive in the chaos of combat" they still "enter a berserk state where rage takes over, giving them superhuman strength and resilience " 

I have changed none of that. All I've changed is the part about hating cities, and feeling like polite society is a sign of weakness. The Barbarian doesn't have to be a tribal warrior, does it? Do only people who do not build roads have the capability of raging? How does that make any sense? If a tribe of nomadic humans settle down and Ungrak plants a garden, do all the barbarians of that tribe suddenly lose their powers? Does the Zealot following the gods of war and battle suddenly lose their blessings because their sister who traveled across the sea learns medicine? 

Because, if the culture of the society determines whether or not my character can rage and fight, instead of the individual... then if my society changes, I lose my abilities. 

Or, are you trying to say that someone raised on an estate, can't muster the primal urges neccessary? Does something about good food and fine clothing remove the capability of rage? IF you dress a barbarian in silks are they powerless? 

This all seems ridiculous, but those are the details I've changed. A nobleman, with the title of knight, but still having the rage of a barbarian. Yet, you are telling me I am fundamentally changing how rage works, that rage cannot manifest in a nobleman. Why? Why must a barbarian be a tribal warrior who eschews civilization?



Saelorn said:


> And as far as skills are concerned, that makes perfect sense. There's a difference between knowing how to sew a wound closed, though, and knowing how to channel eldritch energies in order to make your sword more dangerous to undead while simultaneously wearing heavy armor and generating a healing aura.
> 
> There are a lot of ways to bake a cake, but there's only one way to make an iPad.




Sure, only one type of ipad. 

The ipad, the ipad II, 3, 4, 5, 6 ,7 surface, surface pro, pro, mini, air, 

And those of course are completely unlike the Nook, The Kindle, Kindle Fire, Kindle Fire XL, and whatever tablet chrome has released. 

And what is wearing heavy armor if not a skill? You can even take a feat chain to get it, or be a mountain dwarf. In fact, a valor bard can channel eldritch energies into their sword, create a healing aura and wear heavy armor. 

Your argument falls apart because there are always multiple ways to get to the same place. And, if their are multiple mechanical ways, why can't there be multiple thematic ways to reach the same goal. After all, lots of superheroes who can fly, shoot energy beams, and are super strong and tough, and a lot of them do not have the same explanation for their powers. Why must DnD fantasy be so strict as to allow only one possible interpretation of a cleric, or a bard?



DrunkonDuty said:


> I should point out that no-one (no-one on pages 1-2 or pages 16-18 anyway) is suggesting changing mechanics. A poster above (Sorry, too lazy to check who. But you know who you are and I think it's a great idea!) suggests that one can play a knight using barbarian mechanics. That's not changing mechanics. That's just saying "Lady Smashalot is known for the great rages that come over her." Assuming the setting has knights then one wouldn't even need to change any campaign background to accommodate that.





That was me


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 20, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> This all seems ridiculous, but those are the details I've changed. A nobleman, with the title of knight, but still having the rage of a barbarian. Yet, you are telling me I am fundamentally changing how rage works, that rage cannot manifest in a nobleman. Why? Why must a barbarian be a tribal warrior who eschews civilization?



If it was possible for a nobleman without such an upbringing to manifest the extraordinary abilities which allow you to survive otherwise-lethal blows and deflect arrows with your rock-hard abs, then the class would have a different name.

We may not know the specific factor of that upbringing which allows these abilities to manifest, but we know that the whole picture is _sufficient_. As you navigate further and further from the archetype, you are taking a stand about what is _not_ necessary for this to work. And as a player, that's not your call to make; that's a matter for the DM, or the setting designer.


Chaosmancer said:


> Sure, only one type of ipad.
> 
> The ipad, the ipad II, 3, 4, 5, 6 ,7 surface, surface pro, pro, mini, air,
> 
> And those of course are completely unlike the Nook, The Kindle, Kindle Fire, Kindle Fire XL, and whatever tablet chrome has released.



Regardless of labels or specifications, they're all largely the same device, and they're constructed in largely the same way. Small differences in the process or components will lead to small differences in the end product, but you can't make any significant variations if you want to end up with something functional.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 20, 2020)

DrunkonDuty said:


> Crawford? I do not know this thing.




Jeremy Crawford is the lead rules designer for 5e.



> I should point out that no-one (no-one on pages 1-2 or pages 16-18 anyway) is suggesting changing mechanics. A poster above (Sorry, too lazy to check who. But you know who you are and I think it's a great idea!) suggests that one can play a knight using barbarian mechanics. That's not changing mechanics. That's just saying "Lady Smashalot is known for the great rages that come over her." Assuming the setting has knights then one wouldn't even need to change any campaign background to accommodate that.




Same difference. I don't recognize the divide of 'fluff' and 'mechanics' in an RPG.

Regardless...

Conflating Barbarians and Fighters weakens both of their identities and is one step closer to creating a 'mush' of a game. It doesn't help that Fighter already has the weakest identity of the classes.

What do the rules mean? And at what point in this retheming and 'refluffing' will they lose all meaning besides being a poorly designed combat strategy game.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Feb 20, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Same difference. I don't recognize the divide of 'fluff' and 'mechanics' in an RPG.




Well I don't think we're ever going to come to agreement on this. But hey, that's cool, it's been a good chat.


----------



## Gruftzwerg (Feb 20, 2020)

The real question is, why do we have classes? Are they strick bound character and RP rules? I guess not. To me classes are there so that I can build the character in my mind. The things that he should be capable of to work with the DnD rules (or whatever system you are playing).

Only exception are classes with strick with a strict codex/organization and alignment rules. But even than there is room for flexibility to some degree. (like the paladin may work with evil characters if he knows that it is for the greater good)
And if you are fine with the consequences, do whatever you want.

Sure not everything is possible and it should be kept on a somewhat sane lvl. We are playing to have fun, and as long as everybody at the table can enjoy the play, I don't see any reason for RP restrictions.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 20, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> If it was possible for a nobleman without such an upbringing to manifest the extraordinary abilities which allow you to survive otherwise-lethal blows and deflect arrows with your rock-hard abs, then the class would have a different name.
> 
> We may not know the specific factor of that upbringing which allows these abilities to manifest, but we know that the whole picture is _sufficient_. As you navigate further and further from the archetype, you are taking a stand about what is _not_ necessary for this to work. And as a player, that's not your call to make; that's a matter for the DM, or the setting designer.




Okay. If your position is factually true, then you should be able to quote the PHB correct? The part where it says that Barbarians are disqualified from the Noble Background?

Here, I'll help you, since you might be away from your books at the moment. I'll put all the relevant text I can think of in spoilers.



Spoiler: Background base Rules



PHB 125 

"Every story has a beginning. Your character’s background reveals where you came from, how you became an adventurer, and your place in the world. *Your fighter might have been a courageous knight or a grizzled soldier. Your wizard could have been a sage or an artisan. Your rogue might have gotten by as a guild thief or commanded audiences as a jester.*

Choosing a background provides you with important story cues about your character’s identity. The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring? Where did you get the money to purchase your starting gear, or, if you come from a wealthy background, why don’t you have more money? How did you learn the skills of your class? What sets you apart from ordinary people who share your background?

The sample background in this chapter provides both concrete benefits (features, proficiencies, and languages) and roleplaying suggestions."



I went ahead and bolded an interesting part for you. It is the one where it lists two different backgrounds for each of the Fighter, Wizard, and Rogue. Now, it doesn't state out right, but it would seem to imply that you can choose different options. 

Still, maybe noble is more specific?



Spoiler: Noble Background



You understand wealth, power, and privilege. You carry a noble title, and your family owns land, collects taxes, and wields significant political influence. You might be a pampered aristocrat unfamiliar with work or discomfort, a former merchant just elevated to the nobility, or a disinherited scoundrel with a disproportionate sense of entitlement. Or you could be an honest, hard-working landowner who cares deeply about the people who live and work on your land, keenly aware of your responsibility to them.

Work with your DM to come up with an appropriate title and determine how much authority that title carries. A noble title doesn’t stand on its own — it’s connected to an entire family, and whatever title you hold, you will pass it down to your own children. Not only do you need to determine your noble title, but you should also work with the DM to describe your family and their influence on you.

Is your family old and established, or was your title only recently bestowed? How much influence do they wield, and over what area? What kind of reputation does your family have among the other aristocrats of the region? How do the common people regard them?

What’s your position in the family? Are you the heir to the head of the family? Have you already inherited the title? How do you feel about that responsibility? Or are you so far down the line of inheritance that no one cares what you do, as long as you don’t embarrass the family? How does the head of your family feel about your adventuring career? Are you in your family’s good graces, or shunned by the rest of your family?

Does your family have a coat of arms? An insignia you might wear on a signet ring? Particular colors you wear all the time? An animal you regard as a symbol of your line or even a spiritual member of the family?

These details help establish your family and your title as features of the world of the campaign.

*Skill Proficiencies:* History, Persuasion
*Tool Proficiencies:* One type of gaming set
*Languages:* One of your choice
*Equipment:* A set of fine clothes, a signet ring, a scroll of pedigree, and a purse containing 25 gp

*Feature: Position of Privilege*
Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.

*Suggested Characteristics*
Nobles are born and raised to a very different lifestyle than most people ever experience, and their personalities reflect that upbringing. A noble title comes with a plethora of bonds — responsibilities to family, to other nobles (including the sovereign), to the people entrusted to the family’s care, or even to the title itself. But this responsibility is often a good way to undermine a noble.



Hmm, don't see anything that says "Prerequisites" or "Mutually Exclusive with this Class" 

But, I could very possibly be missing a section of the PHB. If you could quote me the exact page number where it tells you which backgrounds you are not allowed to take with which classes, because doing so would break the rules of the game, then I would be much obliged. 

Because, if you can't, that would imply that despite your claims that "the class would be called something else if this was allowed" that, actually, it is allowed.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 20, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> While that is true, it also greatly increases the complexity of the world, and it easily gets to a point where it threatens suspension of disbelief. We have enough of that with the dragons and the wizards, so there's no reason to add to that burden if we can easily avoid it.
> 
> If we imagine one sort of upbringing which leads to a character who can accurately be represented as a Devotion Paladin, then that's the minimum amount of lore complexity which is necessary to get those mechanics into the game. If we imagine an entirely different sort of upbringing, which nevertheless bring a character to the exact same mechanical representation, then that's... odd.
> 
> If you have a thousand different origin stories, and they somehow all funnel down to the same ten mechanical models, then something really weird is going on. You shouldn't be able to follow two different roads, and have them both end up in the same place.




Your suspension of disbelief apparently operates in entirely the opposite direction that mine does. It's the _lack_ of nuance and complexity in a game world that can challenge my suspension of disbelief, not a surfeit.

From my standpoint, the real world is filled to the brim with nuance and complexity, so (in the abstract) the more complex the game world is the more verisimilitudinous it feels. For me, verisimilitude is the single most important element that facilitates my suspension of disbelief. Do you find less complex settings more verisimilitudinous than more complex ones? Or is verisimilitude not important to your suspension of disbelief?

And the ability to follow two different roads in-fiction, representing both with similar mechanics is, in my mind, one of the entire points of having a rules system at all. The complexity of the setting gets abstracted down to a more manageable level. An overhead sword swing and a low thrust are modelled identically in the 5e mechanics with an attack roll, despite being wildly different in-fiction. I only consider that a positive: the system would quickly become unusable if every unique type of attack were modelled separately. Similarly, I see it as a positive that (e.g.) a primitive primal warrior and a street urchin with anger-management issues can both be modelled by the Barbarian class.

I assume you agree that an attack roll can model multiple types of attacks? If so, why can't a class or subclass model multiple origin stories? What permits a many-to-one fluff-to-crunch ratio for attacks but requires a one-to-one fluff-to-crunch ratio for classes?


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 20, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Jeremy Crawford is the lead rules designer for 5e.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Since it was my barbarian concept, I'll step up to the plate. 

I am not conflating the barbarian class with the fighter class. 

I am taking a noble, who is a barbarian. Just like I could take a barbarian who is a sage (did that one too, for an old orc shaman who was traveling the world to learn about the outsiders and help protect his tribe) or one who is a charlatan. 

The Barbarian I actually did this with was a Knight, protected by the Spirits of his Ancestors (Ancestral Guardian Barbarian). The family had started as more "traditional" barbarians a few hundred years ago, but by helping a conquering king forge his kingdom, they earned land, titles, and became sworn protectors of the crown. 

And they still fought like barbarians, I didn't refluff a single class feature. I simply applied them to a character who was not illiterate, ill-mannered, or naked. In fact, as a human, I made sure his first feat was shield master, which I used to great effect while raging.

I changed no rules. Nothing. Unless you can find something that says in the rules that Barbarians are not allowed to take the noble background, or take the feat shield master, or use their medium armor proficiency that the rules grant them. 

So, despite the "rules" saying that barbarians must be savages from the wilderness who spit upon society, the rules also allow me to take a high society character, and use the barbarian class. 

Just like I can make a wizard who is an entertainer
A bard who is a pirate
A rogue who is a priest
A Druid who is a soldier
A ranger who is a spy
A monk who is a charlatan
A paladin who is a criminal

The rules allow for this. Unless you can quote a section of the PHB that says different


----------



## HomegrownHydra (Feb 20, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> And as a player, that's not your call to make; that's a matter for the DM, or the setting designer.



You don't speak for all DMs. Lots of DMs not only allow their players to have a say in shaping the setting, they encourage it.

Earlier you asked me a serious of questions which I provided answers to. Were those answers satisfactory to you?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 20, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> If it was possible for a nobleman without such an upbringing to manifest the extraordinary abilities which allow you to survive otherwise-lethal blows and deflect arrows with your rock-hard abs, then the class would have a different name.
> 
> We may not know the specific factor of that upbringing which allows these abilities to manifest, but we know that the whole picture is _sufficient_. As you navigate further and further from the archetype, you are taking a stand about what is _not_ necessary for this to work. And as a player, that's not your call to make; that's a matter for the DM, or the setting designer.
> 
> Regardless of labels or specifications, they're all largely the same device, and they're constructed in largely the same way. Small differences in the process or components will lead to small differences in the end product, but you can't make any significant variations if you want to end up with something functional.




So, now we've moved beyond actual text and into the realm of ... what... L-Space?  A player very much could take the Noble Background with a Barbarian.  That player is not doing anything against the rules whatsoever.  But, apparently, according to Saelorn, it's not possible?    This has gone beyond ridiculous.  Now we're into Calvinball territory.  I wonder what rules @Saelorn will make up next?


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 20, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Conflating Barbarians and Fighters weakens both of their identities and is one step closer to creating a 'mush' of a game. It doesn't help that Fighter already has the weakest identity of the classes.



I disagree with your “mush” argument.

First, a game in which your Kung fu monk fights alongside an armored knight from the Middle Ages, a swashbuckler from the Renaissance, and a warlock empowered by Lovecraftian horrors (1920s), the game is already a mishmash of fantasy and horror tropes.

Second, if my bard obtained his magical powers by beating a devil in a fiddling contest instead of attending Bard College, how does that make a mush of the setting?  Devils are already established in the setting, they are established to make deals and honour them, and that precise story is a staple of folklore in many cultures.  I would argue that such a background strengthens both the setting and the DM’s game rather than weakens it.

Finally, as someone else mentioned, D&D 5e doesn’t really have a default setting, and the designers go out of their way in the PHB to refer to archetypes in broad terms, so it is a bit weird to argue that unorthodox takes on the classes are breaking the rules.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 20, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Okay. If your position is factually true, then you should be able to quote the PHB correct? The part where it says that Barbarians are disqualified from the Noble Background?



We have been focussing on Backgrounds, but there is no reason to limit it to that.

Multiclass is an optional rule, but if your table plays with it, are certain multiclasses not permitted?  Is a Barbarian barred from multiclassing into a Monk because he lacks the requisite level of serenity?  Does a Paladin’s code forbid him from multiclassing Rogue?

What about Feats?  Can Barbarians pick up the Skilled and Prodigy feats? Can a fiendlock pick up Magic Initiate (Cleric)?


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 20, 2020)

FrozenNorth said:


> I disagree with your “mush” argument.
> 
> First, a game in which your Kung fu monk fights alongside an armored knight from the Middle Ages, a swashbuckler from the Renaissance, and a warlock empowered by Lovecraftian horrors (1920s), the game is already a mishmash of fantasy and horror tropes.




That is actually the opposite of what Crawford means by 'mush'.

Each of those things has its own identity. A strong one. A kung fu Monk is very different than the armoured knight.

A 'mush' means that there is little or no differentiation between identities and themes.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 20, 2020)

FrozenNorth said:


> First, a game in which your Kung fu monk fights alongside an armored knight from the Middle Ages, a swashbuckler from the Renaissance, and a warlock empowered by Lovecraftian horrors (1920s), the game is already a mishmash of fantasy and horror tropes.



And now you made me think of this....gonna show up in my campaign next week!

Dorothy: Human Bard
Tin Man: Warforged Fighter
Cowardly Lion: Tabaxi ?
Scarecrow: ?


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 20, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Hmm, don't see anything that says "Prerequisites" or "Mutually Exclusive with this Class"



There's no reason you can't be both a Noble and a Barbarian. It just means that you were a Barbarian who became a Noble, or vice versa. That doesn't mean your Background informs your Class abilities in any way. 

Trying to interpret the Rage of a Barbarian as the Rage of a Noble would be extremely disingenuous. There's nothing about being a Noble which allows you to Rage. You can only Rage because you're a Barbarian.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 20, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> There's no reason you can't be both a Noble and a Barbarian. It just means that you were a Barbarian who became a Noble, or vice versa. That doesn't mean your Background informs your Class abilities in any way.
> 
> Trying to interpret the Rage of a Barbarian as the Rage of a Noble would be extremely disingenuous. There's nothing about being a Noble which allows you to Rage. You can only Rage because you're a Barbarian.




_Blink
Blink Blink_

Then, if I may ask, what was this about?




Saelorn said:


> If it was possible for a nobleman without such an upbringing to manifest the extraordinary abilities which allow you to survive otherwise-lethal blows and deflect arrows with your rock-hard abs, then the class would have a different name.




Or this part



Saelorn said:


> We may not know the specific factor of that upbringing which allows these abilities to manifest, but we know that the whole picture is _sufficient_. As you navigate further and further from the archetype, you are taking a stand about what is _not_ necessary for this to work. And as a player, that's not your call to make; that's a matter for the DM, or the setting designer.
> 
> Regardless of labels or specifications, they're all largely the same device, and they're constructed in largely the same way. Small differences in the process or components will lead to small differences in the end product, but you can't make any significant variations if you want to end up with something functional.




This was a bit further back on the same subject



Saelorn said:


> Barbarian comes with quite a bit of baked-in lore, which goes to explain how and why they are able to rage. If you use your Knight background to replace that lore, rather than supplement it, then you are changing how the world works in regard to raging. You are saying that there is a new path within the world, which manifests in this way, where previously that path did not exist.






It seems in these previous posts that you opposed the idea of a Barbarian who was a knight, did you simply misunderstand what I have been saying this entire time, or are you changing your stance? Because, from my side of the screen this seems to be a 180 from your previous stance.


Edit: And to confirm, while I did not change any of the barbarian abilities, I did not play my character as a "rugged mountain man" or anything of the sort. He was a Nobleman and a Knight. Courtly love and the whole 9 yards


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 20, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> It seems in these previous posts that you opposed the idea of a Barbarian who was a knight, did you simply misunderstand what I have been saying this entire time, or are you changing your stance? Because, from my side of the screen this seems to be a 180 from your previous stance.



It's possible that there was a misunderstanding. It seemed that there was a fairly unified camp behind the idea that fluff was freely mutable, and a smaller camp behind the idea that fluff is only as mutable as crunch is. I can see how someone might be unfairly lumped into one of those groups, if their position was more nuanced.

To reiterate my position, then: 

Classes come with a lot of codified fluff, which is the in-game reality that the mechanics exist to reflect. (Some classes are more specific about this fluff than other classes are.) If you belong to the Barbarian class, then that necessarily means some things are true about your character, and those things explain how you're able to rage and whatnot.

A character isn't _only_ their class, though. You can be a Barbarian, and also a Scholar or a Criminal or something. People can be complex and multi-faceted. However, being a Scholar doesn't change what it means to be a Barbarian. You aren't a Scholar who unlocked the knowledge of Rage through extensive research or anything. You're a Barbarian and a Scholar, and your Barbarian crunch is explained through the narrative of the Barbarian class, while your Scholar crunch is explained through the narrative of the Scholar background.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 20, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> It's possible that there was a misunderstanding. It seemed that there was a fairly unified camp behind the idea that fluff was freely mutable, and a smaller camp behind the idea that fluff is only as mutable as crunch is. I can see how someone might be unfairly lumped into one of those groups, if their position was more nuanced.
> 
> To reiterate my position, then:
> 
> ...





Ok, that is a much more nuanced position than you seemed to take before. And I can respect that, but I do want to press it a bit further. 

What do you do when those two narratives clash? 

You are saying a class has "codified fluff", things which must be true about the character. So, continuing the barbarian discussion, which parts of their "fluff" is codified and unchangeable? Because many of the details of what is listed in the barbarian class are exactly the types of things a background will change. So, when those two narratives conflict, what happens?


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 20, 2020)

HomegrownHydra said:


> You don't speak for all DMs. Lots of DMs not only allow their players to have a say in shaping the setting, they encourage it.
> 
> Earlier you asked me a serious of questions which I provided answers to. Were those answers satisfactory to you?



Honestly, no, those answers are not relevant to the topic at hand. Both that post, and this one, seem much more concerned with your personal changes to make D&D more like a game that you would enjoy; rather than judging it for what it is, on its own merits.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 20, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Ok, that is a much more nuanced position than you seemed to take before. And I can respect that, but I do want to press it a bit further.
> 
> What do you do when those two narratives clash?
> 
> You are saying a class has "codified fluff", things which must be true about the character. So, continuing the barbarian discussion, which parts of their "fluff" is codified and unchangeable? Because many of the details of what is listed in the barbarian class are exactly the types of things a background will change. So, when those two narratives conflict, what happens?



In lieu of a comprehensive setting guide, that's a matter for you to work out with the DM, since the DM is also the one responsible for understanding how the world works (and for reconciling inconsistencies within the rules). They are the one who decides which specific aspect of Barbarian fluff is necessary to generate the relevant system mechanics.

Where a given class and background would be in direct conflict, I would honestly expect a reasonable DM to disallow that combination, in the same way that they might disallow certain race/class combinations.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 20, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> In lieu of a comprehensive setting guide, that's a matter for you to work out with the DM, since the DM is also the one responsible for understanding how the world works (and for reconciling inconsistencies within the rules). They are the one who decides which specific aspect of Barbarian fluff is necessary to generate the relevant system mechanics.
> 
> Where a given class and background would be in direct conflict, I would honestly expect a reasonable DM to disallow that combination, in the same way that they might disallow certain race/class combinations.




I think that lies the difference in our stances. I would expect a reasonable DM to generally allow the combination. 

But, considering we seem to agree that the "codified fluff" is actually in the realm of the DM instead of the PHB, we are talking a minor difference in preference and little more.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Feb 20, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> But, considering we seem to agree that the "codified fluff" is actually in the realm of the DM instead of the PHB, we are talking a minor difference in preference and little more.



I would say that the codified fluff is in the PHB, and the DM is the one responsible for finding it, but close enough.

And now I will assume all conflict has been resolved here, and proceed to mute this thread.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 20, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> If it was possible for a nobleman without such an upbringing to manifest the extraordinary abilities which allow you to survive otherwise-lethal blows and deflect arrows with your rock-hard abs, then the class would have a different name.



 Noble_ is_ the character's upbringing.
I also have to ask: where are you getting the "deflect arrows with your rock-hard abs" idea from? I'm pretty sure there is no fluff like that specified in the PHB.

Are you essentially agreeing that Nobles and Barbarians are mutually exclusive? Despite one being your upbringing, and the other simply a skill set??



> We may not know the specific factor of that upbringing which allows these abilities to manifest, but we know that the whole picture is _sufficient_. As you navigate further and further from the archetype, you are taking a stand about what is _not_ necessary for this to work. And as a player, that's not your call to make; that's a matter for the DM, or the setting designer.






Saelorn said:


> There's no reason you can't be both a Noble and a Barbarian. It just means that you were a Barbarian who became a Noble, or vice versa. That doesn't mean your Background informs your Class abilities in any way.



 Taking levels in the Barbarian class doesn't stop you from being a Noble though.


> Trying to interpret the Rage of a Barbarian as the Rage of a Noble would be extremely disingenuous. There's nothing about being a Noble which allows you to Rage. You can only Rage because you're a Barbarian.



 I'm pretty sure that they have never claimed that their character was not of the Barbarian class.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 20, 2020)

Saelorn said:


> *In lieu of a comprehensive setting guide, that's a matter for you to work out with the DM, since the DM is also the one responsible for understanding how the world works* (and for reconciling inconsistencies within the rules). They are the one who decides which specific aspect of Barbarian fluff is necessary to generate the relevant system mechanics.
> 
> Where a given class and background would be in direct conflict, I would honestly expect a reasonable DM to disallow that combination, in the same way that they might disallow certain race/class combinations.






Saelorn said:


> I would say that the codified fluff is in the PHB, and the DM is the one responsible for finding it, but close enough.
> 
> And now I will assume all conflict has been resolved here, and proceed to mute this thread.




I guess you might not read this this but it bears posting to the topic. All setting guides have specific fluff for race and class with setting. SCAG for example lists all the races and classes from the PHB and defines their place in the setting. The Ranger does not have a new subclass in SCAG it is only has fluff describing rangers by race and how they are generally fit into the setting. *Then setting guides set fluff over anything in the PHB *and when your* in a GM homebrew setting created by the GM he has full and unlimited control of what classes mean in there setting*. Most tables play some level of homebrew even if trying to follow a setting guide because it is a lot to ask that a GM know EVERYTHING at all times that might come up as a setting or that they are completely happy with the setting and would not adjust it at all.

1. *Does the GM provide the rules* session 0 for "_The rules of the game create a shared expectation_." the way a setting guide would? Or 2. *Does the GM get to change the rules at their whim*? Because 2 is when the problem of "your character is your class" becomes a problem as your players invest into their characters then find the GM has changed the setting rules under them forcing them to play their character as the GM intends instead of how the player intends.

This does happen in reverse though, where a player is playing "your character is your class" at the cost of fun and the detriment of the party. The prime example being the Lawful stupid paladin, which is a big part of why there is so much paladin hate. Where the advise of the GM is often "your character is not your class" you don't have to be a pain to the group your choosing to do so,


----------



## univoxs (Feb 20, 2020)

Fauchard1520 said:


> You guys have heard the phrase "your class is not your character," right? the idea is that you don’t have to be an baby-eating psychopath just because your sorcerer has the Abyssal bloodline. You don’t have to be a purehearted hero just because you know your way around a smite evil.
> 
> I'm curious if this is a real problem that people have encountered, or if it's just a good soundbite. Have you ever encountered a GM or another player who told you that you were "playing your class wrong?" I may just be lucky in my groups, but I haven't ever encountered that mess out in the wild.
> 
> *Comic for illustrative purposes.*




I think there is a difference between justification and concept. If the concept is that the character is a baby eating anti-paladin but is working with the rest of the party for specific reasons like a shared enemy then I allow it as long as it continues to fit. If those goals become misaligned, then they have it out and everyone has a good time with the ensuing PvP.  If the thing that came first was the player wants to make an anti-paladin and then tries to bend it to fit the good aligned campaign and there is no real concept then that works less well for me because the player is not roleplaying that aspect of the character but is instead ignoring what makes an anti-paladin evil. 

I make characters that are evil in good campaigns all the time and it is never a problem because I know what motivates the character and, at our table, we like a little interpersonal drama between the characters. The best roleplaying I have ever been a part of is when they players are all slightly at odds. Alliances held together by string and backstabbing abound. Its really about the theme of the game setting in the end and everyone agreeing to what they are trying to play. If one person shows up as the anti-paladin and everyone else is lawful good, there has been a miscommunication in what the adventure is about.

If we think outside of D&D and more about WoD, having conflicted party goals is nothing new and in fact that system often promotes it.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 20, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> What do you do when those two narratives clash?




It is on the player to make a character that makes sense.

I would take issue with a character who was 'a noble knight' but the player took the Barbarian class for the abilities and powers only and played them with the identity of another class.

Improv is just about the most freeform roleplaying there is, but there are still rules. An improv actor who breaks the rules or breaks character is a bad actor. (I realize there can be brief exceptions. In WLIIA sometimes the actors break the rules for comic effect. It only works though because they follow them most of the time.)



Chaosmancer said:


> You are saying a class has "codified fluff", things which must be true about the character. So, continuing the barbarian discussion, which parts of their "fluff" is codified and unchangeable? Because many of the details of what is listed in the barbarian class are exactly the types of things a background will change. So, when those two narratives conflict, what happens?




Backgrounds don't change a class.

Backgrounds are what your character was. A class is what your character is. Class comes after background in the character's history.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 20, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> It is on the player to make a character that makes sense.
> 
> I would take issue with a character who was 'a noble knight' but the player took the Barbarian class for the abilities and powers only and played them with the identity of another class.




Why?

What if they played a Zealot, as an armored holy warrior? They could appear like a paladin on the surface, following a god, in armor, "smiting" when they are filled with divine fury. That is in line with the Zealot Barbarian, why take offense?






ad_hoc said:


> Backgrounds don't change a class.
> 
> Backgrounds are what your character was. A class is what your character is. Class comes after background in the character's history.




So an acolyte who becomes a fighter is no longer religious? A jeweler who becomes a wizard no longer can make jewelry or care about starting a business? 

How about Sage? That background seems to imply you are still in contact with other sages and seek knowledge. Why does that "disappear" just because you also are a ranger? 

It doesn't matter what comes "first" or "last" chronologically. Race comes before both things, since you are born how you are, but choosing your class doesn't overwrite your race? Why would it overwrite your background?


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 20, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Why?
> 
> What if they played a Zealot, as an armored holy warrior? They could appear like a paladin on the surface, following a god, in armor, "smiting" when they are filled with divine fury. That is in line with the Zealot Barbarian, why take offense?
> 
> ...




This is all up to the player to make a character who works by the rules of the game.

If you can't make a character raised in nobility who became a Barbarian work, then don't make that character.

It's as simple as that.

If a player responded to our table the way you're doing now they wouldn't be welcome to play.

Play in good faith.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> It is on the player to make a character that makes sense.




I guess the basic question then becomes, "Makes sense to who?"  Makes sense to me the player or you the DM?  Is it acceptable that it only makes sense to me?



> Backgrounds are what your character was. A class is what your character is. Class comes after background in the character's history.




I really cannot agree with this.  My noble character doesn't suddenly become a commoner just because I pick a PC class.  

In fact, most backgrounds are still VERY relevant throughout the lifetime of the character.  As they should be.  

Heck, my noble paladin right now is far more noble than paladin.  His background informs 99% of what this character does and why.  The class is certainly not in the forefront.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 21, 2020)

Hussar said:


> I guess the basic question then becomes, "Makes sense to who?"  Makes sense to me the player or you the DM?  Is it acceptable that it only makes sense to me?




The table.

Makes sense to the table and fits into the game.




> I really cannot agree with this.  My noble character doesn't suddenly become a commoner just because I pick a PC class.
> 
> In fact, most backgrounds are still VERY relevant throughout the lifetime of the character.  As they should be.
> 
> Heck, my noble paladin right now is far more noble than paladin.  His background informs 99% of what this character does and why.  The class is certainly not in the forefront.




The character was a noble who became a Barbarian.

They were not a Barbarian who became a noble.

It's really very simple. Don't make it sound complicated.

Most tables are going to expect the player to make a character who is an adventurer. Making a character who just wants to attend to matters of state or run their artisan business, or live alone in the woods, etc. would not be acceptable at most tables. 

The game is designed around characters forming a party to go on adventures. Make a character that works for that.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> The character was a noble who became a Barbarian.
> 
> They were not a Barbarian who became a noble.
> 
> It's really very simple. Don't make it sound complicated.



You know...this character already exists and is INSANELY popular AND a trope all by himself.

Tarzan.

Born a noble, raised a barbarian, then both a noble and a barbarian simultanrously....and the dichotomy of those two lives is what makes his character interesting.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> That is actually the opposite of what Crawford means by 'mush'.
> 
> Each of those things has its own identity. A strong one. A kung fu Monk is very different than the armoured knight.
> 
> A 'mush' means that there is little or no differentiation between identities and themes.




Ah, I understand now.  I don't consider that "mush" though, I consider that "good game design".

If I want my character's archetype to be a swashbuckler, I can be:

A Dex-based Battlemaster Fighter;
A Swashbuckler Rogue;
A Valor Bard or a Swords Bard; or even
A Kensei monk; or
A Pact of the Blade Warlock.

This is a good thing.  If I want the character to be tankier, I would go with the Fighter.  Higher damage? Rogue.  Want to add some magic? Bard or Warlock.  More options from the player side are a feature, not a bug.  Creative players are happy players and unorthodox characters are interesting characters.

Best part about this?  Less decision paralysis.  A new player who wants to be a Swashbuckler isn't confronted with a ton of hard choices: he chooses Swashbuckler Rogue (it's right in the name!).  A more experienced player isn't bored playing their 10th Swashbuckler Rogue because he can build the archetype different ways and they play differently on the table. 

From the DM side?  The core of the character is the same: a Dex-based, one-handed finesse swordfighter with high Charisma who is probably trained mostly in Cha-skills.  The different versions of the character have different capabilities, but none of these capabilities break the game.

Plus, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Want to throw your players a curveball ?  Their highborn antagonist begins to rage on the second round of the battle.  The pirate casts water-breathing and stabs at them from underwater.  The elf runs UP a tree and starts shooting arrows at them.

What is more, enforcing narrow character archetypes doesn't help those classes with niche identities, it hurts them.

Let's take the Barbarian.  It has a pretty niche identity described by others in this thread.  A greatsword Fighter with the Outlander background replicates that identity, _and_ fits 100% in the existing Fighter identity.   So the Fighter is absorbing part of the Barbarian's niche, and the Barbarian can't do anything about it because his archetype is so narrow.  Sucks to be him.

Most of the "narrower" archetypes are in the same boat.  Ranger?  Scout Rogue with Outlander background (hell, even regular Rogue with Outlander background).  Paladin?  Fighter with Acolyte background (and maybe Magic Initiate (cleric)).  Monk? Fighter with Hermit background (and Tavern brawler feat).

If a particular character doesn't fit the tone of the campaign, that is an issue, but this is a hobby that rewards people's imagination.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Makes sense to the table and fits into the game.



I agree and this sounds good, however, I have never seen the argument "your class is not your character/your class is  your character" debate brought to the table for the other players to weigh in. The argument is always stopped at the "does not fit into the game setting" aka the setting as the GM defines it. Which is the GMs right at session 0. 

If its an issue when a GM shifts the setting after several sessions of player investment into an idea. This can be caused by the GM or the player with the character in question. Its hard to say without a case by case examination and like I said, that's not going to happen at the table with the other party members. If the GM shifts it to deal with problematic play and the rest of the players were to agree with the change then its the player. If the GM shifts it on their whim of how they feel alone after session 0, despite no players at the table having issue with current play, the GM is sticking it to the player in question. It doesn't come to the table because if it does then the GM has to accept that table might accept the "wrong answer" and is easier to call "game setting" and get what they want. This particularly true if other players are not aware of the debate because if happens outside their gaming session and/or the player isn't aware of what is going on in a way to question "setting" like the GM having the only setting source book but not letting anyone see it "because of spoilers" etc.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 21, 2020)

FrozenNorth said:


> If a particular character doesn't fit the tone of the campaign, that is an issue, but this is a hobby that rewards people's imagination.




This is something that gets said over and over again. The implication here is that it is more imaginative to play a weird character or one with a gimmick or what have you than one of a strong classic archetype.

Make a memorable Wood Elf Ranger. That takes imagination and skill.

Improv actors show their creativity by working within the rules given to them. It's not creative for them to just come up with random things and change the rules because they can't think of anything within them.

Putting Noble and Barbarian together is not a flex of someone's imagination. That doesn't take much creativity. Picking Barbarian because they want the Rage mechanic isn't a player being creative.

Playing a Kenku or a Thri-Kreen or an anthropomorphic rhinoceros is not more imaginative than playing an Elf or a Human even if they aren't seen as often.

I've seen it all before. It's not clever.

Make a memorable character not just a gimmick.


But back to the 'mush'. No, it isn't good game design. If the rules represent everything then they represent nothing. Math in service of nothing isn't good design in an RPG. There are built in features in the game which do blur the classes. Backgrounds are core which can do that a little. Feats do it more. Multiclassing blows it all away.

But many players want to go even further. They create houserules to make many thematic options which all have the same result. So those themes don't really mean anything as they aren't differentiated by the game itself. 

Classes need to have identity. Otherwise what's the point?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 21, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Are you essentially agreeing that Nobles and Barbarians are mutually exclusive? Despite one being your upbringing, and the other simply a skill set??



That's the core of the issue. To you barbarian is a skill set. To me barbarian is a skill set. But to some people barbarian is an _identity_, making the skills and the upbringing inseparable.

It's fine if people want to play it that way, but it's not per core rules. The problem is the people who insist it is a core rule, and anyone who plays differently is playing wrong.


----------



## keynup (Feb 21, 2020)

In no particular order.

Characters need identity, not classes.  

A background can be more important than the class.  The Why is important for any kind of improv. 

A large fantasy city with an extensive sewer system would be considered to have it's own ecology.  Any ecological system would be a valid choice for a Druid.  Therefore a city Druid is very reasonable. 

As far as the PHB, can anyone answer 'Why' do barbarians rage? What is required for them to have that ability? If it's called Rage, are you allowed to be calculating and rational?

A full time noble could very well be an adventurer with the class just some combat training.   A campaign with "For King and Country " theme would easily do that.   Adventures could even have zero treasure with the expected treasure being called income from your estate. 

Imagination is not required to just pick Barbarian and Noble.  It is required to justify why it exists within the setting. 

Players should not be limited to only having the DM's imagination.  The DM should be inspired by the players imagination.  Yes this is a balancing act.


----------



## Iry (Feb 21, 2020)

A Noble portrayed as a knight using the Barbarian class?
That seems fairly easy to refluff.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 21, 2020)

keynup said:


> In no particular order.
> 
> Characters need identity, not classes.
> 
> A background can be more important than the class.  The Why is important for any kind of improv.




A background isn't more or less important than class.  They are two sides of the coin and when it comes to figuring out the character identity, both need to be considered.

A street urchin who becomes a wizard need to have a story that meshes both of those things into his identity in a way that makes sense.  Perhaps he was an urchin that a wizard saw potential in and brought into his tower to train.  Maybe he was a wizard's apprentice whose master was slain and he ran out into the streets without money or books and had to live for a time scrounging and begging before re-acquiring a book and setting out to adventure.  

However you come up with it, both background and class are critical to the identity of the PC.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 21, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Okay. If your position is factually true, then you should be able to quote the PHB correct? The part where it says that Barbarians are disqualified from the Noble Background?
> 
> Here, I'll help you, since you might be away from your books at the moment. I'll put all the relevant text I can think of in spoilers.
> 
> ...



Well aren't there barbarian Kings or princes? Why should a barbarian not be a noble, no reasonable flaw on that combo.


----------



## keynup (Feb 21, 2020)

Background and Class are not required to be 50/50 split.
Some players will consider the background something the character did for barely any time does not affect the final result. 
Others will consider where you came from as the most important thing about themselves.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 21, 2020)

keynup said:


> ....
> A large fantasy city with an extensive sewer system would be considered to have it's own ecology.  Any ecological system would be a valid choice for a Druid.  Therefore a city Druid is very reasonable.
> ....




While I agree with the rest of your posting, this statement should be rather:

While a city (/sewer ) druid (What is this guy doing? Taking care of giant rats, rot grubs and dangerous fungal toxins?) is possible, it is normally much more reasonable to have a sewer worker and plumber guild active in a fantasy city with a large sewer system.


----------



## keynup (Feb 21, 2020)

Coroc said:


> While I agree with the rest of your posting, this statement should be rather:
> 
> While a city (/sewer ) druid (What is this guy doing? Taking care of giant rats, rot grubs and dangerous fungal toxins?) is possible it is normally much more reasonable to have a sewer worker and plumber guild active in a fantasy city with a large sewer system.




Since we have offical insect druids, I dont see sewer druids be that far off.  And your plumber guild could actually all be druids.
And no I wouldn't consider this the normal for most fantasy settings.
But then again who really knows what's all in the sewers of Waterdeep?


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> The character was a noble who became a Barbarian.



 Indeed. But the crux of the matter is that they did not stop having the Noble background after taking Barbarian levels.



> Most tables are going to expect the player to make a character who is an adventurer. Making a character who just wants to attend to matters of state or run their artisan business, or live alone in the woods, etc. would not be acceptable at most tables.
> 
> The game is designed around characters forming a party to go on adventures. Make a character that works for that.



 Has anyone in this thread even suggested a character that would not be going on adventures?

I'm not sure where that suggestion came from. - Does someone have me on ignore perhaps?


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> This is all up to the player to make a character who works by the rules of the game.
> 
> If you can't make a character raised in nobility who became a Barbarian work, then don't make that character.
> 
> ...




And yet you have not told me which rules I am breaking.

Variant Human, Ancestral Guardian Barbarian, Noble (Knight).

What rule am I breaking? How am I playing this character wrong? You know nothing else about them accept that they wear armor (barbarians get medium armor proficiency), use a shield and a longsword (barbarians get shield proficiency and martial weapon proficiency), they are well read, literate, polite in polite company (we rolled for stats at the DMs insistence, I had a 12 Intelligence, 12 Charisma, and 14 Wisdom on top of my impressive physical scores. He wanted a high powered game and so the DM was happy. And we rolled digitally, so there was no cheating before you decide to accuse me of that).

He was a questing knight, looking to commit deeds of heroism and strength to honor the Princess who was his Lady, following the ideals of Courtly Love.

When battle started he would enter a battle frenzy, calling to the spirits of his ancestors to guide his sword, and I used all of the barbarian abilities granted to me by my class. I generally charged into the thickest section or the enemy spellcaster, knocked them down with my shield master feat and attacked them with my sword.

What rule did I break? Why would I be unwelcome at your table, because I refused to play an illiterate brute? Because I refused to be rude, quaff ale and belch? Because I wore nice clothes?



ad_hoc said:


> Most tables are going to expect the player to make a character who is an adventurer. Making a character who just wants to attend to matters of state or run their artisan business, or live alone in the woods, etc. would not be acceptable at most tables.
> 
> The game is designed around characters forming a party to go on adventures. Make a character that works for that.





I did.

You still say I broke the rules. That my character wouldn't be accepted by the table. Why? What did I do wrong?




ad_hoc said:


> This is something that gets said over and over again. The implication here is that it is more imaginative to play a weird character or one with a gimmick or what have you than one of a strong classic archetype.
> 
> Make a memorable Wood Elf Ranger. That takes imagination and skill.
> 
> ...




I like how people can say one thing right, and be so wrong on the rest.

You are right, working within limits can lead to interesting stories. Just breaking the rules for the sake of breaking the rules is not interesting.

Of course, playing a noble with the barbarian class is not a gimmick either. Beowulf, Prince of the Geats who fought a monster barehanded and ripped its arm off, who constantly shattered his own weapons, would probably be a barbarian. I doubt we can call it a "gimmick" to copy a two thousand year old famous text. Seems really like a strong classic archetype. Kind of like a wood elf ranger, that has been a thing for 60 years?

And that is the crux here. You have stood upon the mountain and made a value judgement on other people's stories. Without actually caring if they are making an interesting character.

Are Shifters interesting? How about a young girl banished and excommunicated from her tribe for learning the dark secret of a shaman, forced into  a world she doesn't understand, falling into vice as an escape from the depression of losing her people?

Paladin Criminal is a "gimmick"? You think a character who was a smuggler, getting caught up in a demonic betrayal of a cult, and was granted power through his overwhelming desire for Vengeance against that cult is going to have no desire to adventure? No interesting stories?

Unless you have a superpower to judge a character from across time and space from only their name, how can you stand there so smug in your superiority and declare what the rest of us are doing as drivel?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 21, 2020)

Coroc said:


> While a city (/sewer ) druid (What is this guy doing? Taking care of giant rats, rot grubs and dangerous fungal toxins?) is possible, it is normally much more reasonable to have a sewer worker and plumber guild active in a fantasy city with a large sewer system.



He also wouldn't be popular with adventuring groups.  Pee yew!


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> But many players want to go even further. They create houserules to make many thematic options which all have the same result. So those themes don't really mean anything as they aren't differentiated by the game itself.
> 
> Classes need to have identity. Otherwise what's the point?




From my standpoint the point of classes is to reduce mechanical complexity _below_ the level of thematic complexity. They permit the mechanics to remain manageable while letting the fiction remain complicated. Requiring classes to have an identity thus, in my mind, defeats the purpose of classes by limiting the level of thematic complexity to the level of mechanical complexity.

Ultimately, however, it seems that everyone in this thread agrees that one shouldn't make a character inappropriate for a particular table, yes? The only real point of disagreement seems to be whether it requires a houserule to permit characters whose identity is not determined by their class.

I contend that it doesn't really matter whether permitting such characters is classified as a houserule or not. What matters is finding out the expectations of the table and making an appropriate character. If the DM expressed the expectations with regards to class identity (or lack thereof) in advance, great. If the DM did not express those expectations in advance, _ask_.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 21, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> I'm not sure where that suggestion came from. - Does someone have me on ignore perhaps?



You can see and respond to people who have you on ignore.  They just can't see you.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 21, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> And yet you have not told me which rules I am breaking.
> 
> Variant Human, Ancestral Guardian Barbarian, Noble (Knight).
> 
> ...



At a lot of tables this would violate the social contract.  Many tables want PCs to make sense within the game.  

I could see a barbarian that rescued a princess and got knighted, giving him the noble(knight) background, but that wouldn't change him from a barbarian tribesman into someone who dresses nicely and uses court etiquette.  I could see a barbarian who is the son of the chief or elder, giving him the noble background as translated into what it means to barbarians.  

When you toss out all of the class fluff and just use the mechanics of a class with a background, though, you are not that class any longer.  The class is more than the mechanics.  It is also the major portions of associated fluff.  There is absolutely nothing anywhere in the barbarian fluff that describes what you describe above.  That for many tables would violate the social contract which is the same as a rule violation.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 21, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> At a lot of tables this would violate the social contract.  Many tables want PCs to make sense within the game.
> 
> I could see a barbarian that rescued a princess and got knighted, giving him the noble(knight) background, but that wouldn't change him from a barbarian tribesman into someone who dresses nicely and uses court etiquette.  I could see a barbarian who is the son of the chief or elder, giving him the noble background as translated into what it means to barbarians.
> 
> When you toss out all of the class fluff and just use the mechanics of a class with a background, though, you are not that class any longer.  The class is more than the mechanics.  It is also the major portions of associated fluff.  There is absolutely nothing anywhere in the barbarian fluff that describes what you describe above.  That for many tables would violate the social contract which is the same as a rule violation.



I think the deeper issue is why would you possibly want that as part of your social contract in the first place?  What is gained by making your fiction a Trope World, like something out of an MMO or an Order of the Stick style webcomic?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 21, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> I think the deeper issue is why would you possibly want that as part of your social contract in the first place?  What is gained by making your fiction a Trope World, like something out of an MMO or an Order of the Stick style webcomic?



Why?  Because a lot of people view classes as, and want to maintain classes that are are more than just a collection of mechanics.  As does the game itself.  If WotC and TSR before that wanted classes to be the mechanics only, the fluff wouldn't exist to define those mechanics.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 21, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Why?  Because a lot of people view classes as, and want to maintain classes that are are more than just a collection of mechanics.  As does the game itself.  If WotC and TSR before that wanted classes to be the mechanics only, the fluff wouldn't exist to define those mechanics.



The fluff in the rule books is a starting point, not an end point.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 21, 2020)

keynup said:


> Since we have offical insect druids, I dont see sewer druids be that far off.  And your plumber guild could actually all be druids.




Wait, so now you're telling me that Mario is a druid?


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 21, 2020)

Azzy said:


> Wait, so now you're telling me that Mario is a druid?



That would explain the raccoon tails and being able to cast fire seeds by eating flowers.


----------



## jayoungr (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> This is something that gets said over and over again. The implication here is that it is more imaginative to play a weird character or one with a gimmick or what have you than one of a strong classic archetype.
> 
> Make a memorable Wood Elf Ranger. That takes imagination and skill.



I agree that the classics are often too readily dismissed, and I like to make classic-type characters myself.  I'm currently playing a halfling rogue who started out as the bog-standard level 1 pregen from the WotC site, and I'm proud of how I've made her into an individual.

But, that said, I've also played alongside some "gimmick" characters that turned out really well.  For example, in another campaign I play in, one of the PCs (not mine) is a celestial warlock with the criminal background.  Here's the character's background from our Obsidian Portal site:

_Born to a supply officer in Northhill, with a father who was clearly a Drow, but was otherwise a mystery, Mayflower managed to ruin her mother’s career before she was even born.  Her mother became a merchant; May became ambitious, energetic and amoral.  She started her career in theft at a young age, in the late days of the war; while her training was informal, she managed well enough to eventually, after the war ended, need to leave town in a terrible hurry, and found herself trapped in a battlefield full of undead.  Desperately trying to hide in a broken old wagon, Mayflower prayed to anything that could help her for salvation… and was answered!

Zaphriel manifested as a glowing unicorn with vast shining wings, speaking in Mayflower’s mind in a voice like rich honey.  May was too desperate to turn down the bargain it offered— patronage for service was better than being eaten by the walking dead!— and accepted, receiving the powers she needed to heal her own wounds and blast her way out of the battlefield!

And that’s when she realized that she was stuck.  Zaphriel’s influence wasn’t going away.  No, through the “gift” of May’s new “ally” Silvermoon, she was frequently informed of all the things she wasn’t supposed to do any more, and how she was obligated to use her powers for good.  Since then, Mayflower has lived around the borders of the shadowlands, always traveling, drawn to endlessly right wrongs and help the helpless.  She still manages to haggle with Zaphriel to win herself come concessions, but for all that, there she is.  Mayflower Shadeborn, Champion of Light, whether she wants be that or not._


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 21, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Indeed. But the crux of the matter is that they did not stop having the Noble background after taking Barbarian levels.




Right and the Noble background is a background.



> Has anyone in this thread even suggested a character that would not be going on adventures?
> 
> I'm not sure where that suggestion came from. - Does someone have me on ignore perhaps?




Yes. The example which has been repeated is a character who is a Noble only and the character's class, Barbarian, has no effect on who the character is. It's just there because they needed a class.

Nobles don't adventure. Guild Artisans don't adventure. Hermits aren't adventurers. They need something after. 

A character still has those skills they gained during their background. A noble still has a title and a guild artisan might still have their guild membership. But that isn't what they DO anymore.

PHB pg 125:

Backgrounds:

The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 21, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Why?  Because a lot of people view classes as, and want to maintain classes that are are more than just a collection of mechanics.  As does the game itself.  If WotC and TSR before that wanted classes to be the mechanics only, the fluff wouldn't exist to define those mechanics.



As I alluded to in my previous post, fluff is useful to beginning players who might be overwhelmed with choice otherwise.  It serves a function and I wouldn’t want it eliminated.

However, if you are claiming that WOTC’s intention in 5e was that the fluff serve as anything other than a guideline, than you are going to have to provide some evidence in support of that claim.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Feb 21, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> He also wouldn't be popular with adventuring groups.  Pee yew!



I'm sure personal hygiene is the least of an adventuring party's worries.


ad_hoc said:


> Yes. The example which has been repeated is a character who is a Noble only and the character's class, Barbarian, has no effect on who the character is. It's just there because they needed a class.
> 
> Nobles don't adventure. Guild Artisans don't adventure. Hermits aren't adventurers. They need something after.
> 
> A character still has those skills they gained during their background. A noble still has a title and a guild artisan might still have their guild membership. But that isn't what they DO anymore.



yeah, I don't think you just straight up stop being your background because you became an adventurer. my last D&D character was a noble fighter. she was sent out by her mother to adventure as a means of training, as was the tradition of her lineage. she was still expected to come back and do noble business once she was done adventuring. part of this was being hired to protect a middle aged guild artisan who was also a fledgling wizard. his place in the guild is what actually moved us forward; finding a business contact and later being tasked with locating a lost guild member led us all over the place. he still did guild business vis-a-vis actual goldsmithing throughout the adventure.


> PHB pg 125:
> 
> Backgrounds:
> 
> The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?



you do realize the answers to these questions can be "nothing" and "I didn't", right?


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 21, 2020)

Panda-s1 said:


> I'm sure personal hygiene is the least of an adventuring party's worries.
> 
> yeah, I don't think you just straight up stop being your background because you became an adventurer. my last D&D character was a noble fighter. she was sent out by her mother to adventure as a means of training, as was the tradition of her lineage. she was still expected to come back and do noble business once she was done adventuring. part of this was being hired to protect a middle aged guild artisan who was also a fledgling wizard. his place in the guild is what actually moved us forward; finding a business contact and later being tasked with locating a lost guild member led us all over the place. he still did guild business vis-a-vis actual goldsmithing throughout the adventure.




You stop doing your background. You don't spend your days crafting. You don't spend your days alone in a hut. You don't spend your days managing your estate.

You are primarily an adventurer now of a class and that class has meaning and identity.



> you do realize the answers to these questions can be "nothing" and "I didn't", right?




Depends on whether you want to follow the rules as written.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> You stop doing your background. You don't spend your days crafting. You don't spend your days alone in a hut. You don't spend your days managing your estate.
> 
> You are primarily an adventurer now of a class and that class has meaning and identity.



does downtime mean nothing to you? I'm 3000% certain 5e put a renewed emphasis on doing stuff when you're not out adventuring.


> Depends on whether you want to follow the rules as written.



I don't think I follow, how is giving an answer to these questions not RAW?


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 21, 2020)

Panda-s1 said:


> does downtime mean nothing to you? I'm 3000% certain 5e put a renewed emphasis on doing stuff when you're not out adventuring.




I said primarily.

Downtime is meant to be handled away from the table and meant to be a very small part of the game.

The majority of your character's identity is adventuring. That is what the game is designed for.



> I don't think I follow, how is giving an answer to these questions not RAW?




Those aren't valid answers.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> I said primarily.
> 
> Downtime is meant to be handled away from the table and meant to be a very small part of the game.
> 
> The majority of your character's identity is adventuring. That is what the game is designed for.



uh, I'm pretty sure what you do between adventures still happens in the game world and needs to be arbitrated by the DM, especially if said activity advances the campaign story in any way.


> Those aren't valid answers.



okay Mike Mearls, even though the rules don't actually say that, I guess if you say it's not valid I have to take your word


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 21, 2020)

Panda-s1 said:


> uh, I'm pretty sure what you do between adventures still happens in the game world and needs to be arbitrated by the DM, especially if said activity advances the campaign story in any way.




I was a student.

I have a degree now and I work professionally.

I still study a little to keep current in my profession.

Is my identity a student or do I refer to myself by my professional title?



> okay Mike Mearls, even though the rules don't actually say that, I guess if you say it's not valid I have to take your word




It's the way words work.

If I said what is your proficiency bonus?

And your reply was: Cake.

You would be giving an invalid answer.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> I was a student.
> 
> I have a degree now and I work professionally.
> 
> ...



"student" isn't the only background? also you're not an adventurer, but let's suppose you take several months off your job to climb Mount Everest. you're not suddenly just a "mountain climber" and people will still regard you as whatever your profession is, also presumably after you're finished you go back to whatever your job was.


> It's the way words work.
> 
> If I said what is your proficiency bonus?
> 
> ...



the rules explicitly state what a proficiency bonus is and how to figure it out. is there a list or table of answers to those questions I'm unaware of?


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 21, 2020)

Panda-s1 said:


> "student" isn't the only background? also you're not an adventurer, but let's suppose you take several months off your job to climb Mount Everest. you're not suddenly just a "mountain climber" and people will still regard you as whatever your profession is, also presumably after you're finished you go back to whatever your job was.
> 
> the rules explicitly state what a proficiency bonus is and how to figure it out. is there a list or table of answers to those questions I'm unaware of?




Wow.

I have no more words.


----------



## Captain Panda (Feb 21, 2020)

"I encourage players to reskin classes/subclasses/backgrounds liberally. Take the class/subclass/background that fits the function you want for a character, and then tell your character's unique story. #DnD " ~Jeremy Crawford.

I think it's fairly obvious most people, within reasonable bounds, are fine with reskinning fluff. "Most people" happens to include the head guy who wrote the fluff in the first place.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Wow.
> 
> I have no more words.



'cause I'm right? it's okay I get it


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 21, 2020)

Captain Panda said:


> "I encourage players to reskin classes/subclasses/backgrounds liberally. Take the class/subclass/background that fits the function you want for a character, and then tell your character's unique story. #DnD " ~Jeremy Crawford.
> 
> I think it's fairly obvious most people, within reasonable bounds, are fine with reskinning fluff. "Most people" happens to include the head guy who wrote the fluff in the first place.




This is also the guy who warns players against turning the game into a 'mush' with mechanics that don't matter and indistinguishable themes and identities. He has explained that when they write the rules they do so with specific identity and theme in mind. 

I watched a video where he spent 30 minutes explaining why it is bad to change the rules such that choices don't impact who the character is.

He doesn't say not to change things. He just advises to be aware of why you are changing it, what that accomplishes, and what that also causes.

I'm also not saying not to change things. I just think if race, class, and background don't matter to who the character is why even have them in the first place? Play a game that doesn't have those things. Square pegs and round holes.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> I'm also not saying not to change things. I just think if race, class, and background don't matter to who the character is why even have them in the first place? Play a game that doesn't have those things. Square pegs and round holes.



D&D is the biggest roleplaying game on the market by an order of magnitude.  It seems a lot easier to just treat class like a metagame concept and let my players play the characters they envision, even at the cost of making a few people on ENWorld disappointed in my life choices.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 21, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> At a lot of tables this would violate the social contract.  Many tables want PCs to make sense within the game.
> 
> I could see a barbarian that rescued a princess and got knighted, giving him the noble(knight) background, but that wouldn't change him from a barbarian tribesman into someone who dresses nicely and uses court etiquette.  I could see a barbarian who is the son of the chief or elder, giving him the noble background as translated into what it means to barbarians.
> 
> When you toss out all of the class fluff and just use the mechanics of a class with a background, though, you are not that class any longer.  The class is more than the mechanics.  It is also the major portions of associated fluff.  There is absolutely nothing anywhere in the barbarian fluff that describes what you describe above.  That for many tables would violate the social contract which is the same as a rule violation.




That begs a question. 

Why bother to include backgrounds in the game? At that point, just say "All Barbarians take Outlander, All Wizards take Sage, All Fighters take soldier, All Clerics take Acolyte, All Rogues take Urchin" ect

Hey, why not take it a step further. All Fighters are gruff men with beards who have seen too much war. All Wizards are old men with long beards seeking power for powers sake. All clerics are beautiful and kind women who act as the mother of the party. 

I mean, if you are going to require people to play a trope, go all the way. All wizards are named Gandalf. All Fighters named Bob. 


I mean, my PC makes sense in the gameworld. In fact, they are a logical follow up of a barbarian tribe who is protected by their ancestors getting a noble title and acting as the royal guard for a kingdom. Their ancestors aren't abandoning them, because they still fight for the glory of the family name. They are still a martial people. They just aren't womanizing, hard drinking slobs. 

But, that is unnacceptable because of the almighty trope, even though that trope is itself younger than the archetype this represents.



Maxperson said:


> Why?  Because a lot of people view classes as, and want to maintain classes that are are more than just a collection of mechanics.  As does the game itself.  If WotC and TSR before that wanted classes to be the mechanics only, the fluff wouldn't exist to define those mechanics.




If they didn't want to change fluff, they wouldn't create any setting other than Greyhawk, because once they made a different setting, they changed the fluff of races and classes. 

If the fluff was *that *important, Dark Sun and Eberron and Planescape and all the others would not exist.



ad_hoc said:


> Yes. The example which has been repeated is a character who is a Noble only and the character's class, Barbarian, has no effect on who the character is. It's just there because they needed a class.
> 
> Nobles don't adventure. Guild Artisans don't adventure. Hermits aren't adventurers. They need something after.
> 
> A character still has those skills they gained during their background. A noble still has a title and a guild artisan might still have their guild membership. But that isn't what they DO anymore.




Are you actually serious? Like, completely serious? 

Because you, the person calling on me to follow classic archetypes, is going to say "nobles don't adventure" when I specifically said that he was a *Questing Knight*? 

I mean, if you haven't read it, I'm sure you'll love Le Morte d'Arthur. It is about a place called Camelot and the Knights of the Round Table, and about all they do is go on adventures and quests. 

I mean, I can easily get a Guild Artisan adventuring too, because explorers were often looking for new sources of raw materials to increase their businesses, but I'm just flabbergasted that you are going to throw away the entire archetye of the Questing Knight.



ad_hoc said:


> I said primarily.
> 
> Downtime is meant to be handled away from the table and meant to be a very small part of the game.
> 
> ...




They are valid answers. It depends on the campaign. "Our campaign focuses on the recovery of ancient holy relics lost in a great war. The first character is an Acolyte."

The answer to the question of background isn't suddenly "I am no longer an acolyte and have no ties or intentions to work within the church, I'm all about the gold now" No, the campaign is being built around a concept where a party who has deep ties to the church makes perfect sense. 

And, surprisingly, you can still be mostly adventuring and still be something like a con artist, a sage, an entertainer, a smuggler, a nomadic tribesman, a soldier, a spy. Because adventures are wider than tomb robbing and dragon slaying.



ad_hoc said:


> It's the way words work.
> 
> If I said what is your proficiency bonus?
> 
> ...




The way words work? Really. 

Okay, let us test that a little bit. The questions were "The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?" 

So, let us rephrase them a little bit and try Panda-s1's answers

"Why did you stop fighting for your country and start mercenary work?"

"I didn't" 

Hmmm... answer makes sense, I can even add context like "I didn't, I took on a role as a government contractor, not a mercenary." 

Let's try the other one

The most important question to ask about your career as a Rock Star is what changed?

"Nothing" 

Seems like a valid answer, especially if we go with "Nothing, I am taking my music to the people, instead of letting them come to me." 

It seems words work just fine. Must be an operator error then.





ad_hoc said:


> I'm also not saying not to change things. I just think if race, class, and background don't matter to who the character is why even have them in the first place? Play a game that doesn't have those things. Square pegs and round holes.




If race, class and background don't matter.. why even have them?

That is my question, if background means nothing, if my Barbarian is a trope-standard barbarian no matter if I put sage, urchin, soldier, knight or spy as my background, then why even have backgrounds? 

If they do not change the character, who they are, what they care about, ect. Then why include them in the first place.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 21, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> D&D is the biggest roleplaying game on the market by an order of magnitude.  It seems a lot easier to just treat class like a metagame concept and let my players play the characters they envision, even at the cost of making a few people on ENWorld disappointed in my life choices.




You don't need my permission...

...unless you want to play with me I guess.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> You don't need my permission...
> 
> ...unless you want to play with me I guess.



I'm already pretty booked, thanks.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 21, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> I'm already pretty booked, thanks.




I never offered and why do you care about what someone on the internet thinks? Just go have fun. Play your gonzo game where the rules don't mean anything.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> I never offered and why do you care about what someone on the internet thinks? Just go have fun. Play your gonzo game where the rules don't mean anything.



Oh man, you're taking your ball AND going home?  What will I play now?


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> I never offered and why do you care about what someone on the internet thinks? Just go have fun. Play your gonzo game where the rules don't mean anything.




You can't point to any rules though, just your own assumptions of what the rules mean, and when confronted about those not actually being the rules, you dismiss what we are saying.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 21, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Oh man, you're taking your ball AND going home?  What will I play now?




wut?


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> wut?



I can see how your lack of facility with metaphor might correlate with a preference for literal reading of concepts like classes.


----------



## Captain Panda (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Just go have fun. Play your gonzo game where the rules don't mean anything.




Well that's a straw-man if ever I've seen one. 

Again, allowing people to reskin, as Crawford expresses, is not the same as ignoring all rules. Hell, the overwhelming majority of people here arguing against you acknowledge the importance of mechanical rules and maintaining their integrity. The point of contention is that the system does not break if fluff is changed, and as such reskinning is a totally reasonable and even intended feature of the game, and generally makes the game more fun. 

The head developer seems to agree with that sentiment. Have the quotes on hand of him saying reflavoring fluff is mush? Because I am starting to suspect you are wildly overstating his point and twisting it to mean what you want it to and not what he actually meant. Crawford is very open to refluffing if you've actually listened to him speak. So are most reasonable DMs and players, for that matter. Sometimes reasonable people can disagree about where the line of _reasonable_ refluffing is drawn, but treating fluff as concrete, enforceable rules? It's not really in the spirit of a game about imagination. 

Note, and this is critical, that that does not mean that *any *reskinning is acceptable, it doesn't mean anything goes. Playing a noble who has anger management issues as a barbarian is not the same as trying to bring Darth Vader to the Forgotten Realms.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 21, 2020)

Captain Panda said:


> Well that's a straw-man if ever I've seen one.
> 
> Again, allowing people to reskin, as Crawford expresses, is not the same as ignoring all rules. Hell, the overwhelming majority of people here arguing against you acknowledge the importance of mechanical rules and maintaining their integrity. The point of contention is that the system does not break if fluff is changed, and as such reskinning is a totally reasonable and even intended feature of the game, and generally makes the game more fun.
> 
> ...




People are literally arguing that class doesn't have to have anything to do with a character's identity. That's not me making a strawman. (Besides, it wasn't even an argument, just a series of snide remarks which won't be repeated as I have now ignored them.)

But what do those 'mechanical' rules mean if they don't represent anything?

We're just left with a crummy dice based strategy game. No thanks.

If 'anything goes' is too far for you then you would agree that class helps create character identity yes? Then what are you arguing against me for?

I said it's fine to change rules - you're the one who's creating a strawman here. I have never said that rules cannot be changed.

I have never said that rules cannot be changed.



I have never said that rules cannot be changed.

I don't think these 'mechanical' rules are in as tight a balance as other people seem to think. It's an open cooperative game with unlimited numbers of variables, it can survive a number change or added or removed ability here and there. What it can't survive is taking away narrative and thematic meaning from the rules.

And yes, you don't have to believe me about Crawford. It's fine. I don't need an argument from authority for my point. But he did say it, at length. It's in a video (and probably said it elsewhere too as he had a lot to say about it).


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> People are literally arguing that class doesn't have to have anything to do with a character's identity. That's not me making a strawman. (Besides, it wasn't even an argument, just a series of snide remarks which won't be repeated as I have now ignored them.)




I've never argued that class does not have *anything *to do with identity. 

I'm arguing it isn't the end all and be all their identity. 

Not all bards are traveling musicians who sleep with any creature they can get away with. Some of them are sages who prefer the deep recesses of a library. Some are Captains, belting out anthems and marching songs to keep up the vigor of the troops. Some are wandering swordsmasters looking for a proper challenging fight. Some are assassins in it for the coin. 

All of these are viable. A class is more than one trope. And the background can be as important or more important to that character. A soldier might be more soldier than whatever their class is, following military regulations and preferring a crisp hierarchy to any sort of free-form governance. Everyone might interact more with a character as a pious follower of a god of light and peace, dealing with their beliefs and how they were raised as opposed to what they do in combat. A sage might be seeking ancient knowledge, and that defines them more than being a rogue or a ranger at home in the wilds and dangers of the world. A Guild Artisan might be seeking inspiration for their work, taking up adventuring only as a means to pay for their travel expenses and the supplies they need to create their masterpiece. 

Throwing all of it away and demanding that class takes precedent over every other aspect of the character is what we are arguing against, not that class is meaningless, but that class is not absolute.


----------



## Captain Panda (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> And yes, you don't have to believe me about Crawford. It's fine. I don't need an argument from authority for my point. But he did say it, at length. It's in a video (and probably said it elsewhere too as he had a lot to say about it).




It's not a matter of trust. You made a claim about what someone said and now you can't source it, and a source actually presented here seems to state the opposite. It's possible he contradicted himself, but I'd want to see the evidence.



> Throwing all of it away and demanding that class takes precedent over every other aspect of the character is what we are arguing against, not that class is meaningless, but that class is not absolute.




That's actually a really good summation of my opinion.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Right and the Noble background is a background.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Possibly the most mistaken statement I've seen on En World for a long, long time.  That's just not even close.  But, in case you need evidence, let's provide some:

Knights of the Round table  - Grail Quest
King Conan - one of the very earliest Conan stories has an adventuring barbarian king.
Lord of the Rings - Legolas, Aragorn and Gimli are all nobles.
Prydain Chronicles by Lloyd Alexander
Narnia Chronicles
1e D&D - Name level allowed you to become a noble and still expected you to adventure.  
Multiple questing nobles in Grimm fairy tales.  

That's just off the top of my head.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 21, 2020)

Captain Panda said:


> It's not a matter of trust. You made a claim about what someone said and now you can't source it, and a source actually presented here seems to state the opposite. It's possible he contradicted himself, but I'd want to see the evidence.




It's not the opposite.

(His arguments actually helped solidify my feelings on the matter and allowed me to put them into words. Believe he said it or not, that's fine.)



> That's actually a really good summation of my opinion.




It's not actually what everyone has argued.

It's also not what I have argued against.

You seem to be agreeing with me so I have nothing more to say.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 21, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> At a lot of tables this would violate the social contract.  Many tables want PCs to make sense within the game.



 OK. So you're insinuating that this particular concept would not make sense within the game, thus violating the social contract?
OK. _Why _does it not make sense within the game?

Is it that you see no distinction between having levels in the Barbarian class and being a tribesman with a beard for example?
That a knight cannot be prone to great wrath in the throes of combat?
That honouring your ancestors, and them appearing to aid and protect you and your companions cannot be the behaviour of someone of noble birth?



ad_hoc said:


> Yes. The example which has been repeated is a character who is a Noble only and the character's class, Barbarian, has no effect on who the character is. It's just there because they needed a class.



 On the contrary, their class informs and shapes a lot of the character. It provides not just pure mechanics like the proficiencies to represent that character's knightly training, but also both theme and mechanics. Like the character's penchant for going comprehensively nuts in a fight, and the presence of the ancestor spirits that the character honours. 



> Nobles don't adventure. Guild Artisans don't adventure. Hermits aren't adventurers. They need something after.
> 
> A character still has those skills they gained during their background. A noble still has a title and a guild artisan might still have their guild membership. But that isn't what they DO anymore.
> 
> The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?



 So: "I was a knight, questing for glory for myself, gold for my family, and honour to my ancestors.
"Then I started adventuring." 



ad_hoc said:


> You stop doing your background. You don't spend your days crafting. You don't spend your days alone in a hut. You don't spend your days managing your estate.



 You might cease to perform some of the activities from your background, but you don't cease to become it. You don't stop being a Folk Hero when you swear your Oath of Devotion. You don't get kicked out of your guild when you start looking for more avenues of commerce in the wider world. You don't lose your taste for fine art or courtly manners the first time you go  on a bunch of gnolls.



> You are primarily an adventurer now of a class and that class has meaning and identity.



You don't cease to become your background, with all its manners, bonds, flaws and habits however either. A character can combine both. 
A Knight Barbarian might only lounge around the estate and attend parties in downtime (unless plot permits).
 But even if you're trying to claim that they stop doing knightly things when they become an adventurer, are you also saying that they have to stop being and behaving like a knight?



> Depends on whether you want to follow the rules as written.



 OK. Now we're getting somewhere. You're insinuating that the suggested character concepts are _not _following the rules as written?
_That _is something you can actually _prove _that you're correct on. 

_*Which *_rules are they not following? A quote would be ideal, but simply showing where in the PHB we should be looking would be fine.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 21, 2020)

I think @ad_hoc either cannot understand the points you are making (and that we have been making for 15 pages now) or is just trolling.  They believe that the fluff and the rules are all just rule, and that changing anything written is the same as "ignoring the rules of the game" and ruins the game as designed.  No amount of examples of non-traditional characters in pop culture will sway them to see it any different.  At some point they just stopped responding to anything I wrote so I am assuming I may have collected my first ignore.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 21, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> But what do those 'mechanical' rules mean if they don't represent anything?



 The mechanical rules represent exactly what they actually say. No more no less.



> I said it's fine to change rules - you're the one who's creating a strawman here. I have never said that rules cannot be changed.
> 
> I have never said that rules cannot be changed.
> 
> I have never said that rules cannot be changed.



Its OK.
No one is suggesting that rules cannot be changed. No one is claiming that _you're _saying that rules cannot be changed. 
No one in this current discussion is talking about changing any rules at all as far as I can tell. 
Apart from your claim that some of these example characters, built in accordance with the rules, are somehow against the rules and thus would require homebrew to allow.

In practicality, it is likely a moot point, since I don't think I've ever met a group retentive enough to say no to a concept like that. The question of whether homebrew is required and they're fine with it, or homebrew to allow it just isn't needed in the first place is quite irrelevant.

However characters are often thought of with fondness by their players and so its hardly unexpected that when you start making claims that one "is against the rules", people are going to ask you to back up your allegations with facts.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 22, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> This is something that gets said over and over again. The implication here is that it is more imaginative to play a weird character or one with a gimmick or what have you than one of a strong classic archetype.
> 
> Make a memorable Wood Elf Ranger. That takes imagination and skill.



The rules interpretation adopted by myself and others on the thread allow for both memorable Wood Elf Rangers and for memorable Warlock Swashbucklers, Spider themed Druids and Barbarian Knights.  

The rules interpretation you are arguing in favour of allows for only one of those things.

Pretty much the only argument you have given in favour of your interpretation is that our interpretation is "mush", which is clearly not the experience of the majority of the posters on this thread.




ad_hoc said:


> Putting Noble and Barbarian together is not a flex of someone's imagination. That doesn't take much creativity. Picking Barbarian because they want the Rage mechanic isn't a player being creative.
> 
> Playing a Kenku or a Thri-Kreen or an anthropomorphic rhinoceros is not more imaginative than playing an Elf or a Human even if they aren't seen as often.




Chaosmancer explained the background for his Noble Barbarian.  I explained the background for my Anansi Druid.  Jayounger explained the background for his Celestial Warlock.

I am not arrogant enough to claim my character is super creative.  However, I can say, definitively, that Chaosmancer and Jayounger's characters are very creative, and would probably be interesting additions to my campaign.  I cannot say the same for any characters you have proposed, because you have not proposed any characters.





ad_hoc said:


> I've seen it all before. It's not clever.
> 
> Make a memorable character not just a gimmick.




Claiming to "have seen it all before" is a failure of imagination.  Thinking that the only reason a player wants an unorthodox character is because they really want the Barbarian's Rage mechanic is a failure of imagination.  And thinking that any character that doesn't hew to 40-year old fantasy cliches is "a gimmick" is a failure of imagination. 



ad_hoc said:


> But back to the 'mush'. No, it isn't good game design. If the rules represent everything then they represent nothing.




Are you aware of how extreme this sounds?  Any change to any rule in the book leads to anarchy?  I make a tiefling fiendish warlock but I refluff it into a cambion because there aren't any rules for cambions and I'm somehow a wild-eyed anarchist?


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 22, 2020)

FrozenNorth said:


> Chaosmancer explained the background for his Noble Barbarian.




Yes, a character that I would not play with. If they brought that to my table we'd give them a funny look and suggesting they work on the Barbarian part.

If they responded like they've done in this thread then we'd show them the door.

Be aware when you're joining a new group that they might not want to play your way. If you're going to change things you need buy in from the table.



> Are you aware of how extreme this sounds?  Any change to any rule in the book leads to anarchy?  I make a tiefling fiendish warlock but I refluff it into a cambion because there aren't any rules for cambions and I'm somehow a wild-eyed anarchist?




Everyone keeps saying that I'm advocating against changing rules.

I don't know what else to do. I just need to stop engaging I guess.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2020)

Azzy said:


> The fluff in the rule books is a starting point, not an end point.



Start or end, the fluff is a guide to the class and can't be discarded without discarding the class itself.  Class is not mechanics.  Class is the mechanics plus the class fluff.  If you completely re-write the fluff, you have a brand new class, even if the mechanics are the same as a barbarian.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2020)

FrozenNorth said:


> As I alluded to in my previous post, fluff is useful to beginning players who might be overwhelmed with choice otherwise.  It serves a function and I wouldn’t want it eliminated.
> 
> However, if you are claiming that WOTC’s intention in 5e was that the fluff serve as anything other than a guideline, than you are going to have to provide some evidence in support of that claim.



It is a guideline.  Here is some barbarian fluff.  

"People o f towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals, as if denying one’s own nature was a mark of superiority. To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign
of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature keen instincts, primal physicality, and ferocious rage.
Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. They thrive in the wilds o f their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt."

That serves as one of the guidelines for what a barbarian is.  Whether you are a dwarven battle rager, an orc, a tribesman, or something else along those lines is up to the player to decide.  However you decide, though, the guideline is that barbarians are uncivilized.  

If you want to have a cultured knight and flower of civilization who gets really angry and rages in battle, you are not playing a barbarian.  You have completely thrown out the guidelines and what makes the class a barbarian and have created a new class.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Why bother to include backgrounds in the game? At that point, just say "All Barbarians take Outlander, All Wizards take Sage, All Fighters take soldier, All Clerics take Acolyte, All Rogues take Urchin" ect
> 
> Hey, why not take it a step further. All Fighters are gruff men with beards who have seen too much war. All Wizards are old men with long beards seeking power for powers sake. All clerics are beautiful and kind women who act as the mother of the party.
> 
> I mean, if you are going to require people to play a trope, go all the way. All wizards are named Gandalf. All Fighters named Bob.




ROFL Wow!  Watch out that you don't fall and hurt yourself on that Slippery Slope there.

I even pointed out ways that you could do noble and barbarian. Nothing you say here is in any way a valid response to what I said.  Was there a point to that response?


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 22, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Yes, a character that I would not play with. If they brought that to my table we'd give them a funny look and suggesting they work on the Barbarian part.
> 
> If they responded like they've done in this thread then we'd show them the door.



You have my heartfelt condolences.


> Everyone keeps saying that I'm advocating against changing rules.



 As far as most of the other people in this thread are concerned, they are not. They're just talking about changing the fluff: the flavour.
I think that the reason that you're getting the impression that you are, is that you're viewing some of that flavour text as part of the crunch: the rules mechanics.

Hence the discrepancy.



Maxperson said:


> It is a guideline.  Here is some barbarian fluff.
> 
> "People o f towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals, as if denying one’s own nature was a mark of superiority. To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign
> of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature keen instincts, primal physicality, and ferocious rage.
> ...



 Its following all the rules of a barbarian: the only thing that has changed is the fluff, or flavour text.

Note also that that flavour text is from the PHB while the character in question is an Ancestral Guardians barbarian, which has its own accompanying fluff.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Start or end, *the fluff is a guide to the class and can't be discarded without discarding the class itself. * Class is not mechanics.  Class is the mechanics plus the class fluff.  If you completely re-write the fluff, you have a brand new class, even if the mechanics are the same as a barbarian.



Absolute rubbish.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> If you want to have a cultured knight and flower of civilization who gets really angry and rages in battle, you are not playing a barbarian.  You have completely thrown out the guidelines and what makes the class a barbarian and have created a new class.



Even if it's a whole new class, it's immaterial.  *The fiction is bigger and broader than the rule set.*      That's why you can run Eberron with Savage Worlds, or Forgotten Realms with Barbarians of Lemuria, or Golarian with 5e.  It's why you can run any fantasy game with a village and a site to explore, and just build it out during play.  The only thing that limits the concepts in the fiction are the participant's understanding of the concepts of the boundaries of the fiction.

Any ruleset is just an inexact method of allowing the players to describe characters within the world in a way that all of their contributions are roughly equivalent, and provide a mechanical method for the players to contribute to the fiction.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> ROFL Wow!  Watch out that you don't fall and hurt yourself on that Slippery Slope there.
> 
> I even pointed out ways that you could do noble and barbarian. Nothing you say here is in any way a valid response to what I said.  Was there a point to that response?




Because of what you express in this post



Maxperson said:


> That serves as one of the guidelines for what a barbarian is.  Whether you are a dwarven battle rager, an orc, a tribesman, or something else along those lines is up to the player to decide.  However you decide, though, the guideline is that barbarians are uncivilized.
> 
> If you want to have a cultured knight and flower of civilization who gets really angry and rages in battle, you are not playing a barbarian.  You have completely thrown out the guidelines and what makes the class a barbarian and have created a new class.




I know it came after, but it highlights the issue exactly. 

A barbarian cannot be civilized according to you. They must be uncivilized. 

Mechanics for noble? Their Position of Privilege feature says this "Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. "

And the Knight in particular says "As an emblem of chivalry and the ideals of courtly love, you might include among your equipment a banner or other token from a noble lord or lady to whom you have given your heart — in a chaste sort of devotion. "

So, under your own logic (I must have either been a noble and become a barbarian, or been a barbarian and become a noble) my character has one of two possible existances. Either I am a tribal warrior, savage and uncultured who was granted lands, and therefore Old Blood nobles welcome me to their galas and events, even though I show up in animal skins and eat with my bare hands. Or, I was a nobleman, and through events I was left stranded out in the wilderness, and became a wild man to survive. 

Yet, why? Why are you deciding that my character must act in these ways? Why is my personality decided by my class? Why do I hold a token of courtly love, if I do not believe in courtly love? How is honoring the great deeds of past warriors different if I do it with wine and an epic romance era saga (with accompanying family lineage) instead of in a bawdy song while quaffing cheap ale? Why must I throwing the serving woman over my shoulder and drag her off, instead of paying for a candlelit dinner with fine wines and pleasant music to woo her?

And so, I presented the slippery slope. If all Barbarians must by nature be uncivilized buffoons, unable to grasp the intricacies of high culture, then must all Fighters be grizzled veterans of war? All Clerics cloistered scholars who have taken vows of poverty and piousness? Are all bards horny lutists with a heart of gold? 

You agree to one, why not the others? Why is it okay to say that one class has their personality set in stone, while the others do not?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Its following all the rules of a barbarian: the only thing that has changed is the fluff, or flavour text.
> 
> Note also that that flavour text is from the PHB while the character in question is an Ancestral Guardians barbarian, which has its own accompanying fluff.



The Ancestral Guardian follows the fluff that I just laid out from the PHB.  You are also missing the point.  Being a barbarian does not equal rage, unarmored defense, fast movement, reckless attack, danger sense, etc.  To be a barbarian takes more than just the mechanics.  The class is the mechanics plus the general flavor of the fluff that is written.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Absolute rubbish.



Well, that insightful and well written counter argument sure showed me.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> Even if it's a whole new class, it's immaterial.  *The fiction is bigger and broader than the rule set.*      That's why you can run Eberron with Savage Worlds, or Forgotten Realms with Barbarians of Lemuria, or Golarian with 5e.  It's why you can run any fantasy game with a village and a site to explore, and just build it out during play.  The only thing that limits the concepts in the fiction are the participant's understanding of the concepts of the boundaries of the fiction.




Wait.  Being a whole new class is immaterial to a discussion about what the barbarian class is?  That makes no sense.  

I agree that the fiction is bigger and broader than the rule set.  You can indeed make whole new classes just fine.  I'm just saying that the new class isn't a barbarian. Once you change the fluff to the point that the character is no longer recognizable as that class, call it something different. Call it an Angry Knight or something.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> The Ancestral Guardian follows the fluff that I just laid out from the PHB.  You are also missing the point.  Being a barbarian does not equal rage, unarmored defense, fast movement, reckless attack, danger sense, etc.  To be a barbarian takes more than just the mechanics.  The class is the mechanics plus the general flavor of the fluff that is written.




So being a barbarian means eating large hunks of meat with your hands? Dressing in animal skins and bathing once a year? Never cutting your hair or trimming your beard? Spitting upon ancient art, not understanding nuance and innuedo? 

Do I smash my plate against the ground when done eating? Carve scar tattoos into my face? 

If I cannot be someone who believes in my word being my bond, romantic love, and enjoys fine wine and epic poems of glory, who must I be?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> A barbarian cannot be civilized according to you. They must be uncivilized.




Incorrect.  That is not according to me.  It is according to the PHB.



> Mechanics for noble? Their Position of Privilege feature says this "Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. "
> 
> And the Knight in particular says "As an emblem of chivalry and the ideals of courtly love, you might include among your equipment a banner or other token from a noble lord or lady to whom you have given your heart — in a chaste sort of devotion. "
> 
> So, under your own logic (I must have either been a noble and become a barbarian, or been a barbarian and become a noble) my character has one of two possible existances. Either I am a tribal warrior, savage and uncultured who was granted lands, and therefore Old Blood nobles welcome me to their galas and events, even though I show up in animal skins and eat with my bare hands. Or, I was a nobleman, and through events I was left stranded out in the wilderness, and became a wild man to survive.




Or, as in the example I gave some time earlier, Noble can be adapted to barbarian use.  Barbarian society exists and the son of a chief would qualify.  Barbarians would be inclined to think the best of you.  You would be welcome in the councils and such(high society).  It's not as if someone with a traditional Noble would be welcomed into barbarian councils or that barbarians would be inclines to think the best of them. 



> Yet, why? Why are you deciding that my character must act in these ways? Why is my personality decided by my class? Why do I hold a token of courtly love, if I do not believe in courtly love?




It does say MIGHT include a token of courtly love.  You do not have to have one.  If you do have one, it is because you chose it.  Nothing says you have to possess all of the traditional virtues of a knight, but if you CHOOSE knight, you are choosing enough of them to be recognizable as a knight, which takes more than a suit of armor.  You are choosing to tie that roleplay to your character.



> How is honoring the great deeds of past warriors different if I do it with wine and an epic romance era saga (with accompanying family lineage) instead of in a bawdy song while quaffing cheap ale? Why must I throwing the serving woman over my shoulder and drag her off, instead of paying for a candlelit dinner with fine wines and pleasant music to woo her?




Yes.  Those things are obviously different.  Just like karate and kung fu are obviously different ways to achieve a similar end result.



> And so, I presented the slippery slope. If all Barbarians must by nature be uncivilized buffoons, unable to grasp the intricacies of high culture, then must all Fighters be grizzled veterans of war? All Clerics cloistered scholars who have taken vows of poverty and piousness? Are all bards horny lutists with a heart of gold?




And there is a Strawman of my argument.  I specifically avoided the little specifics that don't change the general nature of the class, like being a scholar, having vows of poverty, being a lutist, etc.

It seems that your responses can only contain fallacious arguments.  I'd love to see a valid argument from you in response to me.



> You agree to one, why not the others? Why is it okay to say that one class has their personality set in stone, while the others do not?




What makes you think that the entirety of a barbarian's personality is uncivilized?  That seems foolish and unnecessarily limiting to me.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> So being a barbarian means eating large hunks of meat with your hands? Dressing in animal skins and bathing once a year? Never cutting your hair or trimming your beard? Spitting upon ancient art, not understanding nuance and innuedo?




If that's how you want to play it.  



> Do I smash my plate against the ground when done eating? Carve scar tattoos into my face?




Up to you.



> If I cannot be someone who believes in my word being my bond, romantic love, and enjoys fine wine and epic poems of glory, who must I be?



Sure you can.  Uncivilized people can ALSO honor their word, be romantic to their lovers, enjoy wine, and epics of glory.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Well, that insightful and well written counter argument sure showed me.



Perhaps if you gave me any evidence that you were open-minded to counter arguments, but I know better than to waste my time with providing well-written counter arguments when you have no interest in actually listening or changing your position. 

Furthermore, it is not my place to say why you are wrong; it is yours to say why your positive assertion is correct. And you have not made a compelling argument for your case. If you had, you would have been able to convince a single person of your point, but you haven’t. Have a pleasant day.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 22, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Perhaps if you gave me any evidence that you were open-minded to counter arguments, but I know better than to waste my time with providing well-written counter arguments when you have no interest in actually listening or changing your position.
> 
> Furthermore, it is not my place to say why you are wrong; it is yours to say why your positive assertion is correct. And you have not made a compelling argument for your case. If you had, you would have been able to convince a single person of your point, but you haven’t. Have a pleasant day.




I agree with them and I assume so would others who have left the thread as well as countless more who aren't reading it.

Whether a position is popular or not has no impact on whether it is correct.

The book lays out what a class is. Not adhering to what the class is means it is no longer that class. There is no need for an argument, it's just what the words mean.

The disconnect, as far as I can parse it, is that some people feel an RPG can work if there are no narrative or thematic rules. Even moreso, that they don't actually exist. That's true of chess. It's not true of an RPG. Further, 5e itself is specifically designed narrative first. What the rules represent is important, that's why so much space in the books are devoted to explaining what the rules mean. 

If the races and classes were just numbered sets of abilities and powers with no names related to narrative I wouldn't play the game. Even in such a game with rules devoid of narrative and theme the game itself wouldn't work as players would have no idea how to resolve the limitless situations that will come up during the course of a game that are not explicitly outlined in the rules. Unless, I guess, if it is played solely as a white room combat strategy game I guess. But then, just play a better game at that point.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 22, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> I agree with them and *I assume so would others who have left the thread as well as countless more who aren't reading it.*



That's awfully convenient for your argument, isn't it? 



> Whether a position is popular or not has no impact on whether it is correct.



Mercy, what a sweet platitude this is. 



> The book lays out what a class is. Not adhering to what the class is means it is no longer that class.



The book says that a class broadly defines a character's vocation, not that it prescribes the character, how they should act, or be roleplayed. In fact, it does not say that the class is the primary definition of a character's narrative; it says that it is the primary definition of what your character can do (i.e., mechanics), p. 45. The language of the book intentionally avoids prescribing how class defines your character, by using language such as "your character of X class _might_...". 



> There is no need for an argument, *it's just what the words mean.*



Are you familiar with any linguistics and/or linguistic theory because I don't think that this has been the prevailing linguistic sentiment for about a century. 



> The disconnect, as far as I can parse it, is that some people feel an RPG can work if there are no narrative or thematic rules. Even moreso, that they don't actually exist. That's true of chess. It's not true of an RPG. Further, 5e itself is specifically designed narrative first. What the rules represent is important, that's why so much space in the books are devoted to explaining what the rules mean.



Except you have not been able to cite any actual rule in the PHB or DMG in support of your argument. Your "best" source that you have repeatedly appealed to has been a Tweet from Jeremy Crawford that is contradicted by a Tweet from Jeremy Crawford.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Start or end, the fluff is a guide to the class and can't be discarded without discarding the class itself.  Class is not mechanics.  Class is the mechanics plus the class fluff.  If you completely re-write the fluff, you have a brand new class, even if the mechanics are the same as a barbarian.



In  your opinion.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 22, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Absolute rubbish.




also @Maxperson and others:

I think we got several missunderstandings in the thread because we use different baselines:

Mechanics: e.g. Barbarians mechanics are a rule to make the fluff of the barbarian work in a balanced way.

Refluffed: If i "refluff" (refluff is the wrong word here! It has to be reassign because it refers to a game mechanic!) the barbarians mechanics for a homemade hulk class and add some fluff to it e.g. i use the rage mechanics to describe the fluff that hulk transforms into a monster then i used a mechanical rule with different fluff.

Background: some additional fluff. It could be noble, pariah or whatever. If the player who plays Conan the barbarian has the slave background then he gets some skills or whatever from that.
If Conan later becomes king then it does not change his background to noble!

Ok now the other thing: Prince Krull started was born a noble (his background) (Fluff 1 attached) He started out as a fighter class (mechanic 1 attached) (Fluff 2 attached) Later he is captured by a primitive tribe and adopts their fighting habits which impresses them so much that he is released (He takes a level in barbarian (mechanic 2 attached, Fluff 3 attached).
Still Prince Krull keeps up his habits of a noble as soon as he is able to (back in civilised areas) Nowhere the background needs to be reassigned


Lets take this further:
Prince Krull starts out as a noble with al lthe knightly behaviour (no class yet) and is kidnapped by the primitive tribe as a child. He grows up as one of them adopting their fighting style = barbarian. He regains freedom and resumes his first lifestyle but still fights as a barbarian.




So if your DM is fine with all the classes and backgrounds in his campaign world no rule is broken here.
The game world should also feature soem noble house with the titel prince and some primitive tribe to make everything consistant and smooth.

The reason not to accept this player concept could be if there arre no primitive tribes in this world and barbarian is therefore not a class the DM wants in his campaign since all is civilised.
If then the player comes along and says, let us work it out, my player is something like tarzan, but in reality he is a prince (so noble background) who got lost in the jungle as a baby and grew up fighting like wild apes who raised him, then i as a DM would oppose and eventually say, yeah so you want to be the only barbarian in the game world, i am fine with that, but there is no way that your charcter gets the noble background because he grew up amongst animals in the jungle, take orphan instead, you are prince by name only.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2020)

Azzy said:


> In  your opinion.



And the opinion of 5e.

"Every adventurer is a member of a class. *Class broadly describes a character’s vocation*, what special talents he or she possesses, and the tactics he or she is most likely to employ when exploring a dungeon, fighting monsters, or engaging in a tense negotiation. The character classes are described in chapter 3."

The special talents(mechanics) are listed separately from the description of vocation(fluff), both of which are what comprises that class.  You can tweak it a bit, but if you completely upend either the mechanics or the fluff, you are changing the class into something else.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 22, 2020)

Coroc said:


> The reason not to accept this player concept could be if there arre no primitive tribes in this world and barbarian is therefore not a class the DM wants in his campaign since all is civilised.
> If then the player comes along and says, let us work it out, my player is something like tarzan, but in reality he is a prince (so noble background) who got lost in the jungle as a baby and grew up fighting like wild apes who raised him, then i as a DM would oppose and eventually say, yeah so you want to be the only barbarian in the game world, i am fine with that, but there is no way that your charcter gets the noble background because he grew up amongst animals in the jungle, take orphan instead, you are prince by name only.




That's the thing though.

This character concept doesn't involve anything from the Barbarian class except their abilities.

There is nothing about being uncivilized in the character concept or any of the other things that are listed in the Barbarian section. 

The character in question (as has been presented in this thread) is a high society noble who espouses the traits of a stereotypical noble knight such as being honour bound, having a decorum fitting someone of stature, etc.

The argument is that this is in no way a change to the rules set out in the book concerning what a Barbarian is. 

The implication of this argument, as the topic of the thread, is that class has no bearing on who the character is as it is freely mutable.

Strangely enough, the posters who have replied seem to be in agreement that being a Jedi is against the rules, rules that they express don't exist. I'm still puzzled by that.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 22, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> That's the thing though.
> 
> This character concept doesn't involve anything from the Barbarian class except their abilities.
> 
> ...




Might be, but it is still only a matter of apropriate fluff (fitting i na given campaign)  attached to this character concept, the like i gave examples for above, and it contradicts no rules.

So all it needs is a bit of in game explanation. 

See, that is one of the reasons i limit everything in my own campaigns like a good grognard 

Situations like that do not occur, maybe if you got players who like to explore unusual character concepts you should start session zero-1 with asking them about that and later scetch out the world to make it fit somehow?


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 22, 2020)

Coroc said:


> Might be, but it is still only a matter of apropriate fluff (fitting i na given campaign)  attached to this character concept, the like i gave examples for above, and it contradicts no rules.
> 
> So all it needs is a bit of in game explanation.
> 
> ...




Except for all the rules it directly contradicts.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> And the opinion of 5e.
> 
> "Every adventurer is a member of a class. *Class broadly describes a character’s vocation*, what special talents he or she possesses, and the tactics he or she is most likely to employ when exploring a dungeon, fighting monsters, or engaging in a tense negotiation. The character classes are described in chapter 3."
> 
> The special talents(mechanics) are listed separately from the description of vocation(fluff), both of which are what comprises that class.  You can tweak it a bit, but if you completely upend either the mechanics or the fluff, you are changing the class into something else.



Yes, and notice what you emboldened: "*broadly describes*" and NOT narrowly prescribes, as per your treatment of the words. Also notice that it does not say or suggest in any sort of legalese that these fluffs are indicative of rules. 

Furthermore, the DMG has a section dedicated to modifying classes. It does not say that if the DM modifies a class that is ceases to be the prior class. It says that how a class is understood can vary from table to table or campaign setting to campaign setting and that the DM/table can modify the features or flavor of the class as appropriate to their needs or tastes. It even says that paladins in a hypothetical campaign setting may not swear oaths to ideals but powerful sorcerers. Nowhere does the DMG say, much less suggest, that this means that they cease being the paladin class. 

So maybe it's time for you to admit that your opinion is not necessarily as attached to the given rules and guidelines of 5e as you believe it to be, and, in fact, dare I say, you may be actually more further detached from the rules than the people who are arguing that the class fluff can be changed without invalidating its existence as said class.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 22, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Except for all the rules it directly contradicts.




Rule = mechanics.

No mechanics here is hurt, just fluff.

Fluff= classes, races, items, spells, deities, backgrounds, items, spells etc.,

Rules is what makes the game work in a balanced way independant of the fluff attached to them.

You are right that good fluff is contradicted, but no game mechanics are exploited in the original example as far as i can see it.

It is not my preferred game style, i like to create worlds where such stunts are hard to fit in, but it is legitimate and might even be fun if underlayed with good fluff.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> And the opinion of 5e.
> 
> "Every adventurer is a member of a class. *Class broadly describes a character’s vocation*, what special talents he or she possesses, and the tactics he or she is most likely to employ when exploring a dungeon, fighting monsters, or engaging in a tense negotiation. The character classes are described in chapter 3."
> 
> The special talents(mechanics) are listed separately from the description of vocation(fluff), both of which are what comprises that class.  You can tweak it a bit, but if you completely upend either the mechanics or the fluff, you are changing the class into something else.




Broadly describes. Like I said, it's a starting point, not an end point. There is nothing that says that you cannot sttray from this fluff. Nothing. Heck, even the lead designer, Jeremy Crawford, encourages reskinning. So, no, your hardline view is just your opinion.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Yes, and notice what you emboldened: "*broadly describes*" and NOT narrowly prescribes, as per your treatment of the words. Also notice that it does not say or suggest in any sort of legalese that these fluffs are indicative of rules.




I've been saying generally(which means broadly) describes the entire time, but nice try at forcing words into my mouth.



> Furthermore, the DMG has a section dedicated to modifying classes. It does not say that if the DM modifies a class that is ceases to be the prior class. It says that how a class is understood can vary from table to table or campaign setting to campaign setting and that the DM/table can modify the features or flavor of the class as appropriate to their needs or tastes. It even says that paladins in a hypothetical campaign setting may not swear oaths to ideals but powerful sorcerers. Nowhere does the DMG say, much less suggest, that this means that they cease being the paladin class.




That section is entirely devoted to changing some of the mechanics of the class, not the fluff, and I think everyone understands that if you change the entirety of class mechanics, it ceases to be that class.  You can call a potato a paladin, but it's not going to be a paladin.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 22, 2020)

Coroc said:


> Rule = mechanics.
> 
> No mechanics here is hurt, just fluff.
> 
> ...




Thought experiment:

Throw out everything that people define as 'fluff' in an RPG.

The game no longer works. There is a bunch of disconnected math in service of nothing.

There is no separating 'fluff' from rules in an RPG. It's all rules.



Azzy said:


> Broadly describes. Like I said, it's a starting point, not an end point. There is nothing that says that you cannot sttray from this fluff. Nothing. Heck, even the lead designer, Jeremy Crawford, encourages reskinning. So, no, your hardline view is just your opinion.




Who has said that things cannot be changed?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2020)

Azzy said:


> Broadly describes. Like I said, it's a starting point, not an end point. There is nothing that says that you cannot sttray from this fluff.




Broadly describes indicates what I've been saying.  It describes the general nature of the class fluff.  Barbarians are uncivilized(the general fluff).  The specific way that your barbarian is uncivilized is up to you.



> Nothing. Heck, even the lead designer, Jeremy Crawford, encourages reskinning.




His statement is irrelevant to my position.  I am totally for house rules and home brew and support your ability to reskin in that manner.  His support of re-skinning does not in any way mean that the default assumption is that the barbarian class is the general fluff plus mechanics.  It just means that he is supportive of changing the game to suit your needs.  As am I.



> So, no, your hardline view is just your opinion.



I have no hardline view.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> That section is entirely devoted to changing some of the mechanics of the class, not the fluff, and I think everyone understands that if you change the entirety of class mechanics, it ceases to be that class.



Yes, but please actually read the text, and not just the words but the actual discourse that is transpiring. The author is acutely aware of the fact that the fluff varies between tables and games, even for paladins. The modification of spell lists, for example, does not say that a paladin that does not swear an oath to ideals, but, rather, to powerful sorcerers is not a paladin. It says that a DM may desire to reflect such a paladin in the mechanics by changing the spell list, not that they must, such that a paladin who swears their oaths to powerful sorcerers is still hypothetically valid without modifying the class. Still a paladin. Replace 'paladin' with any given class here, such as the noble barbarian, and this point in the DMG would still hold true. It's just fluff, and it varies from table to table, game to game, campaign to campaign, and changed fluff does not not inherently invalidate the class as the class.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2020)

Coroc said:


> Rule = mechanics.




That's untrue.  A rule that you have to roll dice in front of the players is a rule without mechanics.  There can be lots of rules that don't have associated mechanics. An example from 5e is the rule that the players describe what they want their PC to do and the DM narrates the results.  Those are both explicit 5e rules with no mechanics.  Other mechanics may or may not play a part in-between the declaration and narration, but those mechanics are not a part of those two rules.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 22, 2020)

From Eberrron: Rising from the Last War:

"As a barbarian you could have been a simple peasant caught in the Mourning. Everyone else in your community was killed, but their spirits were bound to you. Your barbarian rage represents you channeling these vengeful ghosts. Is there a way to lay these spirits to rest? Do they have unfinished business they want you to resolve?"


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 22, 2020)

Azzy said:


> From Eberrron: Rising from the Last War:
> 
> "As a barbarian you could have been a simple peasant caught in the Mourning. Everyone else in your community was killed, but their spirits were bound to you. Your barbarian rage represents you channeling these vengeful ghosts. Is there a way to lay these spirits to rest? Do they have unfinished business they want you to resolve?"



How does setting specific homebrew affect things here?


----------



## Azzy (Feb 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> How does setting specific homebrew affect things here?



It isn't homebrew.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 22, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Thought experiment:
> 
> Throw out everything that people define as 'fluff' in an RPG.
> 
> ...




Challenge accepted.

I take a class named A (mechanically the barbarians class) A background Y based on the criminal background.

Now i do the mechanics (Translation in paranthesis):

Player1 character X is a level 1 A with a dexterity of 16  and the Y background allowing him to apply skill U with +6
(means e.g. he could use his background to pick locks with +3prof+3dex=+6 skill based o nhis background)

DM: X you approach a Z. you can apply skill U DC 12. Player 1 rolls 15 +6= 21. DM you resolved Z
(Player 1 your character finds a lock, you can try and pick it. Player rolls more than 12 and picks  the lock)

I removed all fluff, the mechanic is still working, no matter what names you give to the things.

Barbarian is not a rule, it is one example of fluff attached to the "barbarians mechanic"
As stated above i could do a homebrew class of a Hulk based on the barbarian mechanic and it woudl work fine without the word barbarian ever coming up in the game.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> That's untrue.  A rule that you have to roll dice in front of the players is a rule without mechanics.  There can be lots of rules that don't have associated mechanics. An example from 5e is the rule that the players describe what they want their PC to do and the DM narrates the results.  Those are both explicit 5e rules with no mechanics.  Other mechanics may or may not play a part in-between the declaration and narration, but those mechanics are not a part of those two rules.




Yea you are right it was no meant to be exclusive, of course dice roling, the six attributes and other stats are also fixed rules.
I just wanted to point out the difference between some of the ruleset and pure fluff like class or background.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Broadly describes indicates what I've been saying.  It describes the general nature of the class fluff.  Barbarians are uncivilized(the general fluff).  The specific way that your barbarian is uncivilized is up to you.



No. The language of the 5e PHB is that barbarians _might, often, _or _can be_ uncivilized NOT that they are. Your position here that "barbarians are uncivilized" is prescriptive and not descriptive or a generalization. Your view seems antithetical to the actual language and spirit of 5e, which, on the whole, is exceptionally skittish about dictating how things are in your game, table, or setting. 



> I have no hardline view.



It seems like you are arguing pretty hardline view to me, Max. There does not seem to be much room for compromise from your. As per usual, it's either your opinion or nothing.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 22, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> ... language and spirit of 5e, which, on the whole, is exceptionally skittish about dictating how things are in your game, table, or setting.
> 
> ...




Actually not, the examples for gamplay in the rulebook are just that. And it says you can housrule all you want except for AL or such. But here we are not talking about altering the rule, we are talking about altering the fluff or lack of fluff for another fluff which is not a (mechanical) rule.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 22, 2020)

Coroc said:


> Challenge accepted.
> 
> I take a class named A (mechanically the barbarians class) A background Y based on the criminal background.




There is no class, no Barbarian, no background, and no criminal.

Remember, we have thrown out that 'fluff'.



> Now i do the mechanics (Translation in paranthesis):
> 
> Player1 character X is a level 1 A with a dexterity of 16  and the Y background allowing him to apply skill U with +6
> (means e.g. he could use his background to pick locks with +3prof+3dex=+6 skill based o nhis background)
> ...




There are no skills and no locks.

There are only abilities and obstacles or challenges.

It's hard to imagine an RPG without fluff because it couldn't work. It just wouldn't be an RPG.


----------



## Boendal2 (Feb 22, 2020)

We are going to start a new campaign and one of my players told me her cleric won't heal other players, because the WotC books state that a domain of the death cleric sees "death as a part of life". Therefore no healing for the group. Also she wanted to tell the paladin that he has to fit his alignment with the party (basically hers), as everything else will cause problems for the group. also anything else than lawful good wouldn't fit the paladin class anyway.

I intervened immediatley and told her she can play her character as she likes, but we won't play RAW at my table. She seemed really surprised by me mentioning that alignment is "a mere guideline for RP".... I think she never even thought about it that way. Explains why I felt so out of place in the campaign she was GMing. Also makes me a bit sad, when you realise how one-dimensional her character creations must have been so far....

So in a word: yes. yes, I encountered a player (and even GM) like this lately ;-)


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 22, 2020)

Coroc said:


> Actually not, the examples for gamplay in the rulebook are just that. And it says you can housrule all you want except for AL or such. But here we are not talking about altering the rule, we are talking about altering the fluff or lack of fluff for another fluff which is not a (mechanical) rule.




People keep saying that they can define something as 'fluff' and then therefore it is not a rule.

Firstly, how do we define something as fluff in the first place? Where in the rules does it say how we determine that?

Can I play a human with the elf mechanics? Just throw out all that fluff and say my character is actually just a human in the narrative. What is rules and what is fluff?

I've seen lots of people on the internet argue that a 'Druid won't wear metal armour' is fluff. Is it? How do we determine if something is actually a rule or not?


I brought up an example of playing a Jedi and people lost it. 

Well is it against the rules to play a Jedi? If it is against the rules, then there are rules. If there are no rules then it is perfectly fine for a player to come to a table with a character choosing the Elf race, Rogue class, and Guild Artisan background but the character is actually a human Jedi from the Star Wars universe.

There are either rules that forbid that or there aren't.


----------



## Captain Panda (Feb 22, 2020)

Maybe it's time to hit reset a bit and try to actually understand where everyone is coming from. So, at MaxPerson, Saelorn, Ad_Hoc, I have a few cases I want to run by you and genuinely get your opinion on. I have a few hypothetical characters here, ranging in the scale they alter fluff:

*Example 1: *A barbarian, mechanically, who is a rural peasant who flies into a rage and fights with exceptional vigor on behalf of the lower class, and harbors a hatred of the nobility. I'd call this a *minor refluff*.

*Example 2: *A bard, mechanically, who is flavored as a mage with no musical skills at all. They have a keen interest in magical theory and see themselves as an unconventional wizard sussing out the secrets of magic from many traditions. Basically a bard who is flavored like a more traditional caster. The two are fairly close mechanically to begin with, so I'd call this a *moderate refluff. 

Example 3: *A druid, mechanically, who is played in the style of Radagast, complete with a bunny sled. Radagast is more of a wizard who is attuned to nature than a druid, so I'd call this a *moderate to high refluff. 

Example 4: *A monk, mechanically, who is  a hobbit farmer who brawls and hits people with his hoe and utilizes old family fighting traditions ("Aunt Winnifred's Crotch Punch" for stunning strike, as an example). This departs pretty drastically from the monk flavor, so I'd call this a *heavy refluff.

Example 5: *A paladin, mechanically, who is flavored to be a mechanical assassin who unleashes surges of energy through his weapons in the form of energy blasts on a hit (to replace smites), and who swears no oath. I'd call this an *extreme reflavor. *

Now in all cases the underlying integrity of the mechanics is unchanged. All that has changed is the aesthetics, the flavor. Flavor and aesthetics can be important. That said, I'd allow everything from 1-4 and still consider it in the spirit of the game. Even 5 could fit at some tables, depending on the setting, and might make sense for a warforged paladin in Eberron.

Would you be opposed to allowing these examples? If yes to some and no to others, at what point do you think the refluffing has gone too far? If no to all of them, do you not see why that position is an unpopular one?

I argue that reflavoring a class (within reason, and suited to the setting) is not only in the spirit of the rules, but is a player actively showing initiative and putting effort into the game. I've seen a lot of people who threw a character together and just played Generic Monk#17 (which is not to say every monk who is very close to the PHB flavor does that, but it does happen), but someone who takes the time to redefine all the fluff to make sense for a rural hobbit is someone who has taken time to really delve into their character and put work in. As a DM, I wish every player would do that. Making a character your own is a *good thing. *



ad_hoc said:


> Can I play a human with the elf mechanics? Just throw out all that fluff and say my character is actually just a human in the narrative. What is rules and what is fluff?




That's actually one of the lines I do draw in the sand. You can't just look like one existing race and use the stats of another. If someone wants to be something unique, however, and they have what I judge to be a good reason, I'm willing to let them use the existing stats of a race that resembles their idea.


----------



## Don Durito (Feb 22, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Can I play a human with the elf mechanics? Just throw out all that fluff and say my character is actually just a human in the narrative. What is rules and what is fluff?
> 
> I've seen lots of people on the internet argue that a 'Druid won't wear metal armour' is fluff. Is it? How do we determine if something is actually a rule or not?
> 
> ...



This has always been the issue with reskinning in WOTC D&D.  It's always been a matter of table negotiation to work out what you can do and the extent to which you can do it.  And of course, just because a DM allows something, it doesn't mean that making things that other players assumed were concrete limitations into fluff won't impact their enjoyment of the game.

Take the Samurai subclass, I would assume that if I want to play the subclass I don't have be an actual Japanese style samurai - yet it wouldn't be hugely surprising to find a table where the assumption was that "yes, of course you do, that's what the subclass is for".


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 22, 2020)

Boendal2 said:


> We are going to start a new campaign and one of my players told me her cleric won't heal other players, because the WotC books state that a domain of the death cleric sees "death as a part of life". Therefore no healing for the group.




What is the problem with that?



> Also she wanted to tell the paladin that he has to fit his alignment with the party (basically hers), as everything else will cause problems for the group.




It is perfectly reasonable to have expectations about how the party will interact and be composed of as a player at the table. 

I don't want to play in a game with evil characters for example.



> also anything else than lawful good wouldn't fit the paladin class anyway.




Well she is just in error.




> Also makes me a bit sad, when you realise how one-dimensional her character creations must have been so far....
> 
> So in a word: yes. yes, I encountered a player (and even GM) like this lately ;-)




This is just a lack of imagination. Creating characters using the building blocks given by the books does not necessitate 'one-dimensional' characters.

Try making a character without a gimmick. Create a character with a strong archetype. Then use your imagination and creativity to make that character memorable during play.

Playing against what the books say isn't a mark of imagination. It's trying to use a crutch to be remarkable.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 22, 2020)

> Would you be opposed to allowing these examples? If yes to some and no to others, at what point do you think the refluffing has gone too far? If no to all of them, do you not see why that position is an unpopular one?




I must have said at least 20 times so far that I'm not against changing things.

The rules give a baseline that people expect when they sit down to play the game. Any change can be good or bad, that is it can make the game more fun or less fun for others.

For the examples, it will be my own taste. The most important thing to me is that the player is acting in good faith. They're hard rules to codify so the honour system must be used.

A brief character description will often lack the nuance necessary.



Captain Panda said:


> *Example 1: *A barbarian, mechanically, who is a rural peasant who flies into a rage and fights with exceptional vigor on behalf of the lower class, and harbors a hatred of the nobility. I'd call this a *minor refluff*.




I suppose it depends on the subclass? But largely it would be on how the character is played. I would expect to see traits from the Barbarian class represented. (which I am going to guess people will read as 'that is only what the character is'. No, characters are a lot of things. Class traits are just one aspect.)



> *Example 2: *A bard, mechanically, who is flavored as a mage with no musical skills at all. They have a keen interest in magical theory and see themselves as an unconventional wizard sussing out the secrets of magic from many traditions. Basically a bard who is flavored like a more traditional caster. The two are fairly close mechanically to begin with, so I'd call this a *moderate refluff. *





Bards cast with Charisma. Their magic comes from the strength of their performance, which does not need to be musical. Being a good performer often means a lot of study. It is a step too far if they insist on the way they cast the spells to be the same as a Wizard.

I once played a Great Old One Pact of the Tome Warlock. She communed with her patron by reading and uncovering ancient secrets in texts. So yes, she resembled a Wizard in that respect. Her power came from harnessing the power of an Elder God through learning its secrets and her casting came through her force of personality to make it happen. So, still a Warlock.



> *Example 3: *A druid, mechanically, who is played in the style of Radagast, complete with a bunny sled. Radagast is more of a wizard who is attuned to nature than a druid, so I'd call this a *moderate to high refluff. *





I don't know Radagast. They are largely an invention of the movies right?

While Druids are varied, they also have a specific narrative place. They all know Druidic and won't wear metal armour for a reason.

Playing a scholarly Druid would be fine though if that is what you're asking?



> *Example 4: *A monk, mechanically, who is  a hobbit farmer who brawls and hits people with his hoe and utilizes old family fighting traditions ("Aunt Winnifred's Crotch Punch" for stunning strike, as an example). This departs pretty drastically from the monk flavor, so I'd call this a *heavy refluff.*




No, that's not a Monk. It's pretty easy to make that character concept work, they just need to spend some time learning to be a Monk in there somewhere.

They scared the rest of the village in their younger days by being too rough and tumble so the halflings contacted a monastery to take them in. They learned how to channel Ki from the Monks but their rough and tumble nature never left them, the life of a Monk was just not for them so they ultimately set off on adventure. Now they don't outwardly look or have the demeanour of a Monk type to most but they still have the Wisdom and training that was taught to them that they utilize when the time is right.




> *Example 5: *A paladin, mechanically, who is flavored to be a mechanical assassin who unleashes surges of energy through his weapons in the form of energy blasts on a hit (to replace smites), and who swears no oath. I'd call this an *extreme reflavor. *




Yeah, definitely not a Paladin.





> I argue that reflavoring a class (within reason, and suited to the setting) is not only in the spirit of the rules, but is a player actively showing initiative and putting effort into the game. I've seen a lot of people who threw a character together and just played Generic Monk#17 (which is not to say every monk who is very close to the PHB flavor does that, but it does happen), but someone who takes the time to redefine all the fluff to make sense for a rural hobbit is someone who has taken time to really delve into their character and put work in. As a DM, I wish every player would do that. Making a character your own is a *good thing. *




I think changing the rules is inherent and core to RPGs. They're made to be malleable. They must be.



> That's actually one of the lines I do draw in the sand. You can't just look like one existing race and use the stats of another. If someone wants to be something unique, however, and they have what I judge to be a good reason, I'm willing to let them use the existing stats of a race that resembles their idea.




Everyone has their own line. The point, is that there is a line.


----------



## Boendal2 (Feb 22, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> What is the problem with that?
> .......




I think you misunderstood or I didn't make my point well enough (english is not my first language). Let me clear things up:

1. Nothing bad with playing a death domain cleric the way described above. But stating that it's the only way is wrong imo. And that's what she stated.

2. Nothing wrong with asking the party to have a somewhat fitting alignment. But stating that the the party won't work if his alignment is not fitting (and she meant fitting as in correspond/conform) is wrong imo. It basically fit with her argument that paladins have to be LG anyways - so the party should be LG or at worst NG to LG. (which none of my friends ever agreed on before she mentioned it, and we dont take alignment very seriously anyway (also not her))

3. I never said, that following the books creates one-dimensional characters. I said SHE probably created one-dimensional characters (because she follows the books and doesnt add creative stuff). Granted, that's an assumption and not a very nice one. But I feel it might be true with this player.

I think you really want to make a point when there is none to be made. I wrote about a specific player I experienced. Nobody else. I am sorry if anyone felt it was directed towards him/her. I just wanted to share a personal experience with the person asking the original question above. Not attack anyone who uses the books as source for character creation. Thanks for he tips on character creation though.

On the flip side of your final argument


ad_hoc said:


> Playing against what the books say isn't a mark of imagination. It's trying to use a crutch to be remarkable.



it feels like you make exactly the point you you want to critisice. I personally think not every player who uses "a crutch" wants to be remarkable. Maybe try making a character with a gimmick. Create a character without a strong archetype. Then use your imagination and creativity to make that characteristic work with your class according to the rule books.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 22, 2020)

Boendal2 said:


> I think you misunderstood or I didn't make my point well enough (english is not my first language). Let me clear things up:
> 
> 1. Nothing bad with playing a death domain cleric the way described above. But stating that it's the only way is wrong imo. And that's what she stated.




Right, definitely wrong. The more important thing is which Death deity do they worship? And what is the deity's take on these things. Clerics of the same deity often behave in different ways too as they can represent different aspects of the deity.

In the time of playing 5e it has only actually come up once when a player made a character that I said no, I don't want to play with that character.

They made a Trickery Domain Cleric and didn't want to worship a deity. I said, 'no problem', you can represent the ideals of the philosophy of trickery and a deity will bestow upon you your powers. Afterall, a trickery deity wouldn't want open worshippers in the first place. But nope, they only wanted the powers of the class and none of the identity. That just didn't fly for me as it is counter to the fiction we are playing in.



> 2. Nothing wrong with asking the party to have a somewhat fitting alignment. But stating that the the party won't work if his alignment is not fitting (and she meant fitting as in correspond/conform) is wrong imo. It basically fit with her argument that paladins have to be LG anyways - so the party should be LG or at worst NG to LG. (which none of my friends ever agreed on before she mentioned it, and we dont take alignment very seriously anyway (also not her))




Yeah, a player can have a preference but that doesn't mean the table has to yield to it.



> 3. I never said, that following the books creates one-dimensional characters. I said SHE probably created one-dimensional characters (because she follows the books and doesnt add creative stuff). Granted, that's an assumption and not a very nice one. But I feel it might be true with this player.




Right, okay. It's just a common thing I've heard people say. There is a trend of looking down on people for creating Elf Rangers and the like as though they are the superior roleplayer for making something wacky.


----------



## DwarfHammer (Feb 22, 2020)

I’m cool playing in games like that. But in the games I run. If you are monk then you are part of monastery.  If you are a cleric you are a priest of a god. If you are a paladin you are part of a religious order. I don’t want to play any other way. But it is 100% cool for other people to want to play games other ways.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 22, 2020)

DwarfHammer said:


> If you are a paladin you are part of a religious order.




Why this one?


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 22, 2020)

DwarfHammer said:


> I’m cool playing in games like that. But in the games I run. If you are monk then you are part of monastery.  If you are a cleric you are a priest of a god. If you are a paladin you are part of a religious order. I don’t want to play any other way. But it is 100% cool for other people to want to play games other ways.



 Huh. You don't accept Monks who were taught by a single master, clerics who worship some of the divine forces given in the PHB, or Paladins who swore their oath in the ruins of their destroyed village for example?
If I may ask, what setting do you play in?


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 22, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Why this one?



Presumably they regard some of the flavour text in the Paladin description as part of the rules of the class and doesn't like homebrew.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 22, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Presumably they regard some of the flavour text in the Paladin description as part of the rules of the class and doesn't like homebrew.




That's not actually in the Paladin class though at least in 5e.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> It is a guideline.  Here is some barbarian fluff.
> 
> /snip
> Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. *They thrive in the wilds o f their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt."*
> ...




So, according to you, it would be impossible to be a dwarven barbarian.  Dwarves according to the fluff for dwarves, live underground.  They do not, CANNOT, according to you, live anywhere else and still be dwarves.  Thus, according to @Maxperson, it is against the rules to play a dwarven barbarian.

If the flavor text is immutable, then it is immutable.  You cannot have it both ways.  You can't cherry pick whatever flavor suits you if flavor is central to the character, as you argue. 

So, @Maxperson, how do you allow for dwarven barbarians in your games without home brewing or breaking the rules?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> People keep saying that they can define something as 'fluff' and then therefore it is not a rule.
> 
> Firstly, how do we define something as fluff in the first place? Where in the rules does it say how we determine that?
> 
> *Can I play a human with the elf mechanics? *Just throw out all that fluff and say my character is actually just a human in the narrative. What is rules and what is fluff?




Funny you should say that.  I have a PC in my game right now who is an orc.  He didn't want to break out the monster manual (or didn't own it, or was just lazy, not sure) so, he just used the mechanics for a half orc from the PHB.  Not really a big deal.


> I brought up an example of playing a Jedi and people lost it.
> 
> Well is it against the rules to play a Jedi? If it is against the rules, then there are rules. If there are no rules then it is perfectly fine for a player to come to a table with a character choosing the Elf race, Rogue class, and Guild Artisan background but the character is actually a human Jedi from the Star Wars universe.
> 
> There are either rules that forbid that or there aren't.




It is not against the rules to play a Jedi.  It is generally considered very bad play, however, for the player to write in massive changes to the setting (adding in the Star Wars canon to a D&D game is pretty massive).  Against the rules?  Not specifically.  But certainly a violation of the social contract of the table.  You'll note that no one had a problem with playing a Jedi-like character made to fit with the game.  So, at some point, yes, you are right in that flavor shouldn't be altered too much.

However, it's a pretty big stretch to compare adding the entire lore of Star Wars to a minor alteration to a single paragraph of examples.  There are degrees at work here.  Changing the flavor that only applies to your character is a fairly different proposition to changing the flavor that affects the entire table.  Most groups don't allow players to make changes to that degree.  Your Lore Warlock keeps his Book as tattoos on his body which he then uses to cast the rituals?  Yeah, not too many folks are going to have much of a problem with that.  Your Lore Warlock has an AI slot in his Spartan body armor that he plugs Cortana into in order to use his rituals is probably going to be a bit too far.


----------



## DwarfHammer (Feb 22, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Why this one?



Paladins get their abilities from their divine god in the games I play. As always other people can do what they want and works for them.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Incorrect.  That is not according to me.  It is according to the PHB.




But I see that as a suggestion on a way to go. You are the one saying it is a rule that absolutely must be followed.




Maxperson said:


> Or, as in the example I gave some time earlier, Noble can be adapted to barbarian use.  Barbarian society exists and the son of a chief would qualify.  Barbarians would be inclined to think the best of you.  You would be welcome in the councils and such(high society).  It's not as if someone with a traditional Noble would be welcomed into barbarian councils or that barbarians would be inclines to think the best of them.




So, I can't be a noble. 

Nobility has a certain number of concepts attached to it, let me pull up the noble to post them. "You carry a noble title, and your family owns land, collects taxes, and wields significant political influence. "

Now, I'm no expert on tribal political systems, but, generally the tribe owns land as a collective, and the chieftain is elected or chosen to rule. A council of elders might advise them. 

But the son of the chief does not hold land, tribal chiefs actually do not collect taxes, and "Son of the Chief" is not a noble title. Noble titles are things like Count, Duke, Marquiss, ect. These show your position in a complex web of society.

And since this is the fluff, sorry, since these are the rules of the Noble Background, "son of a tribal chief" would actually not qualify. That does not mean nobility in the same way.




Maxperson said:


> It does say MIGHT include a token of courtly love.  You do not have to have one.  If you do have one, it is because you chose it.  Nothing says you have to possess all of the traditional virtues of a knight, but if you CHOOSE knight, you are choosing enough of them to be recognizable as a knight, which takes more than a suit of armor.  You are choosing to tie that roleplay to your character.




Absolutely correct. I agree entirely. 

So I played my character as a knight. I chose Knight, I chose to roleplay as a knight, I chose to act like a knight. That was important to my character. 

But, it seems to be your position that I was *not allowed* to do that by RAW, because I chose to be a barbarian as well. 

So, how can you explain my right to choose to incorporate knightly values and actions into my character, while also telling me I have no right, by RAW, to actually incorporate those values and actions into my character. 

One or the other must be true. 





Maxperson said:


> Yes.  Those things are obviously different.  Just like karate and kung fu are *obviously different ways to achieve a similar end result.*




So why is an ancestral Barbarian allowed to achieve that result through bawdy bar songs and not epic poetry? 

You have taken the position that I must "Act like a barbarian, not a knight, otherwise I should just call my class Angry Knight", so it falls to you to defend this distinction. Why is it more in-line with the class to use one version and not the other if they achieve similar results?



Maxperson said:


> And there is a Strawman of my argument.  I specifically avoided the little specifics that don't change the general nature of the class, like being a scholar, having vows of poverty, being a lutist, etc.
> 
> It seems that your responses can only contain fallacious arguments.  I'd love to see a valid argument from you in response to me.




I'm trying, but your only response seems to be "The rules say all barbarians are uncivilized, so you can't act civilized" 

Well, the section on rogues say "Every town and city has its share of rogues. Most of them live up to the worst stereotypes of the class, making a living as burglars, assassins, cutpurses, and con artists. Often, these scoundrels are organized into thieves’ guilds or crime families. Plenty of rogues operate independently, but even they sometimes recruit apprentices to help them in their scams and heists. A few rogues make an honest living as locksmiths, investigators, or exterminators, which can be a dangerous job in a world where dire rats—and wererats—haunt the sewers. " 

By your same logic that my barbarian must be uncivilized, a rogue must be a criminal, a locksmith, Investigator or Exterminator. A rogue can have no other pursuits. They cannot be entertainers, unless they are also thieves. They cannot be sages unless they use their knowledge to investigate crimes. They cannot be acolytes at all, ever. 

This is what you are saying. This paragraph of text is an iron-clad rule that all rogues must follow. If they are in a guild, it is a thieve's guild. No exceptions. This is the position you seem to be arguing from, because that is the result of taking those sections as "rules" and demanding people toe those lines.



Maxperson said:


> What makes you think that the entirety of a barbarian's personality is uncivilized?  That seems foolish and unnecessarily limiting to me.




Because it seems the position you are joining is one where if my character acted civilized I would be asked to leave the table, because I was not following the rules of how barbarians are supposed to act. 

That is the crux of this. If your class determines your character, your personality, to the degree that playing a Barbarian who follows the Code of Chivalry is breaking the rules, then every aspect of their personality has to be as savage, uncouth, and uncivilized as possible, because that is what the "rules" state. 

"To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature-"

So, If those are the rules I must follow, then every barbarian must act like an animal, because those are the rules of the game. They must reject civilization, because that is weakness and against their animalistic nature.




Maxperson said:


> If that's how you want to play it.
> 
> Up to you.
> 
> Sure you can.  Uncivilized people can ALSO honor their word, be romantic to their lovers, enjoy wine, and epics of glory.




Obviously not, or the idea of playing a Barbarian who was a Knight and followed the Knightly tropes wouldn't have caused such a huge pushback, me being told by at least three posters I am breaking the rules and homebrewing, ect. 

If it were really up to me, then saying I was playing a Barbarian Knight would have gotten no response, so obviously, it is not up to me. It is up to the PHB to tell me what my character is allowed to be.

For example:



ad_hoc said:


> The book lays out what a class is. Not adhering to what the class is means it is no longer that class. There is no need for an argument, it's just what the words mean.




ad hoc tends to agree with your position and disagree with mine, and here they are stating it outright. If you do not follow the prescribed path in the PHB, you are no longer playing the class. 

If you disagree with that position, you need to make clear what difference you see between what he is saying, and my position that you are free to make decisions about your own background and personality when building a character. 

Note, in this entire thread, I have never once said anything about reflavouring class abilities to be something different, or creating a story where I am a fictional character from another universe, or even looking for a massive magical inheirentance from my rich family. 

All I have said is "I picked Barbarian, I picked Knight, and his personality out of combat was that of a knight, and his equipment in combat was appropriate for a knight" 




Coroc said:


> You are right that good fluff is contradicted, but no game mechanics are exploited in the original example as far as i can see it.
> 
> It is not my preferred game style, i like to create worlds where such stunts are hard to fit in, but it is legitimate and might even be fun if underlayed with good fluff.




It seems Ad Hoc is no longer taking my calls, but since you are responding about my character, I would like to take exception to the line "where such stunts are hard to fit in" 

What stunt did I pull? 

This is what is constantly confounding me. I picked Human, Barbarian, Noble (Knight). I acted like a Knight. I used the combat abilities of a Barbarian in combat. In what way have I offended you? Would you be appeased if I stripped him naked and slathered him in oil? If I grunted instead of spoke? 

I know I'm getting a little heated about this, but the best anyone has been able to do to tell me why this character is wrong is to say "all barbarians are uncivilized brutes, it says so right in the rules/fluff" 

But if that were true, if I were not allowed to do what I did, then why does Noble not say in the rules "Cannot be taken if character is a Barbarian?" Why does the Barbarian not have a "personality section" that says "All barbarians must act like this, if you act differently, you lose all your barbarian class abilities"

And you calling it a stunt makes it sound like I somehow was trying to trick people, like this was some clever ruse. I just made a character. A character who I was interested in, because honoring your ancestors is something that appears in many cultures, and I wanted to explore that from the idea of a traditional noble family instead of a tribal society. Why was that wrong?




Maxperson said:


> Broadly describes indicates what I've been saying.  It describes the general nature of the class fluff.  Barbarians are uncivilized(the general fluff).  The specific way that your barbarian is uncivilized is up to you.




You know, if that was all that was needed, maybe this would work. 

He likes the thrill of combat. 

That is "uncivilized" so my Barbarian Knight is now completely aligned with all the rules and fluff of the class.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 22, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Strangely enough, the posters who have replied seem to be in agreement that being a Jedi is against the rules, rules that they express don't exist. I'm still puzzled by that.




I think everyone is agreement that you shouldn't play a character that doesn't fit in the campaign setting. The widespread objection to Jedi is because a character who belongs to the Jedi Order wouldn't fit in most medieval campaign settings, _not_ because Jedi are in any way "against the rules". In the rare case where a D&D campaign setting happened to include the Jedi Order, I think it would be perfectly fine to play a Jedi.

The difference between what is required by the campaign setting and what is required by the rules seems to be the crux of much of the disagreement. If I understand correctly, you believe what characters are permissible at a table is determined by the descriptive text of the PHB. You're fine with a DM allowing other types of characters as long as the descriptive text of the PHB is first changed with a houserule. Is that correct?

By contrast, I think many other posters believe that what characters are permissible is determined solely by the campaign setting, and that the text of the PHB has nothing to do with it. They interpret the descriptive text accompanying the classes as suggestions and ideas, and that deviating from them does not require any sort of houserule at all.

Assuming I'm understanding correctly, that means that you and many of the posters who disagree with you are interpreting the text of the PHB radically differently. However, the practical consequence of that difference in textual interpretation is virtually nil: you think a houserule is required to permit characters that deviate from the descriptive text of the PHB while others don't think a houserule is required.

I don't see that distinction as particularly important. If a table permits characters that deviate from the text of the PHB, does it make any difference at all whether or not they say it's a houserule?


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 23, 2020)

Xetheral said:


> I think everyone is agreement that you shouldn't play a character that doesn't fit in the campaign setting. The widespread objection to Jedi is because a character who belongs to the Jedi Order wouldn't fit in most medieval campaign settings, _not_ because Jedi are in any way "against the rules". In the rare case where a D&D campaign setting happened to include the Jedi Order, I think it would be perfectly fine to play a Jedi.





If a player is not allowed to play a Jedi then playing a Jedi is against the rules.

If playing a Jedi is against the rules then there is a rule that a player may not play a Jedi.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 23, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> If a player is not allowed to play a Jedi then playing a Jedi is against the rules.
> 
> If playing a Jedi is against the rules then there is a rule that a player may not play a Jedi.




I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I'm drawing a distinction between whether a character concept is unacceptable because it conflicts with the text of the PHB, or whether a concept is unacceptable because it conflicts with elements of the campaign setting. It sounds like you're saying that there is no difference between these two.

If I'm understanding correctly could you please elaborate on why you don't see a difference between the text of the PHB and a campaign setting? If I'm not understanding correctly, could you please re-explain?


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 23, 2020)

Xetheral said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I'm drawing a distinction between whether a character concept is unacceptable because it conflicts with the text of the PHB, or whether a concept is unacceptable because it conflicts with elements of the campaign setting. It sounds like you're saying that there is no difference between these two.
> 
> If I'm understanding correctly could you please elaborate on why you don't see a difference between the text of the PHB and a campaign setting? If I'm not understanding correctly, could you please re-explain?




A campaign setting alters, adds, or remove rules from the default game. The PHB comes with a ton of rules. Included in those rules are what it means to be an elf, or a barbarian, or what have you.

Multiple people in this thread have said that 'fluff' is not rules. But then I've also been told that playing a Jedi would be against the rules.

Both cannot be true. In an RPG there can't be a distinction between 'fluff' and 'rules'. There can be types of rules so you could describe a rule as a narrative rule for example, but they're all rules.

They are things that a person at the table can or cannot do. That is what we call a rule.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 23, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> A campaign setting alters, adds, or remove rules from the default game. The PHB comes with a ton of rules. Included in those rules are what it means to be an elf, or a barbarian, or what have you.
> 
> Multiple people in this thread have said that 'fluff' is not rules. But then I've also been told that playing a Jedi would be against the rules.
> 
> ...




The purpose of my post was to try to explain where the difference in opinion appears to be coming from. What you've written above just seems to be a restatement of your position in the dispute. Accordingly, I'm not sure if you're agreeing with my assessment of the source of the dispute, or if you're disagreeing.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 23, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> In an RPG there can't be a distinction between 'fluff' and 'rules'. There can be types of rules so you could describe a rule as a narrative rule for example, but they're all rules.



I'm trying to think of a nice way to say _bollocks_. An obviously false statement, although that doesn't mean I don't see where you're going. They are not, however, all rules, not in any common usage of the word rule anyway. If you want to talk about narrative that sets the parameters of the gamestate you might find some traction with some 'fluff', but you won't get it with class fluff, mostly because the character is generally entirely within the realm of the player to describe, and the difference in a class between rules and fluff is pretty clear.


----------



## DwarfHammer (Feb 23, 2020)

Xetheral said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I'm drawing a distinction between whether a character concept is unacceptable because it conflicts with the text of the PHB, or whether a concept is unacceptable because it conflicts with elements of the campaign setting. It sounds like you're saying that there is no difference between these two.
> 
> If I'm understanding correctly could you please elaborate on why you don't see a difference between the text of the PHB and a campaign setting? If I'm not understanding correctly, could you please re-explain?




I like this explanation. If someone would want to refluff the paladin in my forgotten realms or Dragonlance game and call it a Jedi. I would disallow this for not being good for the setting.  I would also disallow a person wanting to refluff a monk as a brawler for the same reason. But there is a distinction I think. But I see what he is saying.


----------



## Don Durito (Feb 23, 2020)

I've played a vengeance paladin as basically a superstitious barbarian who calls on his god in battle - primarily because I'm not fond of the barbarian class and felt the paladin would be more fun (I'm not sure it was really.)

However, if the DM had turned around and said "no" I wouldn't have protested.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 23, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> If a player is not allowed to play a Jedi then playing a Jedi is against the rules.
> 
> If playing a Jedi is against the rules then there is a rule that a player may not play a Jedi.




Nope.  That is flat out not true.  Not being able to play a Jedi is not against the rules.  It IS against the social contract of the table, but, nope, it's not against the rules, otherwise NO ONE would ever be allowed to play a Jedi in D&D, and, I'm sure, someone out there is.


----------



## Don Durito (Feb 23, 2020)

DwarfHammer said:


> I like this explanation. If someone would want to refluff the paladin in my forgotten realms or Dragonlance game and call it a Jedi. I would disallow this for not being good for the setting.  I would also disallow a person wanting to refluff a monk as a brawler for the same reason. But there is a distinction I think. But I see what he is saying.



There is no firm place to draw this distinction however.  Every table will draw it where they like.

(The issue is, that the game being so nebulous and uncertain about this itself, they will likely think that the line they draw is the most natural line.)


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 23, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I'm trying to think of a nice way to say _bollocks_. An obviously false statement, although that doesn't mean I don't see where you're going. They are not, however, all rules, not in any common usage of the word rule anyway. If you want to talk about narrative that sets the parameters of the gamestate you might find some traction with some 'fluff', but you won't get it with class fluff, mostly because the character is generally entirely within the realm of the player to describe, and the difference in a class between rules and fluff is pretty clear.




It isn't within the realm of the player to decide though.

The player must work within the rules set out in the game (and any additional changes made by the table). 

And then we also have the problem of actually defining what rules are 'fluff' and what are 'mechanics'. There can be no agreement there because there is nothing in the rules defining those terms.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 23, 2020)

DnD is a collaborative game, where the players and DM work together. 

Players getting absolutely no say in their character and the setting, would violate this.


----------



## DwarfHammer (Feb 23, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> I've played a vengeance paladin as basically a superstitious barbarian who calls on his god in battle - primarily because I'm not fond of the barbarian class and felt the paladin would be more fun (I'm not sure it was really.)
> 
> However, if the DM had turned around and said "no" I wouldn't have protested.




you are still following a god.  And barbarian is a fairly generic term. There are barbarians that are not members of the barbarian class. But I would rule all members of the barbarian class are barbarians. So no barbarians raised in waterdeep in my games.

I’m not going to say that my paladin can’t be an avid deer hunter because he is not a ranger that is a member of the hunter archetype.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 23, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Yes, a character that I would not play with. If they brought that to my table we'd give them a funny look and suggesting they work on the Barbarian part.



You didn’t make the claim that you wouldn’t play with the Barbarian Noble character.  You didn’t have to.  That was clear from you other posts.

You made the claim that Chaosmaster’s character wasn’t creative.  You made the claim that he only made the character to get the Barbarian’s rage mechanics.  You also claimed that it was a “gimmick” character.  Those claims are demonstrably false.


----------



## Don Durito (Feb 23, 2020)

DwarfHammer said:


> you are still following a god.  And barbarian is a fairly generic term. There are barbarians that are not members of the barbarian class. But I would rule all members of the barbarian class are barbarians. So no barbarians raised in waterdeep in my games.



Maybe.  But I completely ignored all that stuff about actually swearing an oath of vengeance.


----------



## DwarfHammer (Feb 23, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Why this one?



The same reason as a cleric. The same reason as a Druid. The same reason a Methodist or baptist preacher is. The same reason a Buddhist priest is. The same reason a shaman basically is.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 23, 2020)

DwarfHammer said:


> The same reason as a cleric. The same reason as a Druid. The same reason a Methodist or baptist preacher is. The same reason a Buddhist priest is. The same reason a shaman basically is.






DwarfHammer said:


> Paladins get their abilities from their divine god in the games I play. As always other people can do what they want and works for them.




It's just not what a normal Paladin is in 5e.

If that's your setting that's fine, I was just wondering.

I don't really understand why we're talking about real religions now though.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> If you want to have a cultured knight and flower of civilization who gets really angry and rages in battle, you are not playing a barbarian.  You have completely thrown out the guidelines and what makes the class a barbarian and have created a new class.




I don’t want to speak for Chaosmaster, but I’m not sure he would disagree with you. His character would probably not refer to himself as a barbarian, but would still be an entirely legal character.


----------



## Captain Panda (Feb 23, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> No, that's not a Monk. It's pretty easy to make that character concept work, they just need to spend some time learning to be a Monk in there somewhere.




Okay, I think we're making progress! Let's say I want to use the monk kit, and don't want to steal the monk title now that I've changed the fluff. What if, instead, I want to call the kit (which is the same as the monk kit), a new class called "Punchy Hobbit Bumpkin." That work?


----------



## Don Durito (Feb 23, 2020)

Captain Panda said:


> Okay, I think we're making progress! Let's say I want to use the monk kit, and don't want to steal the monk title now that I've changed the fluff. What if, instead, I want to call the kit (which is the same as the monk kit), a new class called "Punchy Hobbit Bumpkin." That work?



I think you'd have to go and sit over in the corner with the Jedi.


----------



## DwarfHammer (Feb 23, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> It's just not what a normal Paladin is in 5e.
> 
> If that's your setting that's fine, I was just wondering.
> 
> I don't really understand why we're talking about real religions now though.



Just examples.  But i look to have all characters that get their powers from a divine source fill a role that they would in real life. Otherwise it ruins my suspension of disbelief.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 23, 2020)

Captain Panda said:


> Okay, I think we're making progress! Let's say I want to use the monk kit, and don't want to steal the monk title now that I've changed the fluff. What if, instead, I want to call the kit (which is the same as the monk kit), a new class called "Punchy Hobbit Bumpkin." That work?




Not for me. That breaks the fiction hard. What do the powers and abilities even mean then? And why does that 'class' have them? etc. That's a hard no, makes it worse.

Also on classes, I like that there are only 12 (13). There could even be a couple less and it would be okay. I want the classes to represent strong broad archetypes.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 23, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> I just made a character. A character who I was interested in, because honoring your ancestors is something that appears in many cultures, and I wanted to explore that from the idea of a traditional noble family instead of a tribal society. Why was that wrong?



This is an interesting point I want to dig into a bit more.

adhoc seems to suggest players create non-standard characters because they want the mechanics but don’t want to be restricted by the fluff, like they are trying to “game the system”.

Except, what I have seen, and which applies to pretty much every example in this thread, are cases where the player has a defined character or archetype in mind and wants to reflect that.

Chaosmancer wants to explore a member of the nobility with powers tied to the reverence of his ancestors.  Ancestral Guardians Noble Barbarians does that.

5e doesn’t have cambions as a PC race, but an infernal tiefling warlock comes close, as does a red dragon tiefling sorcerer.

5e doesn’t have splatbooks that come out every 2 months with new prestige classes, races and spells, and I like that because I find refluffling existing mechanics to be better from a balance perspective.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 23, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> It's hard to imagine an RPG without fluff because it couldn't work. It just wouldn't be an RPG.




So, HERO System and GURPS (and others) aren't RPGs?


----------



## DwarfHammer (Feb 23, 2020)

Would you allow a player to take the cleric class and say he is a fighter and just refluff his spells as martial abilites. I wouldn’t. It breaks the game for me. Although it is 100% cool if you and your group want to do that.  Monk abilities just don’t fit a brawler imho. It’s good to hear the things that break other people’s immersion and hear there styles of play. I’ve done a little of this with certain specific settings in mind. But it doesn’t work for everything. It really has to be table dependent.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 23, 2020)

FrozenNorth said:


> I don’t want to speak for Chaosmaster, but I’m not sure he would disagree with you. His character would probably not refer to himself as a barbarian, but would still be an entirely legal character.




Yeah, he would never have said "I am a barbarian" he introduced himself as "Sir Kalten of Tamuli"


----------



## Captain Panda (Feb 23, 2020)

DwarfHammer said:


> Would you allow a player to take the cleric class and say he is a fighter and just refluff his spells as martial abilites. I wouldn’t. It breaks the game for me. Although it is 100% cool if you and your group want to do that.  Monk abilities just don’t fit a brawler imho. It’s good to hear the things that break other people’s immersion and hear there styles of play. I’ve done a little of this with certain specific settings in mind. But it doesn’t work for everything. It really has to be table dependent.




I don't think most people in this thread would. There are bounds of logic, there is a line, the primary contention here is that several people are insisting fluff isn't a set of guidelines to give players ideas, it's a rule in the same restrictive sense mechanics are, and changing fluff is the same as changing mechanics. That's... not a view many hold.


----------



## Don Durito (Feb 23, 2020)

Captain Panda said:


> I don't think most people in this thread would. There are bounds of logic, there is a line, the primary contention here is that several people are insisting fluff isn't a set of guidelines to give players ideas, it's a rule in the same restrictive sense mechanics are, and changing fluff is the same as changing mechanics. That's... not a view many hold.



Well at least until they do.

If I say my character is an intelligent cat and he possesses a flesh golem with built in magic weaponry to protect him,  (wizard and familiar, but playing the familiar as the character) you'd expect to get pushback at quite a lot of tables.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 23, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> Well at least until they do.
> 
> If I say my character is an intelligent cat and he possesses a flesh golem with built in magic weaponry to protect him,  (wizard and familiar, but playing the familiar as the character) you'd expect to get pushback at quite a lot of tables.




I love the _equivalencies _in this thread. 

"I want to play a wizard who believes in sharing knowledge with all instead of hoarding it" 

"Well, that's pretty out there for the tropes. For example, people might not like it if you play a sentient bologna sandwich" 


"Do all warlocks need to have sought out their patron? What if this demon forced me to serve or die? That sounds more interesting than selling my soul on purpose."

"You people always want to change things, what else do you want, is your next character Kaladin from _The Stormlight Archives_"


I mean really, we talk about minor changes, following all the rules, and people bring respond as though we are asking to do anything and everything under the sun.


----------



## Don Durito (Feb 23, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> I love the _equivalencies _in this thread.



If you're going to be snarky at least make sure you understand the point being made.

Which is that there is simply no way to know where to draw the line.  There are no criteria that can be used for judgement that aren't basically the abritrary and subjective judgement of the poster about what it reasonable.  You act as if the above is clearly ridiculous, but it's an example I saw on rpgnet some years ago, so _someone_ clearly thought it was within the line of acceptable reskinning.  (And rpgnet tends to be less traditional than this place, so I've seen people defending the right of players to play exactly the same kind of character as I just described, in _exactly _the same terms as posters in this thread.)

So where do we draw the line?  Wherever the hell we feel like.  That's where.  There was a GM on the Paizo boards a few years ago that insisted all players had to be willing to play anime girls as characters.  Was she being unreasonable?  If she was able to get players to play games than who is to say? She got the players she wanted presumably as she was playtesting early Pathfinder (with many TPKs I believe).


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2020)

Azzy said:


> It isn't homebrew.



Then you will have no problem showing me how barbarians in every setting that doesn't home brew them out include barbarians channeling ghosts from those killed in the Mourning.  Otherwise, it's a homebrew made up by WotC for that setting.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 23, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> If you're going to be snarky at least make sure you understand the point being made.
> 
> Which is that there is simply no way to know where to draw the line.  There are no criteria that can be used for judgement that aren't basically the abritrary and subjective judgement of the poster about what it reasonable.  You act as if the above is clearly ridiculous, but it's an example I saw on rpgnet some years ago, so _someone_ clearly thought it was within the line of acceptable reskinning.
> 
> So where do we draw the line?  Wherever the hell we feel like.  That's where.  There was a GM on the Paizo boards a few years ago that insisted all players had to be willing to play anime girls as characters.  Was she being unreasonable?  If she was able to get players to play games than who is to say? She got the players she wanted presumably as she was playtesting early Pathfinder (with many TPKs I believe).




I am sorry if I offended, but your point did not come across as "the line is arbitrary" your point came across as "if we let them change anything, they will expect us to allow any concept" 

Because, I didn't find your example as "clearly ridiculous" I've seen that sort of idea floated as well in various places. But not in this thread, except as a rebuttal to the position that we can change some small details and play the personality we choose for our character. 

If we are going to see "unwilling warlock" in the same light as "magical cat in a mech suit" then there is no position that can be reasonable. Either we must never change a single word of the book, or we must allow every random concept to be accepted. 

But that is not what one side has been talking about for the last 48 hours, despite the other side constantly resorting to calling our concepts gimmicks, unimaginative, comparing them to taking characters from other genres, saying that to allow such changes you might as well remove all possible lore and just have a random number generator. 

In that sort of debate environment, I'm sure you can see how I assumed your position was not "the line can be drawn where we want by our taste" and more "if we give them an inch, they will take a lightyear, do not falter and allow change"


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 23, 2020)

Don Durito said:


> If you're going to be snarky at least make sure you understand the point being made.
> 
> Which is that there is simply no way to know where to draw the line.  There are no criteria that can be used for judgement that aren't basically the abritrary and subjective judgement of the poster about what it reasonable.  You act as if the above is clearly ridiculous, but it's an example I saw on rpgnet some years ago, so _someone_ clearly thought it was within the line of acceptable reskinning.  (And rpgnet tends to be less traditional than this place, so I've seen people defending the right of players to play exactly the same kind of character as I just described, in _exactly _the same terms as posters in this thread.)
> 
> So where do we draw the line?  Wherever the hell we feel like.  That's where.  There was a GM on the Paizo boards a few years ago that insisted all players had to be willing to play anime girls as characters.  Was she being unreasonable?  If she was able to get players to play games than who is to say? She got the players she wanted presumably as she was playtesting early Pathfinder (with many TPKs I believe).




Yeah.

The point is that everyone has a line. 

People will say it is ridiculous to stop someone from 'refluffing' things until someone does something they don't like.

The default group norms of a table should be with what is in the books. Then go from there.

Don't be upset if you show up to a table with a character who doesn't follow the rules and people say sorry we're not into that.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Then you will have no problem showing me how barbarians in every setting that doesn't home brew them out include barbarians channeling ghosts from those killed in the Mourning.  Otherwise, it's a homebrew made up by WotC for that setting.




Max, do you realize what *home*brew means to most people? 

To most posters, Homebrew does not mean "any change to the core PHB text", it means "changes I personally made at my table" 

Therefore, anything officially released, such as the official lore for Eberron, cannot be homebrew. Because Keith Baker made it for his setting, which is an official setting, and it was officially published by the  Wizards of the Coast. 

If I make a new rule, it can be seen as Homebrew. If WoTC makes a new rule it cannot be seen as homebrew. It is a rule for that setting.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> No. The language of the 5e PHB is that barbarians _might, often, _or _can be_ uncivilized NOT that they are. Your position here that "barbarians are uncivilized" is prescriptive and not descriptive or a generalization. Your view seems antithetical to the actual language and spirit of 5e, which, on the whole, is exceptionally skittish about dictating how things are in your game, table, or setting.




This is the portion talking about being civilized.  Show me where "might," "often" and "can be" are parts of it.

"People of towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals, as if denying one’s own nature was a mark of superiority. To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign
of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature, keen instincts, primal physicality, and ferocious rage. Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. They thrive in the wilds o f their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt."

It says, "...civilization* is no* virtue..." and "Barbarians *are *uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds."  Those are prescriptive sentences that the game gives, not me.  Barbarians as a class are those things.  HOW that comes about is up to the players and the fluff is mutable.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Max, do you realize what *home*brew means to most people?




You're arguing semantics.  The only difference between what WotC doing and you doing it at home is who did it.  The result is exactly the same.  A change to the class that applies only to one specific setting.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> This is the portion talking about being civilized.  Show me where "might," "often" and "can be" are parts of it.
> 
> "People of towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals, as if denying one’s own nature was a mark of superiority. To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign
> of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature, keen instincts, primal physicality, and ferocious rage. Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. They thrive in the wilds o f their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt."
> ...




To the point a poster made some time again then, do you allow Dwarven Barbarians? 

Dwarves live underground, not in Tundras, Jungles or Grasslands. So they cannot be Barbarians correct? I'll add Goliaths. Goliaths live in the mountains, mountains are not Tundra, Jungles or Grasslands. So, no Goliath Barbarians, right?

How prescriptive do you get? How many Barbarian concepts are "homebrew" because they do not fit the "rule text" exactly?


----------



## Azzy (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Then you will have no problem showing me how barbarians in every setting that doesn't home brew them out include barbarians channeling ghosts from those killed in the Mourning.  Otherwise, it's a homebrew made up by WotC for that setting.



If it's in a WotC book, it cannot--by definition--be homebrew. It may be setting-specific, but it shows that the default fluff of the PHB is not sacrosanct and that it can be changed without destroying the class.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> You're arguing semantics.  The only difference between what WotC doing and you doing it at home is who did it.  The result is exactly the same.  A change to the class that applies only to one specific setting.




No, you are being contrary. Homebrew, literally broken into "brewing at home" is used to talk about rule changes done by fans at home. Rule changes done by the company are variants, errata, or new releases. 

Otherwise Volo's, Mordenkainen's, Xanathars and every book released in the future are "homebrew" because they change the rules of the game. And that is not how people use those words, despite the fact that the rules change at the end of the process


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2020)

Captain Panda said:


> *Example 1: *A barbarian, mechanically, who is a rural peasant who flies into a rage and fights with exceptional vigor on behalf of the lower class, and harbors a hatred of the nobility. I'd call this a *minor refluff*.




Fighting on behalf of the lower class and harboring a hatred of nobility doesn't have anything to do with any specific class.  It can fit them all, so the only thing you have there is a rural peasant who flies into a rage.  That doesn't really tell me enough.  Does he fit the general theme of the Primal Instinct portion of the barbarian description?  If no, I'd put that at moderate. If yes, it isn't even a refluff.



> *Example 2: *A bard, mechanically, who is flavored as a mage with no musical skills at all. They have a keen interest in magical theory and see themselves as an unconventional wizard sussing out the secrets of magic from many traditions. Basically a bard who is flavored like a more traditional caster. The two are fairly close mechanically to begin with, so I'd call this a *moderate refluff. *




A PC can call himself whatever he wishes.  If you want to call yourself a mage, you can do so.  As for having no musical skills, even though the spellcasting section says that they shape reality with wishes and music, their abilities mention music and words as how they use those abilities.  I would rate that a minor refluff, since all you are really doing is allowing oration to be how you cast spells, rather than it being music.



> *Example 3: *A druid, mechanically, who is played in the style of Radagast, complete with a bunny sled. Radagast is more of a wizard who is attuned to nature than a druid, so I'd call this a *moderate to high refluff. *




Radagast has very little known about him other than he is close to nature.  Tolkien called them all wizards, but I see no reason why he couldn't have been a druid, and the character in the movie could also have been a druid.  All your description really changes is that this character is calling himself a wizard.  If he plays like Radagast, then regardless of a sled, he's acting like a druid.  This isn't even a refluff as far as I'm concerned.



> *Example 4: *A monk, mechanically, who is  a hobbit farmer who brawls and hits people with his hoe and utilizes old family fighting traditions ("Aunt Winnifred's Crotch Punch" for stunning strike, as an example). This departs pretty drastically from the monk flavor, so I'd call this a *heavy refluff. *




Yes.  This is absolutely a major departure from the fluff.  I would allow it in my game, though.  I don't mind homebrew or house rules.



> *Example 5: *A paladin, mechanically, who is flavored to be a mechanical assassin who unleashes surges of energy through his weapons in the form of energy blasts on a hit (to replace smites), and who swears no oath. I'd call this an *extreme reflavor. *




This is basically the creation of a new class and based on the new fluff of "mechanical assassin," would require more alteration before I would allow it.  It doesn't make sense to me that his assassin would be able to lay on hands, cure diseases, be immune to disease, give bonuses to saves to others, etc.  I would work with the player to try and come up with something, though.  If we could come up with new class abilities that seem to be in the same power level ballpark as the ones that don't make sense, I would allow this.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2020)

Hussar said:


> So, @Maxperson, how do you allow for dwarven barbarians in your games without home brewing or breaking the rules?



By using the rules of course.  I'll let you find the rules on dwarven barbarians.  It seems like you need practice in finding them, since you appear to have missed them.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> To the point a poster made some time again then, do you allow Dwarven Barbarians?
> 
> Dwarves live underground, not in Tundras, Jungles or Grasslands. So they cannot be Barbarians correct? I'll add Goliaths. Goliaths live in the mountains, mountains are not Tundra, Jungles or Grasslands. So, no Goliath Barbarians, right?
> 
> How prescriptive do you get? How many Barbarian concepts are "homebrew" because they do not fit the "rule text" exactly?



Specific beats general.  The rules specifically allow dwarven barbarians.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Otherwise Volo's, Mordenkainen's, Xanathars and every book released in the future are "homebrew" because they change the rules of the game. And that is not how people use those words, despite the fact that the rules change at the end of the process



They would not be homebrew, because they are general rules, not setting specific ones.  Those rules apply broadly to all settings unless the DM removes them.  "Homebrew" is specific to a setting.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Specific beats general.  The rules specifically allow dwarven barbarians.




I'm sorry. How do you justify that? You yourself just finished saying that the text of the barbarian is prescriptive. That means that those rules must be followed, no matter what.

The text you quoted states




Maxperson said:


> This is the portion talking about being civilized.  Show me where "might," "often" and "can be" are parts of it.
> 
> "People of towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals, as if denying one’s own nature was a mark of superiority. To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign
> of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature, keen instincts, primal physicality, and ferocious rage. Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. *They thrive in the wilds o f their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt."*




The dwarves do not live and hunt in Tundra, Jungle or Grasslands. They in fact live underground, per the "rules" of the dwarves.

So what specific rule overrides the prescriptive rules on barbarians that does not override them for playing them in a civilized manner?


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> They would not be homebrew, because they are general rules, not setting specific ones.  Those rules apply broadly to all settings unless the DM removes them.  "Homebrew" is specific to a setting.




You realize that reads as moving the Goalposts right? 

Especially since the Eberron book includes general rules for races and classes. 

"The rules are the rules, unless they are setting rules, then they are homebrew, even if they are published by the game company" is an incredibly convoluted viewpoint that seems entirely inconsistent


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> I'm sorry. How do you justify that? You yourself just finished saying that the text of the barbarian is prescriptive. That means that those rules must be followed, no matter what.




You do know that in 5e specific beats general, right?



> So what specific rule overrides the prescriptive rules on barbarians that does not override them for playing them in a civilized manner?



From the PHB barbarian section...

"Frothing at the mouth, *a dwarf* slams his helmet into the face of his drow foe, then turns to drive his armored elbow into the gut of another."

Then there is the Battle Rager barbarian subclass that is dwarf only. While it is a Forgotten Realms subclass, the subclass has language for their use in other settings.  Also, I run the Realms so it wouldn't be an issue in my game in any case.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> You realize that reads as moving the Goalposts right?




It doesn't move any goalpost that I set.


----------



## DwarfHammer (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> This is the portion talking about being civilized.  Show me where "might," "often" and "can be" are parts of it.
> 
> "People of towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals, as if denying one’s own nature was a mark of superiority. To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign
> of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature, keen instincts, primal physicality, and ferocious rage. Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. They thrive in the wilds o f their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt."
> ...



Nah. Barbarians see themselves as self sufficient and able to survive off the land. They don’t see themselves as animals. Animals are their prey or domesticated work animals. They respect animals as part of the natural world. But they don’t see themselves as animals. But you are correct on how they see civilization. Imho. To each his own.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> You do know that in 5e specific beats general, right?
> 
> 
> From the PHB barbarian section...
> ...




So, you are going to defend with what you consider homebrew and a story section? 

Okay, sure, I'll drink the kool-aid and take this trip. 

Dwarf Barbarians are allowed because the writer used a dwarf example in a story section, and since we all know that every single thing written in the book is an iron-clad rule, that counts. Great, wonderful. I assume Goliath Barbarians are still banned? That text doesn't mention them. Well, wait, should probably check Xanathars. Okay, nope, Goliaths aren't specifically mentioned by name there. 





Maxperson said:


> It doesn't move any goalpost that I set.




Well, good luck redefining the word that people use. I'm sure I will cause no confusion what so ever if I go to another thread and talk about how every aspect of Eberron, Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Planescape, ect is homebrew, because it changes the setting rules of DnD. 

Because, that is still not what people mean. And you know people don't mean it that way, because no one in any discussion I have ever had, has used it that way before tonight. 

But, sure, maybe I'll go to the WoTC Errata page and send a report that they mislabeled it, it is Homebrew materials, because they are changing the rules presented in the PHB


----------



## DwarfHammer (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Fighting on behalf of the lower class and harboring a hatred of nobility doesn't have anything to do with any specific class.  It can fit them all, so the only thing you have there is a rural peasant who flies into a rage.  That doesn't really tell me enough.  Does he fit the general theme of the Primal Instinct portion of the barbarian description?  If no, I'd put that at moderate. If yes, it isn't even a refluff.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We aren’t playing lord of the rings. We are playing d&d. There is a difference.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 23, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> People keep saying that they can define something as 'fluff' and then therefore it is not a rule.
> 
> Firstly, how do we define something as fluff in the first place? Where in the rules does it say how we determine that?



 I think that fluff, as most people in this thread are using it is using the definition: 
*Fluff*: The setting and ambiance of a game, as distinct from the rules/mechanics, particularly in reference to written descriptive material. 



Chaosmancer said:


> No, you are being contrary. Homebrew, literally broken into "brewing at home" is used to talk about rule changes done by fans at home. Rule changes done by the company are variants, errata, or new releases.
> 
> Otherwise Volo's, Mordenkainen's, Xanathars and every book released in the future are "homebrew" because they change the rules of the game. And that is not how people use those words, despite the fact that the rules change at the end of the process



 Well, given there are things in Xanathars that change the rules as prescribed in the PHB, such as the Conquest Paladin, perhaps it does.

In fact some some the "rules" in the PHB would appear to contradict other "rules" in the PHB.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2020)

DwarfHammer said:


> We aren’t playing lord of the rings. We are playing d&d. There is a difference.



Okay.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> They would not be homebrew, because they are general rules, not setting specific ones.  Those rules apply broadly to all settings unless the DM removes them.  "Homebrew" is specific to a setting.



You do not get to redefine terms.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> This is the portion talking about being civilized.  Show me where "might," "often" and "can be" are parts of it.



The beginning of the entire class section (p. 45) indicates that the flavor text is not set in stone. Again, you are treating the flavor text as being prescriptive rather than a descriptive starting point. 



> Those are prescriptive sentences that the game gives, not me.  Barbarians as a class are those things.  HOW that comes about is up to the players and the fluff is mutable.



They are descriptive starting points, Max, meant to largely assist new players. Your approach to the fluff as prescriptive, rather than descriptive, again supports the fact that you are seeking to impose a hardline normative view of the game that is detached from its intent. 

But since you seem to require a dogmatic reading of the text to be persuaded, then how about XGtE? 


> It can be tempting to play a barbarian character that is a straightforward application of the classic archetype— a brute, and usually a dimwitted one at that, who rushes in where others fear to tread. *But not all the barbarians in the world are cut from that cloth, so you can certainly put your own spin on things. *Either way, *consider adding some flourishes to make your barbarian stand out from all others; *see the following sections for some ideas.



So right here we have an admittance that the barbarian character does not have to conform to the "classic archetype," and that players are empowered to put their own spin on the fluff. The following sections are merely suggestions for ways that they can. Do not interpret these sections as being a limited means by which barbarian players can further expand how they play their barbarian class. 



Maxperson said:


> It doesn't move any goalpost that I set.



It's difficult not to get that impression from you that you are, Max. Would you mind showing how that it doesn't move the goalposts? Either you are moving the goalposts or you are have a liberal definition of setting goalposts that gives you authority to fudge where the goalposts are. Maybe you think that we are playing Battleship and we have to guess where your goalposts are if we are to hit them.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 23, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Either you are moving the goalposts or you are have a liberal definition of setting goalposts that gives you authority to fudge where the goalposts are.



And the irony is, the DM has complete authority to decide anyway. They don't _need _to justify their rulings with selective PHB quotes.

At this stage, it is simply an exercise in trying to bash how other people play.


----------



## DwarfHammer (Feb 23, 2020)

I will say with regards to the original post. That with respect to a paladin I have told a player that they are playing their class wrong by not following their oath and have taken away theirs abilities until they atoned. I felt that was pretty fair. Those are pretty broad oaths. But burning down a peasants house with them in it to get to the Dark wanderers seemed like a violation of the devotion oath to me.


----------



## DwarfHammer (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Okay.



That came across as snarky I apologize. I should have elaborated on that alot. I will be more explanative when I have time.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 23, 2020)

DwarfHammer said:


> I will say with regards to the original post. That with respect to a paladin I have told a player that they are playing their class wrong by not following their oath and have taken away theirs abilities until they atoned. I felt that was pretty fair. Those are pretty broad oaths. But burning down a peasants house with them in it to get to the Dark wanderers seemed like a violation of the devotion oath to me.




You know, I think that is fair. 

Paladins are tricky beasts, and I've been avoiding talking about them for some time on this thread because I think the mechanics and lore are not only tightly entwined, but held over from previous assumptions from previous editions, and that makes them hard to talk about. 

I might yet again be told how wrong I am, but I did play a paladin character for a while, and I took a mildly different route with him. 

He was a Paladin of Helm in the city of Neverwinter (The DM specifically told us to make characters connected to Neverwinter and wanted to have most of our adventures in the city), and I wanted to play him as an Ancient's Paladin, because Helm is quite an old god and I know the party I was playing with. I needed the most elastic oath I could get. But, I added to the oath as well. He was a half-elf and had lived through the Cataclysm, in fact due to the timelines, he grew up during that time, where the city had erected a slap-dash wall and was constantly fighting off abominations that were boiling up into a ruined part of the city. He loved his city, he had fought for his city for years, and so I added to his oath parts about protecting Neverwinter and her citizens, because as part of the City Watch, that was important. 

That being said, even playing loose with the oath and the attitude, I still had to let things pass, because the party was not going to accept me stopping them from doing certain things. So, I didn't raise a fuss about some of their actions, even though I saw that my character would. 

So, to summarize the point I am trying to make because I realize this example is twisting in on itself. Oaths can be very subjective to the players, the dm, and the person whose character it is, but I think in your example, that shows a clear violation. But I've seen other examples of paladins "breaking their oaths" that I would say did not actually violate their oath. It requires finesse and understanding generally to thread that needle


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 23, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> I think that fluff, as most people in this thread are using it is using the definition:
> *Fluff*: The setting and ambiance of a game, as distinct from the rules/mechanics, particularly in reference to written descriptive material.




Right, but which rules are fluff and which aren't?

People define fluff as not rules then argue endlessly about what is fluff.

Is 'Druids won't wear metal armour' fluff and thus not a rule according to some?

How much of races are fluff? Is everything that doesn't have a 'balance' impact fluff? Can I pick the elf mechanics but use the human 'fluff' since those aren't rules?

Fluff are rules, it's just people tend to be more lax about changing them. Everyone has a line past which they say, wait, no, you can't actually do that.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2020)

Azzy said:


> You do not get to redefine terms.



Whatever dude.  Fight the good semantical fight!!  My point still remains intact.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> The beginning of the entire class section (p. 45) indicates that the flavor text is not set in stone.




I never claimed it was.  The general class concept that the mutable specific flavor demonstrates is necessary to the class, though.  Class =/= mechanics.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Whatever dude.  Fight the good semantical fight!!  My point still remains intact.




My computer crashed mid-post, so I need to rewrite it. 

Your point seems to be that any setting written is homebrew, but that is not what the terms means. 

If you go to a table and they say "we do not accept homebrew classes, but anything official is fine" yo would be rightfully upset if they then kicked you from the group for bringing an Artificer, under the claim that *all of Eberron* is homebrew. 

And I would say this is not a pointless semantic argument, you cannot just choose to redefine the term the community uses. 

Peter Jackson did not make a "fan video" when he directed the multi-million dollar Lord of the Rings trilogy for a major motion pciture company.

Dante's Inferno and Paradisio are not simply "fan fics" of the content of the Bible. 

The gaming company releasing an official product is not homebrew. It cannot be by definition.



Maxperson said:


> I never claimed it was.  The general class concept that the mutable specific flavor demonstrates is necessary to the class, though.  Class =/= mechanics.




Right, it isn't set int stone, it just has to be followed or you are breaking or changing the rules. 

And despite specific trumping general, the specific background does not trump the general barbarian. The specific race does not trump the general barbarian, and the specific barbarian does not trump the general barbarian. 

For that last one, I am making the assumption that you would find a "warrior of [insert homebrew diety from Greyhawk here]" raised in the church, but using the Zealot barbarian stats for combat would be breaking with the general lore about the barbarian unless they were uncivilized and tribal, because being a holy warrior blessed by the powers of a diety isn't enough for the Barbarian who is specifically tied to that trope, they must also follow the general lore of the barbarian as well.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 23, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Right, but which rules are fluff and which aren't?



 By the definition: if it is a mechanical rule (crunch), it is not fluff. 
However fluff can impact rules, and vice versa. For example I would regard the tenets of the Paladin oaths as crunch, but the tenets of the Oath of Devotion are what lead to the fluff statement "A Paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world against the forces of darkness, and to hunt the forces of evil wherever they may lurk."
Other Paladins such as Conquest for example, do not abide by that flavour text.



> People define fluff as not rules then argue endlessly about what is fluff.
> 
> Is 'Druids won't wear metal armour' fluff and thus not a rule according to some?



 I'd probably regard it as a rule, but one that the application and interpretation is hazy.

For example I'd regard the example of the Star Wars Jedi (assuming built with valid D&D mechanics) in the FR game as against the base precepts of the game as laid out by the DM. Its not technically against the rules in the same way that generating your character at 5th level when the DM says characters start at level 1, or rolling for ability scores when the group uses the point-buy variant are also not technically against the rules.



> How much of races are fluff? Is everything that doesn't have a 'balance' impact fluff? Can I pick the elf mechanics but use the human 'fluff' since those aren't rules?



 I'd generally regard that as an "ask your DM" call. I've had a warforged character be the animated guardian of an ancient temple rather than a soldier created en mass through a semi-industrialised arms dealership for example, and not regarded that as homebrew or changing the rules. 



> Fluff are rules, it's just people tend to be more lax about changing them.



 This opinion seems to be the major source of contention in this thread. You and some others believe that the flavour text is part of the rules. I and some others believe that it is simply a guideline. For example the class flavour text is there to "broadly describe a character's vocation".



> Everyone has a line past which they say, wait, no, you can't actually do that.



 True, but people draw that line differently, and in many cases there will be some things that are within the rules on the "no" side, and things against the rules on the "fine" side.

I would like to think that most of  us would draw that line in reasonably similar places, and it would just be whether they regarded it as homebrew or not where the main difference of opinion lies.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> My computer crashed mid-post, so I need to rewrite it.
> 
> Your point seems to be that any setting written is homebrew, but that is not what the terms means.
> 
> If you go to a table and they say "we do not accept homebrew classes, but anything official is fine" yo would be rightfully upset if they then kicked you from the group for bringing an Artificer, under the claim that *all of Eberron* is homebrew.




I would not be rightfully upset.  They would be well justified in kicking me from the group for trying to bring an Artificer from House Cannith into their Dark Sun game.  Artificers belong to one specific setting, just like a homebrew class.  You are arguing semantics.  My point remains perfectly intact, despite your attempts.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I never claimed it was.  The general class concept that the mutable specific flavor demonstrates is necessary to the class, though.  Class =/= mechanics.



This is an unclear, poorly written sentence. Would you mind rephrasing your argument here more clearly?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> This is an unclear, poorly written sentence. Would you mind rephrasing your argument here more clearly?



The flavor text of the barbarian class gives us a general overview of what it means to be a barbarian.  That is part of the class.  The specifics fluff examples from within the fluff categories, Barbarian, Primal Instinct and A Life of Danger are mutable.  You can create other examples that meet the general themes of those categories if you don't like the specific examples written.

However, if you just pull out the mechanics and write completely new flavor that has nothing to do with being a barbarian, you have created a new class with the barbarian class mechanics.  It is no longer a barbarian.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Whatever dude.  Fight the good semantical fight!!  My point still remains intact.



No, your point is based on nonsense. Writing it off as semantics is disingenuous.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I would not be rightfully upset.  They would be well justified in kicking me from the group for trying to bring an Artificer from House Cannith into their Dark Sun game.  Artificers belong to one specific setting, just like a homebrew class.  You are arguing semantics.  My point remains perfectly intact, despite your attempts.




You know Max, I remember you getting upset some weeks ago at people not reading your post and assuming you said things you did not say. Would you mind looking over my post again, and looking at what I said and what I did not say? 

I did not say the table was playing Dark Sun. In fact, I gave no setting whatsoever. They are playing "DnD" Generic Fantasy, no setting laid out. If I wanted a setting, I would have said which setting they were playing. 

I also did not say "an artificer from House Cannith" I said "An Artificer".  Artificer is a generic class. In fact, I can use the rules of Artificers to show you that. In the rules for artificers they have a sidebar, I'll go ahead and post the whole thing. I will underline some things, for clarity.



> *ARTIFICERS IN OTHER WORLDS*
> 
> Eberron is the world most associated with artificers, yet the class can be found throughout the D&D multiverse. In the Forgotten Realms, for example, the island of Lantan is home to many artificers, and in the world of Dragonlance, tinker gnomes are often members of this class. The strange technologies in the Barrier Peaks of the World of Greyhawk have inspired some folk to walk the path of the artificer, and in Mystara, various nations employ artificers to keep airships and other wondrous devices operational. In the City of Sigil, artificers share discoveries from throughout the cosmos, and one in particular — the gnome inventor Vi — has run a multiverse-spanning business from there since leaving the world of her birth, Eberron. In the world-city Ravnica, the Izzet League trains numerous artificers, the destructiveness of whom is unparalleled in other worlds — except, perhaps, by the tinker gnomes of Krynn.




So, in fact, according to the rules of the game, Artificers belong to DnD, and they name *SEVEN *different worlds where they can be found. 

I actually assume you know this list, since interestingly out of all of the major campaign settings (which you consider all of them to homebrew) you picked the only one not on this list to try and make my example seem less reasonable. 

So, actually, if that group was in the Forgotten Realms, and they got mad at me, what should be their response when I pull out the book and inform them that, per the rules, the Island of Lantan is home to artificers and my character hails from there. I am now playing a setting approved character. Does that suddenly make the artificer not homebrew?

Please, respond to the actual point. Do not add more text to my example to make it seem false. 

Artificers are an official DnD class, supported by the rules, and existing in multiple settings. 

If the group is playing generic DnD from the book, with no setting information, and they specifically say they allow all official material, what rules legal reason would they have to say the Artificer is unacceptable?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> You know Max, I remember you getting upset some weeks ago at people not reading your post and assuming you said things you did not say. Would you mind looking over my post again, and looking at what I said and what I did not say?
> 
> I did not say the table was playing Dark Sun. In fact, I gave no setting whatsoever. They are playing "DnD" Generic Fantasy, no setting laid out. If I wanted a setting, I would have said which setting they were playing.




Right, you deliberately avoided my point which has been quite clear.  Setting specific fluff and crunch from WotC are the equivalent of homebrew.  They exist in that setting and only that setting unless a DM alters things to allow them somewhere else.  

Bringing up some sort of general class as an example of what I am saying being incorrect is disingenuous.  The altered example that I gave is representative of my point.  At no point did I argue that a general class like wizard would be homebrew simply because it appears in Eberron.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Right, you deliberately avoided my point which has been quite clear.  Setting specific fluff and crunch from WotC are the equivalent of homebrew.  They exist in that setting and only that setting unless a DM alters things to allow them somewhere else.
> 
> Bringing up some sort of general class as an example of what I am saying being incorrect is disingenuous.  The altered example that I gave is representative of my point.  At no point did I argue that a general class like wizard would be homebrew simply because it appears in Eberron.




Ah, so you changed my point without informing me, and just assumed that I would understand what you were attempting to say? 

So, you would in fact get upset if someone told you the Artificer was homebrew, because it is not. It is a general class, which was what I was saying. 

So, you agreed with me and the point I was making. If you had just said that, this whole process would be going faster. 

I also must assume since you continue to ignore it, that you agree with the assertion that barring homebrew, Goliath Barbarians are breaking the rules, because Barbarians cannot live in the mountains. 

You also never responded to the point I brought up about if "loving to fight" was uncivilized enough to count for my Barbarian Nobleman. Since they only need to be considered a little "uncivilized" to count, right? You seem to be willing to just change and jump past things, so until you say otherwise I must assume it is true. 

So, anything setting specific, is homebrew. And everything written in the PHB is the rules no matter what. 

So, All Half-Orcs either grew up in an Orc tribe (which we will assume is evil, since the rules in the Monster Manual says they are chaotic evil) or in the slums. This we know because the rules say so "Half-Orcs most often live among orcs.....Whether proving themselves among rough barbarian tribes or scrabbling to survive in the slums of larger cities" 

So, a Half-Orc Folk Hero who grew up in a farming community would be against the rules, correct? Because that is not "in the slums of a larger city"? 

Tieflings can't be acoyltes, paladins or clerics right? Because the rules state for tieflings "found mostly in human cities or towns, often in the roughest quarters of those places, where they grow up to be swindlers, thieves, or crime lords." 

I mean, I guess they say "often" so if instead my tiefling grew up "among other minority populations in enclaves where they are treated with more respect" I might be able to squeeze out an exception and not be a swindler, thief, or crime lord. 

I guess that is good that all the tieflings and orcs cover the criminal and urchin backgrounds, because you can't play a gnome with that background. "Gnomes who settle in human lands commonly gemcutters, engineers, sages or tinkers." Can't be a charlatan that way. 

Hmm, I do wonder who the acolytes are supposed to be, none of the races are really religious in their descriptions. And I can't use most of the stuff for Humans in the PHB, because that is homebrew material for the Forgotten Realms. In fact, per RAW, I don't have any legal names for humans, because they are all homebrew from the Forgotten Realms, unless Mulan, Illuskan, Turami, and Calishite are supposed to be generic regions across the game world.

Oh, wait, Elves Dwarves and Humans are allowed to be acolytes, because they can be clerics, it says so in the very first bit where they describe a human cleric, an elf cleric, and a dwarf cleric. 

Hmm, this is odd. There is a picture of a half-orc paladin, but are Half-Orcs allowed to be paladins? They aren't mentioned in the first few paragraphs, and ekeing out an existence in the slums isn't exactly conducive to a Paladin path. I mean, I guess they could have been brought from the slums of a large city into a temple, but then they wouldn't be "ekeing out" and existence, so I guess I would have to talk to my DM about homebrewing the race so that it was allowed. 

I can keep going, and going, and going.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 23, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Ah, so you changed my point without informing me, and just assumed that I would understand what you were attempting to say?
> 
> So, you would in fact get upset if someone told you the Artificer was homebrew, because it is not. It is a general class, which was what I was saying.
> 
> So, you agreed with me and the point I was making. If you had just said that, this whole process would be going faster.




Your point is irrelevant to my point, which was what you were responding to.  My point is that official settings are equivalent to homebrew settings. 



> I also must assume since you continue to ignore it, that you agree with the assertion that barring homebrew, Goliath Barbarians are breaking the rules, because Barbarians cannot live in the mountains.




Why would I agree with that.  Have you even been paying attention to what I have been saying?  You have to meet the general theme of the sections, not all the specific words used.  Mountains are outdoors and have tribes that live on them, just like plains and forests.  Goliath Barbarians fit the general barbarian fluff.



> You also never responded to the point I brought up about if "loving to fight" was uncivilized enough to count for my Barbarian Nobleman. Since they only need to be considered a little "uncivilized" to count, right? You seem to be willing to just change and jump past things, so until you say otherwise I must assume it is true.




Being civilized or not is like alignment.  Having one or two behaviors that don't fit your alignment(civilized) doesn't make you an uncivilized person.  

The theme of the barbarian is someone who generally lives and fits outside of civilized society and doesn't feel comfortable in the middle of crowds or civilization.  



> So, All Half-Orcs either grew up in an Orc tribe (which we will assume is evil, since the rules in the Monster Manual says they are chaotic evil) or in the slums. This we know because the rules say so "Half-Orcs most often live among orcs.....Whether proving themselves among rough barbarian tribes or scrabbling to survive in the slums of larger cities"




I ignore much of what you say, because quite frankly they misstate my position like this comment and not worth my time to respond to.  I've clarified enough times that if you are either not bothering to try and understand or are deliberately misstating my position.   Be aware, I'm not going to respond to most of the things you say that misstate my position like this.  I deleted the rest of your post for that reason.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 23, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Your point is irrelevant to my point, which was what you were responding to.  My point is that official settings are equivalent to homebrew settings.




Except noone except you uses "homebrew" to mean "setting lore". You have put forth the idea that anything not in the PHB is homebrew. Even if it is official material.

And, yet again, you are dodging the question I actually asked. Almost as though you don't want to admit the answer. I did not ask about a group denying my character because it does not fit the setting. I said the groups rule was "no homebrew" and I brought a generic class (the artificer) and was told it was homebrew. It isn't. Unless you think that when WOTC says "yet the class can be found throughout the D&D multiverse " that they are not saying it is a generic class that fits between settings.

So, considering it is a generic class and not setting specific, is it homebrew or not? Yes or no answer, though I would like an explanation of your answer. Just not yet another evasion.




Maxperson said:


> Why would I agree with that.  Have you even been paying attention to what I have been saying?  You have to meet the general theme of the sections, not all the specific words used.  Mountains are outdoors and have tribes that live on them, just like plains and forests.  Goliath Barbarians fit the general barbarian fluff.




I'm sorry. Obviously you've forgotten your own position.

See, this section of text from PHB page 46 is a rule that must be followed "To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature—keen instincts, primal physicality, and ferocious rage. Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. "

In fact, it must be followed absolutely, you must fit within this framework. Because these are the rules. Therefore, you cannot play a barbarian who is comfortable with civilization.

The next sentence is "They thrive in the wilds of their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt. " This is the same section, the same paragraph, the same *rules.*

Are you trying to tell me that "To a barbarian civilization is a weakness" is a rule that all characters must follow, but "their homelands are tundras, jungles or grasslands" is, what? A suggested list? I'm not bound to those?

One is a rule that is prescriptive, telling me what must absolutely be true, but the other is a mere suggestion and not prescriptive? I mean, your defense of including dwarves wasn't to say that their homelands are just a suggestion, your defense of dwarves being barbarians was that there is a specific example of a dwarven barbarian in the third paragraph. Why did you need to call that a "specific rule that trumps the general rule" if the places that barbarians live are not prescriptive rules?

You can't weasel out of a position that all text in the PHB are rules by saying that "well, these rules are just general themes, you don't have to match them exactly."




Maxperson said:


> Being civilized or not is like alignment.  Having one or two behaviors that don't fit your alignment(civilized) doesn't make you an uncivilized person.
> 
> The theme of the barbarian is someone who generally lives and fits outside of civilized society and doesn't feel comfortable in the middle of crowds or civilization.




I'm sorry, I'm not going to respond to this point, because you have in no way demonstrated how this rule is prescriptive and enforceable as compared to the other rule which is simply a general theme. We can revisit this point once you have shown me how we can tell which rules and rules and which rules are not rules.





Maxperson said:


> I ignore much of what you say, because quite frankly they misstate my position like this comment and not worth my time to respond to.  I've clarified enough times that if you are either not bothering to try and understand or are deliberately misstating my position.   Be aware, I'm not going to respond to most of the things you say that misstate my position like this.  I deleted the rest of your post for that reason.




Honestly, I'm not surprised you are ignoring it. Because it seems like your position has changed from "everything in the PHB is a rule that must be followed" to "well, most of these are just general themes that must be adhered to"

Though, I will say skipping the part about human names all being from the Forgotten Realms, leaving no RAW human names since all Forgotten Realms details are homebrew and not real rules, is a mistake since that does seem to address exactly the point that you say you are defending, which is that all setting information is homebrew.

I guess, unless it isn't.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 23, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> /snip
> 
> Fluff are rules, it's just people tend to be more lax about changing them. Everyone has a line past which they say, wait, no, you can't actually do that.




That's one way of looking at it.  I tend to think of it more along the lines of fluff are _examples.  _While it makes sense to pay attention to examples, examples are all they are.  They are one way of playing, and, by and large, they are pretty solid ideas.  They are not, however, ironclad.  Often the examples are contradictory (as in the barbarian dwarf example above) or stated in somewhat ambiguous terms with qualifier like "often" or the like.

But, that being said, your way of looking at it works for me as well.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 24, 2020)

Hussar said:


> That's one way of looking at it.  *I tend to think of it more along the lines of fluff are *_*examples*.  _While it makes sense to pay attention to examples, examples are all they are.  They are one way of playing, and, by and large, they are pretty solid ideas.  They are not, however, ironclad.  Often the examples are contradictory (as in the barbarian dwarf example above) or stated in somewhat ambiguous terms with qualifier like "often" or the like.



Every rule is nothing more than an example.  Rolling a d20 + modifiers is an example.  Some people don't like that particular example and use 2d10 + modifiers.  All house rules are, are people deciding an example rule isn't to their liking and changing it.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Every rule is nothing more than an example.  Rolling a d20 + modifiers is an example.  Some people don't like that particular example and use 2d10 + modifiers.  All house rules are, are people deciding an example rule isn't to their liking and changing it.




To clarify, are you equating permitting a player to play a civilized character who has levels in the Barbarian class with changing the primary resolution mechanic of 5e? You see both as simply declining to follow an example in the rulebook?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 24, 2020)

Xetheral said:


> To clarify, are you equating permitting a player to play a civilized character who has levels in the Barbarian class with changing the primary resolution mechanic of 5e? You see both as simply declining to follow an example in the rulebook?



I am not equating them, no.  There was nothing in my post even hinting at some sort of equality between those two things.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Every rule is nothing more than an example.  Rolling a d20 + modifiers is an example.  Some people don't like that particular example and use 2d10 + modifiers.  All house rules are, are people deciding an example rule isn't to their liking and changing it.




Every rule is an example, except those that you have to follow. I guess you found my previous post to not be worth responding to? Your idea of what the rules are and when and how you have to follow them is mercurial and seems to shift depending on how best to disagree with the person you are talking to. 

It doesn't help that you seem to have a vastly different set of vocabulary than the rest of us.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 24, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Every rule is an example, except those that you have to follow.




Show me one rule that you have to follow and you will be wrong.  In D&D not one rule is set in stone such that the DM cannot change it if he wants.  All of them are examples.  ALL of them.



> I guess you found my previous post to not be worth responding to?




Correct.  



> Your idea of what the rules are and when and how you have to follow them is mercurial and seems to shift depending on how best to disagree with the person you are talking to.




I've consistently supported the right to homebrew and house rule in this and every other thread where I've spoken about it.  Your inability to understand others is not my responsibility.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I am not equating them, no.  There was nothing in my post even hinting at some sort of equality between those two things.




Probably the "all rules are examples" and "all houserules are people just changing the example" parts were what hinted at it. 

After all, you keep claiming that "uncivilized barbarians" are the rules, and that changing that is a houserule. Just like 1d20+mod is a rule and 2d10+mod is a houserule.

Are there now different tiers of rules on top of themes and examples?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 24, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Probably the "all rules are examples" and "all houserules are people just changing the example" parts were what hinted at it.




Nope.  Those don't hint at that in any way whatsoever.  It's like me saying that all dogs are alive and someone saying, "So are you really equating a Chihuahua with a Pitbull?"


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Show me one rule that you have to follow and you will be wrong.  In D&D not one rule is set in stone such that the DM cannot change it if he wants.  All of them are examples.  ALL of them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





That is great and wonderful. 

It also has no bearing on the conversation. 

Great, everyone can choose to homebrew anything. No one disputed that. Ever in this entire thread. 

The dispute has been "is this following the rules" and your answer has consistently been no. Because the flavor text is also the rules. 

Except, when I point out other flavor text, and ask if those are also rules, you say those are homebrew and don't count.

Or that those are just general examples, and you don't have to follow them exactly. 

And everytime I put forth "this is your position, this set of logic would follow this position" you deflect by telling me something different, and saying that you have been consistent this entire thread. 

But you haven't. You keep changing from hard-lined stances, to soft-line stances on what particular text is a rule and what is a theme, and what is an example. And saying that DMs are free to change anything does not change that. DMs changing the rules does not matter, if you can't even tell me which rules there are, and be consistent in your application of the definition of those rules.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I am not equating them, no.  There was nothing in my post even hinting at some sort of equality between those two things.




Then I'm glad I asked for clarification.  Unfortunately, if that's not what you meant then I don't understand what you were trying to say. Could you please re-explain?


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Show me one rule that you have to follow and you will be wrong.  In D&D not one rule is set in stone such that the DM cannot change it if he wants.  All of them are examples.  ALL of them.





I want to refocus on this for a second. 

Because this entire line of conversation about my barbarian character started because of exactly that. I posted a character I had played, and enjoyed, as an example that your class is not the entirety of your character. That in fact, it is perfectly reasonable and in fact can be an good character, to play something that is not the stereotype of the class.

And I was told I was wrong. 

You have told me I was wrong. 

You have told me, that I broke the rules, because my barbarian could not be civilized. That being civilized broke the rules of the barbarian, and here was the text to prove it. In fact, I think you were the poster who said that if I was so desperate to change the rules of the class to play a knight, I should have just changed the name as well, and called it "The Angry Knight" 

Now, here you are, less than a week later, telling me that if I showed you a rule that I have to follow, that I would be wrong. That all of the rules are mutable. That all of the rules are changeable. That, I am perfectly within the realms of the game, to change anything I want in whatever way I want. 

So, is that the big point you want to make? "You broke the rules, but it is fine because the rules don't even matter anyways?" Is that where we end this conversation at? 

Because, the more I dug down into "if these are the rules then it is more than my concept that doesn't fit, all of these more standardized concepts don't fit. If these rules are so hard lined, then why is there even a choice because these concepts don't fit either" the more you seemed to backpedal. This one is an exception, that one is just a theme, these are just examples. 

The rules don't matter. 


Well, if the rules don't matter, then why did you use them to tell me my concept was wrong? That I was not playing a barbarian at all, I was playing "The Angry Knight"? If you don't think there are any rules, why did you use them to put down my concept and say that it was against these rules?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 24, 2020)

Xetheral said:


> Then I'm glad I asked for clarification.  Unfortunately, if that's not what you meant then I don't understand what you were trying to say. Could you please re-explain?



Sure.  @ad_hoc said that fluff = rules and people have a lower bar for changing those rules than mechanical rules.  @Hussar said that he could accept that, but that he viewed fluff rules as guidelines.  When I responded to that post, I was just pointing out that all rules are just guidelines.  I wasn't making a comparison between or equating any two guidelines.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 24, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Because this entire line of conversation about my barbarian character started because of exactly that. I posted a character I had played, and enjoyed, as an example that your class is not the entirety of your character. That in fact, it is perfectly reasonable and in fact can be an good character, to play something that is not the stereotype of the class.
> 
> And I was told I was wrong.




Not by me you weren't.  I said you weren't playing a barbarian.   You changed the fluff to the point where it no longer matched the barbarian class.  You took the mechanics only and refit them to meet your character, which is fine as a homebrew class.  I never said you were wrong for playing the PC that way, though.



> You have told me I was wrong.




And this is why I don't take anything you say seriously.  You don't get anything right.  At this point I no longer believe that this is accidental.  You are deliberately misstating my positions every chance you get and it really reflects negatively on you.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 24, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> What stunt did I pull?
> 
> This is what is constantly confounding me. I picked Human, Barbarian, Noble (Knight). I acted like a Knight. I used the combat abilities of a Barbarian in combat. In what way have I offended you? Would you be appeased if I stripped him naked and slathered him in oil? If I grunted instead of spoke?
> 
> I know I'm getting a little heated about this, but the best anyone has been able to do to tell me why this character is wrong is to say "all barbarians are uncivilized brutes, it says so right in the rules/fluff"




Although I can think in English, I am no native speaker, so sorry I did not note the meaning of "pulling a stunt" would be regarded mostly negative. This wasn't my intention sorry for the misunderstanding, on the opposite, it was rather meant in "to do something unconventional with kudos for the idea" like you would applaud someone jumping some cars with a motorcycle sideways. 
I do think your barbarian/knight concept is unusual (not in a negative way) and totally within 5e rule system, I also think that if doing unconventional concepts you should invest in a good background-story (not the background mechanic but a good explanation why it all went this way) which ideally should fit within a given game world.
My own game worlds are not designed to handle these things in such a wide frame because I like to limit fluff to make things more "intense", if a player in session zero would approach me for a concept like yours I could make it happen for him, but if someone turned up mid adventure arc, things would get harder to fit in.
But my style is old school and what is fun for me might be uncool for others and vice versa.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 24, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Not for me. That breaks the fiction hard. What do the powers and abilities even mean then? And why does that 'class' have them? etc. That's a hard no, makes it worse.
> 
> Also on classes, I like that there are only 12 (13). There could even be a couple less and it would be okay. I want the classes to represent strong broad archetypes.




Yes if the campaign world is more or less official athas or even FR with a bit of homebrew then a "hobbit humpty dumpty" class would also break fiction and immersion for me.

And if e.g. I would advertise in a forum that I DM such a campaign and players which i do not know send me their character concepts I would expect them to be within the range of what you call rules.
At least if I did not communicate anything else upfront.
Still if someone has a game running where said hobbit humpty dumpty with monk mechanic is a thing, it would be absolutely within the mechanical frameset of 5e and does not break anything with balance, but it might sound ridiculous to most (See I now use frameset not rules, just to avoid further confusion).

And this is fluff. Different names for a class based on the frameset. Has nothing to do with lore star wars or middle earth, it is pure fiction.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 24, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> I want the classes to represent strong broad archetypes.



Question: Why?

Don't you get bored when every player character is a walking cliché that you have seen dozens of times before?


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> And this is why I don't take anything you say seriously.  You don't get anything right.  At this point I no longer believe that this is accidental.  You are deliberately misstating my positions every chance you get and it really reflects negatively on you.




You know, I'm starting to think the exact same thing about you. Because I can't believe you can say this with a straight face after posting the sentence below.



Maxperson said:


> *Not by me you weren't.  I said you weren't playing a barbarian. * *You changed the fluff to the point where it no longer matched the barbarian class.*  You took the mechanics only and refit them to meet your character, which is fine as a homebrew class.  I never said you were wrong for playing the PC that way, though.




So, I don't get anything you say right, I misstate your position at every turn. You never told me I played my Barbarian wrong. 

Except, *RIGHT HERE*, where you just stated that I was actually not playing a barbarian. That I had changed far too much fluff to be considered a barbarian.

Oh sure, it is fine as a homebrew, but you want me to acknowledge that I was playing the Barbarian class wrong, that I was actually playing some other class that entire time. 

Are you just not aware of how you sound? Do you not understand that it sounds like you are going backwards and just straight up lying? 

"I played this class"
"No you didn't, you played something else"
"Um, why are you saying I was wrong and didn't play that class?"
"I never said that you were wrong, I said you weren't playing that class" 

But, I'm sure yet again you will laugh and move on, confident that I don't understand anything you actually mean, because you never said I didn't play a barbarian, you just I played a homebrew barbarian that wasn't a true barbarian.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 24, 2020)

Coroc said:


> Although I can think in English, I am no native speaker, so sorry I did not note the meaning of "pulling a stunt" would be regarded mostly negative. This wasn't my intention sorry for the misunderstanding, on the opposite, it was rather meant in "to do something unconventional with kudos for the idea" like you would applaud someone jumping some cars with a motorcycle sideways.




Honestly, thank you for clearing up the confusion. I do tend to forget that not everyone on here is a native english speaker and some of the idioms come across differently. It honestly makes me feel a lot better to know that was just confusion on your actual intention.



Coroc said:


> I do think your barbarian/knight concept is unusual (not in a negative way) and totally within 5e rule system, I also think that if doing unconventional concepts you should invest in a good background-story (not the background mechanic but a good explanation why it all went this way) which ideally should fit within a given game world.
> 
> My own game worlds are not designed to handle these things in such a wide frame because I like to limit fluff to make things more "intense", if a player in session zero would approach me for a concept like yours I could make it happen for him, but if someone turned up mid adventure arc, things would get harder to fit in.
> But my style is old school and what is fun for me might be uncool for others and vice versa.




I agree with this, and I tend to write fairly robust backgrounds. This particular DM I was playing with had no interest in backgrounds or even our characters to a degree. First session we were teleported to a place outside of time and space and given free run of it to fight anything there. But, it was fun to have the personality of Sir Kalten and to play that sort of concept. 

And I definetly agree, fitting a character in mid-game is so difficult. They really almost can't have any adventure hooks in them, because the party usually has so much going on by that point. Got to be slimmed down so you can slot in with minimal fuss


----------



## Coroc (Feb 24, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> ....
> And I definetly agree, fitting a character in mid-game is so difficult. They really almost can't have any adventure hooks in them, because the party usually has so much going on by that point. Got to be slimmed down so you can slot in with minimal fuss




Yep and this is unfortunately especially bad if you have a player who is mainly interested in representing a specific personality (and an according background). Those are often the best roleplayers (I mean the real roleplay pillar of the game, the one independent of system) and for them it would really pay of to be part of the group from the start.

I noticed that those buddies of me, who are more into the other two pillars, are much easier to fit in mid adventure.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Sure.  @ad_hoc said that fluff = rules and people have a lower bar for changing those rules than mechanical rules.  @Hussar said that he could accept that, but that he viewed fluff rules as guidelines.  When I responded to that post, I was just pointing out that all rules are just guidelines.  I wasn't making a comparison between or equating any two guidelines.




TWEET!  Foul on the field.  15 yards for rewording.

I most certainly did not say that I "viewed fluff rules as guidelines".  That is 100% mistaken.

I did state that I viewed fluff as examples.  Not as guidelines, nor as rules.   I was agreeing with @ad_hoc because we were ending up in roughly the same place, even if we were approaching it from very different angles.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 24, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Except, *RIGHT HERE*, where you just stated that I was actually not playing a barbarian. That I had changed far too much fluff to be considered a barbarian.




Right.



> Oh sure, it is fine as a homebrew, but you want me to acknowledge that I was playing the Barbarian class wrong, that I was actually playing some other class that entire time.




No.  You were not playing the barbarian class wrong.  You weren't playing a barbarian as the game defines them.  There's a pretty significant difference.  If you can't understand that difference, then there's not much help that I can give  you.  Maybe you can ask one of your friends to explain it.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 24, 2020)

Hussar said:


> TWEET!  Foul on the field.  15 yards for rewording.
> 
> I most certainly did not say that I "viewed fluff rules as guidelines".  That is 100% mistaken.
> 
> I did state that I viewed fluff as examples.  Not as guidelines, nor as rules.   I was agreeing with @ad_hoc because we were ending up in roughly the same place, even if we were approaching it from very different angles.



My bad.  I misremembered. My apologies.

It doesn't really change what I'm saying, though.  All rules are guidelines, and they are all also just examples of one way to rule that situation.  Pick any rule and it's just an example of how you can play it.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Sure.  @ad_hoc said that fluff = rules and people have a lower bar for changing those rules than mechanical rules.  @Hussar said that he could accept that, but that he viewed fluff rules as guidelines.  When I responded to that post, I was just pointing out that all rules are just guidelines.  I wasn't making a comparison between or equating any two guidelines.




Thanks for clarifying. I think the confusion from my end stems from not understanding the purpose of pointing out that "all rules are just guidelines" if you did not intend to equate the acts changing any two particular guidelines.

I'm still not entirely sure I understand your purpose in making that claim in response to @Hussar's post, but at least now I know that (contrary to how I originally read it) you're not saying that permitting deviation from a class description is an equivalent change to modifying the basic resolution mechanic to 5e. 



Maxperson said:


> Not by me you weren't.  I said you weren't playing a barbarian.   You changed the fluff to the point where it no longer matched the barbarian class.  You took the mechanics only and refit them to meet your character, which is fine as a homebrew class.  I never said you were wrong for playing the PC that way, though.




Since I appear to be having a hard time understanding your posts, I'd like to ask a clarifying question on this one too.

Are you saying that @Chaosmancer is not wrong for _playing_ his civilized PC with the Barbarian class, but is wrong for _saying_ that this character had the Barbarian class?



Maxperson said:


> No.  You were not playing the barbarian class wrong.  You weren't playing a barbarian as the game defines them.  There's a pretty significant difference.  If you can't understand that difference, then there's not much help that I can give  you.  Maybe you can ask one of your friends to explain it.




Out of curiosity, what is your purpose in making the statement "[y]ou weren't playing a barbarian as the game defines them" if you're not trying to suggest that there is anything wrong in doing so?


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 24, 2020)

Xetheral said:


> Out of curiosity, what is your purpose in making the statement "[y]ou weren't playing a barbarian as the game defines them" if you're not trying to suggest that there is anything wrong in doing so?



There are several posters on the board for whom semantic precision is as important, if not more so, than normative statements on play style.

Basically, it's not about playing right or wrong, it's making sure you're using the words correctly.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 24, 2020)

DwarfHammer said:


> Would you allow a player to take the cleric class and say he is a fighter and just refluff his spells as martial abilites. I wouldn’t. It breaks the game for me. Although it is 100% cool if you and your group want to do that.  Monk abilities just don’t fit a brawler imho. It’s good to hear the things that break other people’s immersion and hear there styles of play. I’ve done a little of this with certain specific settings in mind. But it doesn’t work for everything. It really has to be table dependent.



I think this is an excellent question and I want to address it.

First: the one point I think everyone on the thread can agree with is that we are not talking about modifying mechanics, only the default flavour of the class.  So, it is a given  that your cleric-refluffed-as-fighter has to follow cleric mechanics: ie he has to prepare his “spells” in the morning, his “Sacred Flame” does radiant damage, “Sacred Guardians” works as per the spell and the character has limited “spell slots”. Any “spell” the character casts could be dispelled or counterspelled by an enemy caster.

Here is where we potentially run into the first issue: the flavour of the class is inconsistent with the mechanics.  I would argue that this is a pretty big change from the other examples that have been proposed: the Barbarian Knight and the Cambion tiefling sorcerer.  In theBarbarian Knight case, there is a reasonable explanation as why the character would be able to rage.  In the case of the cambion, the new fluff arguably makes more sense than the original fluff (one of my ancestors is a red dragon and by the way, one of my other ancestors make a pact with a devil).

This goes back to a comment that I made earlier in the thread.  You can adopt a restrictive approach to the flavour of the classes for the purpose of shutting out the 1 player out of 20 that will act abusively, at the cost of shutting out 19 players out of 20 who simply have cool ideas they want to model in the game.

But let’s get back to inconsistency of the fluff. This touches on my second point.

All characters are subject to the social contract of the table.  If I make a standard Oath of Devotion paladin, and the rest of the table are rogues, swindlers and charlatans, I may have to change my character.  If my bog standard fighter is named M’Cho Mann “Randy” Savage and yells out wrestling moves with every attack, he may not be appropriate in a super serious gritty campaign.  And if the adventure will take primarily in the drawing rooms and salons of Waterdeep, a standard barbarian may not be a fitting character (but the Barbarian Knight would totally fit in).

A cleric fluffed as a fighter may not fit in at the table.  This may especially be the case if the player doesn’t have a good answer when you ask him why his maneuvers do radiant damage, why he has limited maneuvers per day, and why his maneuvers can be dispelled.

That said, my ancestors were barbarians even though I am a knight is a pretty good answer to the question “why can you rage?”. My infernal bloodline has given me supernatural toughness is a pretty good answer to “why does a cambion get +1 AC and extra hp?”.

Just something to think about.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 24, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Don't be upset if you show up to a table with a character who doesn't follow the rules and people say sorry we're not into that.



Counterpoint: don’t be upset if you show up at a table with a character that is a standard PHB character and the players say “as created, this character isn’t really appropriate for the campaign, do you mind changing X, Y and Z?” (Other example: LE Conquest Paladin in a mostly Good game).


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 24, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Right.
> 
> No.  You were not playing the barbarian class wrong.  You weren't playing a barbarian as the game defines them.  There's a pretty significant difference.  If you can't understand that difference, then there's not much help that I can give  you.  Maybe you can ask one of your friends to explain it.




You are arguing semantics at this point. Whether it was "wrong" as in not correct or "not as the game defines them" as in "not the correct definition" is splitting hairs so fine I'm afraid you'll go cross-eyed. 

But, if it makes it so you can sleep at night, sure, just keep changing things to keep your hands clean.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 24, 2020)

TwoSix said:


> There are several posters on the board for whom semantic precision is as important, if not more so, than normative statements on play style.
> 
> Basically, it's not about playing right or wrong, it's making sure you're using the words correctly.




For a pretty broad value of "correctly".


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 25, 2020)

Xetheral said:


> Since I appear to be having a hard time understanding your posts, I'd like to ask a clarifying question on this one too.
> 
> Are you saying that @Chaosmancer is not wrong for _playing_ his civilized PC with the Barbarian class, but is wrong for _saying_ that this character had the Barbarian class?




The barbarian is the crunch and the general accompanying fluff.  If you completely change the fluff into something that isn't a barbarian, then the class is no longer a barbarian.  He isn't wrong for playing a knight PC with barbarian mechanics.  And calling him wrong for calling it a barbarian is excessive.  He's mistaken, since being barbarian is more than just the PHB mechanics.

If a player came to me with the concept of an angry knight that's so pissed off he rages, I'd have worked with the player and done it a different way.  The barbarian mechanics poorly model a pissed off knight.  The abilities of Unarmored Defense, Fast Movement, Danger Sense, etc. don't make sense for a knight with anger issues.  I would have worked with the player to remove those abilities and replace them with abilities that make more sense.  Or alternatively, he could have played a fighter which more accurately portrays a knight, and then I would have removed an ability or abilities that equal rage and just given him rage.



> Out of curiosity, what is your purpose in making the statement "[y]ou weren't playing a barbarian as the game defines them" if you're not trying to suggest that there is anything wrong in doing so?



It was just part of the discussion about whether the lore is part of the class or not.  He brought up that example. Lore is a part of the class in general terms, even if the specifics that meet the lore theme can change.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 25, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> You are arguing semantics at this point. Whether it was "wrong" as in not correct or "not as the game defines them" as in "not the correct definition" is splitting hairs so fine I'm afraid you'll go cross-eyed.
> 
> But, if it makes it so you can sleep at night, sure, just keep changing things to keep your hands clean.



There is absolutely nothing wrong with homebrewing a knight that uses barbarian mechanics and little/none of the lore.  And stop falsely accusing me of changing things.  I've not changed my position a single time in this thread.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 25, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> There is absolutely nothing wrong with homebrewing a knight that uses barbarian mechanics and little/none of the lore.  And stop falsely accusing me of changing things.  I've not changed my position a single time in this thread.




Funny, in your response to Xetheral I went from not "playing a barbarian as the game defines them " to "being mistaken"

But, I'm honestly getting sick and tired of this.

My "mistake" was playing a character whose personality did not match with your expectations, because my "Definition" of what that class means is not as set in stone as yours.

But, I do so love the idea that if I had brought a character to your table, you would have "helped" me by removing features I wanted because in your mind they do not fit with what I wanted. Because, to you, by playing the class as written, with the background as written, is not RAW and therefore I would need to change something for it to be acceptable to you.

But that doesn't seem to apply to changes in where they would have lived, what race lore matches with the "General themes" only the background and personality of the character. And, if I was only willing to admit that my character, built by RAW, wasn't RAW, then all would be well, because I can homebrew and change anything I like. It's fine to homebrew, everyone does it.

But the character cannot be RAW, despite no rules limiting a character race, class and background from being combined, no prequisites or mutually exclusive options involved, no rules limiting a players decision on their characters personality, values, beliefs, dreams, desires, fears, ect. They cannot be RAW, because the general theme involved in an example says that Barbarians can only fit into a single, tightly designed space. They must be uncivilized savages that are not comfortable in polite society.

It is a rule, a theme, an example, whichever word you would best like to use this time, the point it is, it is immutable. I cannot change it, because to change it, I would have to change every aspect of the class. You've said so, I would have to homebrew a knight who rages, lose abilities you don't think are appropriate and gain different ones you thought were.

You cannot play a Barbarian Knight, because you must change the Barbarian into something else first. And that's fine, you can change it, it is perfectly fine with you to allow me to change it and call it something else and admit that I am altering the rules to allow me to pick two RAW options and write them on my character sheet together.

Maybe this time I'll finally accept my "mistake" in this thread.

Edit: I thought DnD was a game about choice. I guess it is actually a game about changing the rules so that the players are allowed to have choice.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 25, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> My "mistake" was playing a character whose personality did not match with your expectations, because my "Definition" of what that class means is not as set in stone as yours.




Completely false.



> But, I do so love the idea that if I had brought a character to your table, you would have "helped" me by removing features I wanted because in your mind they do not fit with what I wanted. Because, to you, by playing the class as written, with the background as written, is not RAW and therefore I would need to change something for it to be acceptable to you.






I don't force people into anything.  Nobody is required to accept my help.  These are just more of your false accusations.  When I say "work with" the player.  I meant it.

It seems you have some deep seated need to have revenge on me for your misperceived slight.  I don't see any other reason for you to deliberately change what I'm saying so much.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 25, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> There is absolutely nothing wrong with homebrewing a knight that uses barbarian mechanics and little/none of the lore.  And stop falsely accusing me of changing things.  I've not changed my position a single time in this thread.



And your position has been, um, lets say idiosyncratic the entire time. The fluff is not the class. It's not a rule. It's a suggestion. That's it, that's all, end of argument. You don't get to impose things like your idea of 'lore' on other people, unless its by mutual consent at the gaming table. Wielding opinion as if if were fact isn't a good look for anyone on a public forum.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 25, 2020)

@Maxperson - can I play a Gnome Barbarian according to your interpretation of the rules?  After all, there is no "specific" in this case.  Gnomes do not live anywhere that you find barbarians, so, is a Gnome Barbarian home brewing or not?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 25, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> And your position has been, um, lets say idiosyncratic the entire time. The fluff is not the class.




Neither are the mechanices.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 25, 2020)

Hussar said:


> @Maxperson - can I play a Gnome Barbarian according to your interpretation of the rules?  After all, there is no "specific" in this case.  Gnomes do not live anywhere that you find barbarians, so, is a Gnome Barbarian home brewing or not?



Yes you can, as I've said more than once here.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 25, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> The barbarian is the crunch and the general accompanying fluff.  If you completely change the fluff into something that isn't a barbarian, then the class is no longer a barbarian.  He isn't wrong for playing a knight PC with barbarian mechanics.  And calling him wrong for calling it a barbarian is excessive.  He's mistaken, since being barbarian is more than just the PHB mechanics.
> 
> If a player came to me with the concept of an angry knight that's so pissed off he rages, I'd have worked with the player and done it a different way.  The barbarian mechanics poorly model a pissed off knight.  The abilities of Unarmored Defense, Fast Movement, Danger Sense, etc. don't make sense for a knight with anger issues.  I would have worked with the player to remove those abilities and replace them with abilities that make more sense.  Or alternatively, he could have played a fighter which more accurately portrays a knight, and then I would have removed an ability or abilities that equal rage and just given him rage.
> 
> ...




Thank you for taking the time to elaborate, I greatly appreciate it. I don't agree with your interpretation of class lore, and I'm not sure I see a practical difference between calling someone wrong and calling them mistaken. But you've helped me to better understand your position. Thanks!


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 25, 2020)

Xetheral said:


> Thank you for taking the time to elaborate, I greatly appreciate it. I don't agree with your interpretation of class lore, and I'm not sure I see a practical difference between calling someone wrong and calling them mistaken. But you've helped me to better understand your position. Thanks!



No. thank YOU.  This is how a discussion should be.  Not the bitter misrepresentations a few here have been throwing my way constantly.  I appreciate the civility and honesty you have shown in this discussion.  It's refreshing and rare here.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 25, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Neither are the mechanices.



Well, actually no, the mechanics are very much the class. To quote the PHB, a class _broadly defines your character's vocation_ (p 11). On the same page the PHB even mentions unconventional characters that step outside the norm. 'Broadly define' means to define generally or in general terms, and a vocation is a calling or "thing that you do". Again on the same page the PHB tells you what happens when you pick a class, which is that you record the mechanics - class features and abilities. The mechanics of the class define what the character can do, but it is not prescriptive about who that character has to be.

I think _bitter misrepresentation_ might be a little bit dramatic. Your take on lore isn't the standard one, there's nothing wrong with your take on it, but you aren't 'correct' in some kind of way that puts you in a position to tell other people how to play the game. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, but that's what it looks like. Perils of online communication I suppose.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 25, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, actually no, the mechanics are very much the class.




Go to a game convention and poll D&D players.  Ask them what a barbarian is.  I'm willing to be that 0 of them will answer, "rage, fast movement, unarmored movement, etc."  Instead you will get an overview of the fluff.  The theme I've been talking about.  That's what they will tell you when you ask what a barbarian is.  If you then ask what a barbarian gets, they will answer with the mechanics.  The fluff is more the class than the mechanics are, but both are intertwined.



> I think _bitter misrepresentation_ might be a little bit dramatic.




I wasn't speaking about you.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 25, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, actually no, the mechanics are very much the class.




If a class is just a bundle of mechanics then why give them names? Why spend so many pages on describing what the class is.

Just give the list of mechanics. 

The thing is, if the PHB was only 'mechanics' and all the fluff was removed there would be no game there. 

A 'fluffless' RPG can't work. 

The fluff can be removed from chess and it would still be a game.

Remove all that identity, narrative, theme, etc. from an RPG and all that is left is a bunch of nonsense math.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 25, 2020)

Hussar said:


> @Maxperson - can I play a Gnome Barbarian according to your interpretation of the rules?  After all, there is no "specific" in this case.  Gnomes do not live anywhere that you find barbarians, so, is a Gnome Barbarian home brewing or not?




I am not @Maxperson  and this is not a poll but you brought the Gnome topic up. You said the magic word.

A Gnome barbarian, is that like in WoW when you saw this big sword running around and thought to yourself: "Oh  how come that sword can run on its own? That looks ridiculous." 
And then you took a closer look. And thought to yourself: "Oh my that sword looks really big, even on my Taureen character it would look a little to large to be aesthetic".
And then you moved even more close to the sword. And then you zoom in your screen.
And then you see it: " Oh my, there is a pink  haired gnome attached to that sword!" 


(I really like Gnome characters, for FR and GHK they are much better fitting than halflings in most places.
but please do not ever approach me with Gnoman the Gnymerian, it just breaks my make believe feeling, even for a game where dragons fly around and characters hurl fireballs)

Seriously, when I DM and I allow small folk in my campaign then I prefer when they play illusionists, rogues, maybe a cleric or even a fighter of some sort. But a Gnome barbarian? That is worse than a Gnome Paladin dual wielding Rapiers!


----------



## Hussar (Feb 25, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Yes you can, as I've said more than once here.




Sorry, I didn't realize that gnomes had been brought up.  I did see dwarves, and you answered that specific trumps general.  Fair enough.

So, what specific element of gnome lore, in your view, allows for a gnome barbarian by the rules?



ad_hoc said:


> If a class is just a bundle of mechanics then why give them names? Why spend so many pages on describing what the class is.
> 
> Just give the list of mechanics.
> 
> ...




Umm, to be fair, most class' fluff is summed up in a couple of paragraphs.  If we're going to talk about "so many pages", well, those pages are almost entirely mechanics and not flavor description.  The barbarian (to stay with that example) takes up 5 pages of the PHB.  1/2 a page is a picture of a human barbarian and the other 1/2 page is the flavor text for the barbarian (plus a smidgeon on the next page).  The next 4 pages are entirely mechanics.

Note, I agree that a "fluffless" RPG doesn't work.  Fortunately, no one here is advocating that.  After all, the knightly barbarian example above isn't "fluffless".  It's full of flavor.  Almost bursting at the seams.  It just isn't following the flavor in the PHB.  

Different flavor isn't "no flavor".


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 25, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> If a class is just a bundle of mechanics then why give them names? Why spend so many pages on describing what the class is.
> 
> Just give the list of mechanics.
> 
> ...



I don't think that anyone is advocating for a fluffless game, so I'm not sure why you keep falling back to this farcically shallow _argumentum ad absurdum_; however, in my estimation, most people in this thread do not regard class fluff as prescriptive, but _a generalized line-of-best-fit_ _description_ meant to serve as a starting point for character generation: the fluff is there to inspire and not constrict.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 25, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, I didn't realize that gnomes had been brought up.  I did see dwarves, and you answered that specific trumps general.  Fair enough.
> 
> So, what specific element of gnome lore, in your view, allows for a gnome barbarian by the rules?
> 
> ...




That's not accurate. There is 'fluff' throughout the class descriptions.

Every ability has 'fluff'. 

They all represent things. Strip that away to just the 'mechanics' and it doesn't actually take up that much space.

Instead of Barbarian picture 'class A'. Then imagine just having 'ability 1, ability 2, etc.' Instead of 'Rage' it just says what it does 'Bonus Action for +2 damage...'.

It's hard to do because the 'fluff' is so integral to the game as you agreed. And if you change it you are no longer playing the class you are playing something else. Another way to say that is 'not following the PHB'.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 25, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> I don't think that anyone is advocating for a fluffless game,




Read what I quoted.

Someone literally said 'class is just mechanics'.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 25, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Read what I quoted.
> 
> Someone literally said 'class is just mechanics'.



Class (name) is fluff. And only fluff.

The underlying mathematics e.g. "Fighter" class getting extra attack, "wizard" has got vancian spell progression is crunch.

We tend to intermingle mechanics with names given to things, because that is easier to remember.

And with names we associate other things if it comes to D&D. 

Let us assume following:  

You tell a kid who knows nothing about D&D but does know Harry Potter of a D&D wizard. The kid would most certainly expect a D&D wizard to use a wand as a casting focus for most of his spells and own a flying broom.

Then assume you tell the kid about different wizard schools and wizard guilds being a thing in D&D. The kid would assume that you mean whatever the school in the Harry Potter movie is called and for the guilds that you are referring to Hufflpuff and what ever these are called in H.P., and would be very confused that you are referring to evocation nor conjuration instead and the red wizards of Thay.

All of this is fluff, but some of this is attached to certain D&D mechanics e.g. the wizard specialists subclasses.

Still the wizard class as such  and the rules would not be corrupted the slightest if you refluff your D&D wizard in your homebrew by having a wand as a mandatory spell focus but need no spellbook, and all wizards mandatory attend a Harry Potter style wizard college in their prime, and good aligne wizards to be Hufflpuffs and evil aligned Slitherins or whatever.
It is just refluffing stuff and adding some prose.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 25, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> Read what I quoted.
> 
> Someone literally said 'class is just mechanics'.



I read it. Did you? Also, that quote you provide here is LITERALLY not in what you quoted.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 25, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Completely false.




I'm sorry, I must be confused yet again. I guess you would prefer me to say I didn't play a barbarian at all? I must have written some other class name and used some other mechanics then,




Maxperson said:


> I don't force people into anything.  Nobody is required to accept my help.  These are just more of your false accusations.  When I say "work with" the player.  I meant it.
> 
> It seems you have some deep seated need to have revenge on me for your misperceived slight.  I don't see any other reason for you to deliberately change what I'm saying so much.




Ah, so if I had shown up at your table with my Barbarian Knight, and told you of the idea that he is a questing knight looking for honor and glory for his courtly love and believes in the Chivalric code, you would have been fine letting me play it exactly as that? 

I mean, sure, you might have mentioned that it didn't quite match up with the barbarian, but when you offer to "help" me homebrew a better solution to the class and I said "No, this is what I want, I'm happy with it" would you have let me play that character at the table? 

If I refused to change the details (except perhaps which noble family he belonged to, which kingdom he hailed from, the setting details since noble lineages and kingdom structures can be important to the DM) would I be allowed to play it?




Maxperson said:


> I wasn't speaking about you.




Bitter? Yes, I'm getting bitter about this discussion. 

Misrepresentation? No, I don't think I have misrepresented you once. You just seem to see giant gulfs between the meaning of words and think saying things like "he is just mistaken" is not the same as saying "he is wrong" 

And it is truly frustrating to have to fight down every nuance of every definition on every point, because you just can't seem to accept that there are holes in your position.





ad_hoc said:


> That's not accurate. There is 'fluff' throughout the class descriptions.
> 
> Every ability has 'fluff'.
> 
> ...





Every ability has fluff? 

Cunning Action states "Your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly." 

That would mean rogues are quick and light on their feet. Able to process information quickly. They have a high Intelligence and a high dexterity. 

A rogue with 12 in INT and DEX still gets this ability, but the wizard, the swashbuckling fighter, the ranger, none of them get it. Even if their INT and DEX are 22 each. 

What about a rogue's fluff explains them being faster than everyone else? 

How does that compare to the Monk and Barbarian who are actually faster if no bonus action is used to dodge, because their movement speed increases? 

IF cunning actions "fluff" is a rule that describes the gameworld, how does it slot into this game world, what are the conditions for its use? If it is that rogues are criminals, why do fighters with the criminal or urchin background not get the same speed benefit? They lived in the same environment and also focused on dexterity, lockpicking and sleight of hand, but they can't get the same abiities. 

This sort of discreprancy is what shows that the fluff has to be mutable. If it is unmutable, these things cause the world to snap in half or simply be full of boring tropes. If they are mutable, then they are simply suggestions for why things work. 

I'm playing a human rogue thief. I decided that Cunning Action came from him working to stop his hesitation, he isn't hesitating before acting as much, so he can do a bit more. Fast Hands I decided is because he desperately started practicing after a party member went down and he realized he didn't have time to heal him and deal with the enemy bearing down on them. 

That isn't in the fluff of the description. In fact, the point that my rogue could accurately be described as an alchemist and medic isn't in the Rogue class at all.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 25, 2020)

Part of the difficulty with the Barbarian class is that it's the only one that offers such specific cultural and location information in the 'fluff'. You don't see anything in the fighter or rogue fluff that suggests a particular place and culture for example, and this lack is true of all the other classes, although the Ranger and 'not urban' comes close to causing the same sort of argument. That said, D&D generally leaves the description and background of the character to the player -  the player decides where they're from, what kind of person they are, what they look like and all the rest. Even the Barbarian fluff is mostly about the idea of rage more than it is about being from a tribal culture. Regardless, none of the color text in a class is a rule, it is not mandatory, and players can use whatever part of it they like. 

The mechanics describe how the class actually works and how it allows the player to interact with the game world. The mechanics are what is 'balanced' and the mechanics are what the rules of D&D uses to tell players how they can exert agency on the diagetic frame of the game world. Exerting force on the fluff, which is to say deciding that it is prescriptive rather than suggestive, is a choice. There's nothing wrong with saying "at my table Barbarians are from tribes X, Y, and Z". But the limits of that authority end at your table. There is no evidence or proof you can provide that show the colour text to be a mandatory part of the class - it just isn't so.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 25, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, I didn't realize that gnomes had been brought up.  I did see dwarves, and you answered that specific trumps general.  Fair enough.
> 
> So, what specific element of gnome lore, in your view, allows for a gnome barbarian by the rules?




I've told this to you more than once, to Chaosmancer multiple time, and to others multiple times.  At LEAST 10 times now, so this is the last time I'm going to tell you.

It's the general theme of the fluff that matters, not the specifics written.  Can gnomes be in tribes?  Yes.  Can those tribes be in mountains?  Yes.  All that matters is that the gnome can meet the general theme of the barbarian class.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 25, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> That's not accurate. There is 'fluff' throughout the class descriptions.
> 
> Every ability has 'fluff'.
> 
> ...



Sure, but there is room for change as long as it meets the general barbarian theme.  Primal Might for one tribe could be Invigoration of the Earth Mother for the next, Strength of Stone for the dwarven tribe, and One with the Elephant for the plains tribe.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 25, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> If a class is just a bundle of mechanics then why give them names? Why spend so many pages on describing what the class is.
> 
> Just give the list of mechanics.
> 
> ...




I'm very confused as to why you claim that not following the fluff in the class descriptions (but keeping the mechanics) is the same as having no fluff at all. If the fluff in the class descriptions is replaced with new class-specific fluff, setting-specific fluff, and/or character-specific fluff, a game can still be full of fluff. You apparently disagree, but I don't understand why. Could you clarify?

To address your question as to the purpose of the fluff in the PHB, I interpret its function as illustrating how the the classes _can_ correspond to traditional archetypes. That's useful information, especially for new players--it provides a starting point with which a specific exemplar can be compared and contrasted. I see the function of those descriptions as illustrating possibilities, rather than limiting options.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 25, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Every ability has fluff?




Yes.



> Cunning Action states "Your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly."
> 
> That would mean rogues are quick and light on their feet. Able to process information quickly. They have a high Intelligence and a high dexterity.




AND they learned the ability.



> A rogue with 12 in INT and DEX still gets this ability, but the wizard, the swashbuckling fighter, the ranger, none of them get it. Even if their INT and DEX are 22 each.




Because they didn't learn the ability.



> What about a rogue's fluff explains them being faster than everyone else?




Nothing.  They aren't faster than everyone else.  They just learned one way to use their abilities and call it Cunning Action.  The wizard, fighter and ranger learn other ways to use their abilities.



> How does that compare to the Monk and Barbarian who are actually faster if no bonus action is used to dodge, because their movement speed increases?




Apples and oranges.



> This sort of discreprancy is what shows that the fluff has to be mutable. If it is unmutable, these things cause the world to snap in half or simply be full of boring tropes. If they are mutable, then they are simply suggestions for why things work.




There isn't a discrepancy.  You've just left out the step of "learning the ability."



> I'm playing a human rogue thief. I decided that Cunning Action came from him* working to stop his hesitation*, he isn't hesitating before acting as much, so he can do a bit more.




So he was slower than everyone else before he learned that ability?  And after he's the same as everyone else?  Not every other character hesitates, so if you stop hesitating you are just moving normally now.  How did you model the penalty that hesitating would give you?  Were you unable to use Dash, Hide and Disengage in the first round, because you hesitated?


----------



## Arilyn (Feb 25, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Part of the difficulty with the Barbarian class is that it's the only one that offers such specific cultural and location information in the 'fluff'. You don't see anything in the fighter or rogue fluff that suggests a particular place and culture for example, and this lack is true of all the other classes, although the Ranger and 'not urban' comes close to causing the same sort of argument. That said, D&D generally leaves the description and background of the character to the player -  the player decides where they're from, what kind of person they are, what they look like and all the rest. Even the Barbarian fluff is mostly about the idea of rage more than it is about being from a tribal culture. Regardless, none of the color text in a class is a rule, it is not mandatory, and players can use whatever part of it they like.
> 
> The mechanics describe how the class actually works and how it allows the player to interact with the game world. The mechanics are what is 'balanced' and the mechanics are what the rules of D&D uses to tell players how they can exert agency on the diagetic frame of the game world. Exerting force on the fluff, which is to say deciding that it is prescriptive rather than suggestive, is a choice. There's nothing wrong with saying "at my table Barbarians are from tribes X, Y, and Z". But the limits of that authority end at your table. There is no evidence or proof you can provide that show the colour text to be a mandatory part of the class - it just isn't so.



Really good point about the Barbarian having more specifics in the fluff. We refluff a lot at our table, and Barbarian is the class that gets the most fluff treatment. In fact, refluffed Barbarians are more common than the default, because of the issue you raised. 

Treating fluff as mechanics that must be followed puts unnecessary constraints on the players. I totally agree there is nothing even remotely in the books that makes this a likely conclusion. I am sure the game designers are more than happy to see players put their own spin on the classes.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 25, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Part of the difficulty with the Barbarian class is that it's the only one that offers such specific cultural and location information in the 'fluff'. You don't see anything in the fighter or rogue fluff that suggests a particular place and culture for example, and this lack is true of all the other classes, although the Ranger and 'not urban' comes close to causing the same sort of argument. That said, D&D generally leaves the description and background of the character to the player -  the player decides where they're from, what kind of person they are, what they look like and all the rest. Even the Barbarian fluff is mostly about the idea of rage more than it is about being from a tribal culture. Regardless, none of the color text in a class is a rule, it is not mandatory, and players can use whatever part of it they like.
> 
> The mechanics describe how the class actually works and how it allows the player to interact with the game world. The mechanics are what is 'balanced' and the mechanics are what the rules of D&D uses to tell players how they can exert agency on the diagetic frame of the game world. Exerting force on the fluff, which is to say deciding that it is prescriptive rather than suggestive, is a choice. There's nothing wrong with saying "at my table Barbarians are from tribes X, Y, and Z". But the limits of that authority end at your table. There is no evidence or proof you can provide that show the colour text to be a mandatory part of the class - it just isn't so.




You are inferring that the mechanics are a mandatory part of the class.

Is that your position?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 25, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> You are inferring that the mechanics are a mandatory part of the class.
> 
> Is that your position?



Sure is, and I'm stating it. not inferring it - no inference is necessary. Also, feel free to just answer the question without the rhetorical set up post. We can all see where you're going.  

Is your position that the mechanics aren't a mandatory part of the class class? More importantly, is your position that the colour text is also somehow a 'mechanic' or in some other way a mandatory part of the class? No offense, but I'd love to see you offer a shred of evidence that that is the case.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 25, 2020)

Arilyn said:


> Really good point about the Barbarian having more specifics in the fluff. We refluff a lot at our table, and Barbarian is the class that gets the most fluff treatment. In fact, refluffed Barbarians are more common than the default, because of the issue you raised.
> 
> Treating fluff as mechanics that must be followed puts unnecessary constraints on the players. I totally agree there is nothing even remotely in the books that makes this a likely conclusion. I am sure the game designers are more than happy to see players put their own spin on the classes.




At what point do you disallow changing the fluff? Everyone has a line.

I disagree about the Barbarian having the most specifics, it might be true that people are the most lenient about changing the Barbarian fluff.

Would you be okay with a non-religious Cleric? How about someone taking Cleric and refluffing all the spells to be commands so they can play a 'Warlord'? Is that okay?

How about a Paladin without an oath? What about a character fluffed to be an Eldritch Knight but taking the Paladin class? If that is okay wouldn't it make more sense in the game to just change their casting ability to Intelligence and their smite from Radiant to Force? I think if you're okay with changing the rules of who the character is and what they represent, changing how that is expressed in mechanics goes hand in hand.

There are countless other examples. Somewhere we're going to find a line which a person won't allow. So how do we determine why that is and what guidelines can we use? What is our starting point?


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 25, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Sure is, and I'm stating it. not inferring it - no inference is necessary. Also, feel free to just answer the question without the rhetorical set up post. We can all see where you're going.
> 
> Is your position that the mechanics aren't a mandatory part of the class class? More importantly, is your position that the colour text is also somehow a 'mechanic' or in some other way a mandatory part of the class? No offense, but I'd love to see you offer a shred of evidence that that is the case.




I'm glad the D&D cops haven't shown up at my door yet.

I asked in earnest, I didn't want to put words in your mouth.

You have now taken the most hard line approach of anyone in this thread. I'd be shocked if anyone else agreed with your position.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 25, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> You have now taken the most hard line approach of anyone in this thread. I'd be shocked if anyone else agreed with your position.



 On the contrary, this isn't a hard line at all. I believe that most D&D players would take the same view: A change to the actual mechanics of a class requires a houserule, whereas most fluff changes are the player's prerogative as long as they fit into the world.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 25, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> At what point do you disallow changing the fluff? Everyone has a line.



Sure, everyone has a line. That has been a fairly well-tread point in this thread. But I don't see how creating a false dilemma that sets up a false binary between the idea that one should either closely follow the fluff as if it were commandments inscribed on tablets by WotC in a cloud upon a mountain or you are a heretic who is somehow not playing D&D is particularly helpful or insightful. Why are you arguing as if the vague existence of a subjectively placed line in the fluff somehow mandates then that we must follow the fluff as if it were a rule? 



> Would you be okay with a non-religious Cleric? How about someone taking Cleric and refluffing all the spells to be commands so they can play a 'Warlord'? Is that okay?
> 
> How about a Paladin without an oath? What about a character fluffed to be an Eldritch Knight but taking the Paladin class? If that is okay wouldn't it make more sense in the game to just change their casting ability to Intelligence and their smite from Radiant to Force? I think if you're okay with changing the rules of who the character is and what they represent, changing how that is expressed in mechanics goes hand in hand.



The DMG is pretty upfront with how this is kosher. 



> There are countless other examples. Somewhere we're going to find a line which a person won't allow. So how do we determine why that is and what guidelines can we use? What is our starting point?



And? So what?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 25, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> At what point do you disallow changing the fluff? Everyone has a line.
> 
> I disagree about the Barbarian having the most specifics, it might be true that people are the most lenient about changing the Barbarian fluff.
> 
> Would you be okay with a non-religious Cleric? How about someone taking Cleric and refluffing all the spells to be commands so they can play a 'Warlord'? Is that okay?



Abilities have names right? And they're rules. Changing the names might be confusing, and it sounds like an enormous amount of work for the player. I'm guessing this isn't a serious example, but if a player of mine really wanted to I'd consider it, sure. Changing the names of rules isn't the same as changing descriptive fluff though, so there's a part of this example that's very apples and oranges. Renaming every spell on the cleric list really isn't same thing as ignoring four lines of Barbarian fluff in a whole bunch of ways.



ad_hoc said:


> How about a Paladin without an oath? What about a character fluffed to be an Eldritch Knight but taking the Paladin class? If that is okay wouldn't it make more sense in the game to just change their casting ability to Intelligence and their smite from Radiant to Force? I think if you're okay with changing the rules of who the character is and what they represent, changing how that is expressed in mechanics goes hand in hand.



The oath is the subclass, you can't play without one. If you mean the description of the oath then no, I don't really care as long as the player has a cool alternative. And no, it doesn't make more sense to change a bunch of rules. 

There are no rules of 'who the character is' by the way, just what they can do. The player decides who the character is.



ad_hoc said:


> There are countless other examples. Somewhere we're going to find a line which a person won't allow. So how do we determine why that is and what guidelines can we use? What is our starting point?



There are countless examples you can make that are very different either in scale or in kind? I bet there are. Not a single example in your post was a reasonable comparison to the Barbarian fluff though. In fact, all of them were about rules, not fluff. So there's that.

 When it comes to where to draw the line, everyone is different. Personally, I don't care about fluff, it's not a rule so it won't affect game balance and it's important that a player end up with a character they are excited to play. I mostly avoid changing rules without serious consideration and maybe some play testing. I treat rules and fluff differently because they aren't the same thing.

I think you'll find that upon consideration my approach is actually very lenient, rather than hard core. I want players to have as much freedom as possible to build a character they are excited about. Getting bent out of shape about changing color text, on the other hand, sounds pretty hard core to me.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 25, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> At what point do you disallow changing the fluff? Everyone has a line.



 I think that a lot of people have the line somewhere around "If it makes sense, sounds cool, and fits in the world, go for it!"



> Would you be okay with a non-religious Cleric? How about someone taking Cleric and refluffing all the spells to be commands so they can play a 'Warlord'? Is that okay?



 Without houseruling, those spells would still obey all of the rules associated with them. So they'd still be magical, able to be counterspelled, require the caster to present a holy symbol or whatever.
That may well not fit into what a warlord means in the world or to the player.



> How about a Paladin without an oath? What about a character fluffed to be an Eldritch Knight but taking the Paladin class? If that is okay wouldn't it make more sense in the game to just change their casting ability to Intelligence and their smite from Radiant to Force? I think if you're okay with changing the rules of who the character is and what they represent, changing how that is expressed in mechanics goes hand in hand.



 I would regard the oath as a part of the Paladin subclass' rules, not its fluff.
Changing the actual rules mechanics, such as which ability spellcasting keys off, or the damage type of an ability, requires houseruling rather than just refluffing.


----------



## Arilyn (Feb 25, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> At what point do you disallow changing the fluff? Everyone has a line.
> 
> I disagree about the Barbarian having the most specifics, it might be true that people are the most lenient about changing the Barbarian fluff.
> 
> ...



It's fluff. It's just supposed to explain and be the story behind the mechanics. It's easy to change the fluff, use the mechanics as written and still have a wealth of viable characters. No, there isn't a line, as long as the concept makes sense and fits into the campaign setting. 

I think Chaosmancer's barbarian/knight is cool, and if Chaosmancer is happy with the barbarian mechanics for his knight, why change the class name? Sounds confusing if the character is following all the rules for barbarian. I might even steal the concept. Take the guardian spirit sub class, and have knightly ancestors appear, or totem barbarian because there is a shamanistic tradition running through the family from ages past, or maybe lycanthropy. This whole mix has got me going. 

This opposition to refluffing classes has me baffled. We do it a lot, and some of our more memorable characters don't even remotely come close to the default, but the mechanics work great, especially when paired with an appropriate background and/or feats. 

Using absurd examples to prove your points are not strengthening your argument at all. The majority of players who refluff are going to have interesting and sensible background explanations.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 25, 2020)

Arilyn said:


> It's fluff. It's just supposed to explain and be the story behind the mechanics. It's easy to change the fluff, use the mechanics as written and still have a wealth of viable characters.




The thing is, 'fluff' is integral to an RPG.

This isn't like Magic: the Gathering's flavour text. Changing the italicized text on the cards doesn't change the game. 

In an RPG the 'fluff' is the game. 'Fluff' and 'mechanics' are intertwined in an RPG. Just the 1 or the other yields something that isn't a game.



> No, there isn't a line, as long as the concept makes sense and fits into the campaign setting.




You said there is no line and then immediately described where your line would be. 

The next step is deciding what makes sense and fits into the campaign setting. Everyone will have a different answer to that question.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 25, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> In an RPG the 'fluff' is the game. 'Fluff' and 'mechanics' are intertwined in an RPG. Just the 1 or the other yields something that isn't a game.



This is patently untrue. See HERO System, GURPS, etc.


----------



## Maestrino (Feb 25, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> The thing is, 'fluff' is integral to an RPG.
> 
> This isn't like Magic: the Gathering's flavour text. Changing the italicized text on the cards doesn't change the game.
> 
> In an RPG the 'fluff' is the game. 'Fluff' and 'mechanics' are intertwined in an RPG. Just the 1 or the other yields something that isn't a game.




That seems to be missing the point that you can completely change the "fluff" to adapt the mechanics to a different vision of a character with no impact to how the game is played. Every interaction outside of combat is a DM judgment call to best represent what's going on in-game.

Take the Sharpshooter feat, for example. The "fluff" says "You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible. "

You could rewrite that to say "You have been cybernetically enhanced, giving you extraordinary vision and fine motor control." And then leave the benefits of the feat unchanged. Totally different fluff, different characters. The mechanical benefits are identical.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 25, 2020)

Maestrino said:


> Take the Sharpshooter feat, for example. The "fluff" says "You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible. "
> 
> You could rewrite that to say "You have been cybernetically enhanced, giving you extraordinary vision and fine motor control." And then leave the benefits of the feat unchanged. Totally different fluff, different characters. The mechanical benefits are identical.



You could but it wouldn't make much sense unless the character receives many other benefits for their "extraordinary vision and fine motor control".


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 25, 2020)

Maestrino said:


> That seems to be missing the point that you can completely change the "fluff" to adapt the mechanics to a different vision of a character with no impact to how the game is played. Every interaction outside of combat is a DM judgment call to best represent what's going on in-game.
> 
> Take the Sharpshooter feat, for example. The "fluff" says "You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible. "
> 
> You could rewrite that to say "You have been cybernetically enhanced, giving you extraordinary vision and fine motor control." And then leave the benefits of the feat unchanged. Totally different fluff, different characters. The mechanical benefits are identical.




That is a much bigger change to the game than something small like changing Sharpshooter to: -6 to hit for +10 damage.

Your change fundamentally changes what a lot of things in the game mean and has repercussions in narrative, story, and adjudication of other events.

Changing the penalty to hit from -5 to -6 will be barely noticeable in grand scheme of things.

One is a 'fluff' change and the other is a 'mechanical' change but the fluff change has a much larger impact on the game.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 25, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> AND they learned the ability.
> 
> There isn't a discrepancy.  You've just left out the step of "learning the ability."




I'm sorry, no where in the fluff or the mechanics does it talk about "learning" the ability. It just says you can do this because you think and act faster than everyone else. 

So, you can homebrew it if you like, but it isn't a learned ability by RAW.





Maxperson said:


> So he was slower than everyone else before he learned that ability?  And after he's the same as everyone else?  Not every other character hesitates, so if you stop hesitating you are just moving normally now.  How did you model the penalty that hesitating would give you?  Were you unable to use Dash, Hide and Disengage in the first round, because you hesitated?




His hesitation caused him to act slower, preventing him from being able to dash or hide as a bonus action (disengage never came up). By level two, he was growing more confident and was able to dash or disengage as a bonus action. 

I was never unable to take actions, I simply became able to take more actions as he grew more confident. Because he actually is incredibly fast and able to act in combat faster than his companions when he is acting at full capacity.

The point being, that for my character, this ability manifested from a different source than the PHB suggested.




Arilyn said:


> I think Chaosmancer's barbarian/knight is cool, and if Chaosmancer is happy with the barbarian mechanics for his knight, why change the class name? Sounds confusing if the character is following all the rules for barbarian. I might even steal the concept. Take the guardian spirit sub class, and have knightly ancestors appear, or totem barbarian because there is a shamanistic tradition running through the family from ages past, or maybe lycanthropy. This whole mix has got me going.




I'm glad something good is coming out of this thread. Hope you have a ton of fun with your concepts. The Lycanthropy thing sounds particularly awesome if you are going in the direction I'm thinking. Which is that the "spirit" of the curse was bound, but appears during the rage and other abilities.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 25, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> That is a much bigger change to the game than something small like changing Sharpshooter to: -6 to hit for +10 damage.
> 
> Your change fundamentally changes what a lot of things in the game mean and has repercussions in narrative, story, and adjudication of other events.
> 
> ...



Not really. In the typical cyberpunk setting that I think Maestrino's game is set, thats a good representation of a "smartgun" system which uses existing rules. Heck, works fine for an artificer or in the Eberron setting as well.

Furthermore, I think that the majority of tables would accept you fluffing your character's new precision with ranged weapons as something like that that, as long as it fits the world, where they would treat changing the rules of the feat as very much houserule territory, requiting DM intervention.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 26, 2020)

ad_hoc said:


> That is a much bigger change to the game than something small like changing Sharpshooter to: -6 to hit for +10 damage.
> 
> Your change fundamentally changes what a lot of things in the game mean and has repercussions in narrative, story, and adjudication of other events.
> 
> ...



Pardon? The change to the fluff has no impact on the game. None. It doesn't matter if the character is cybernetically enhanced, a reincarnation of the god of archery, or just a really good shot. Those are all _descriptions_ of rule X, in in each case the effect in the game is the same - i.e. how the rule changes the character's ability to interact with the game world. Changing the rules for the Sharpshooter feat change how the character actually interacts with the game world. In short, so long as it makes sense it doesn't matter why he's a great shot, it just matters that he is now and wasn't before.


----------



## raif11152 (Feb 26, 2020)

People can absolutely play their class wrong. As a DM, I just don't stop them from playing it "wrong". There of course may be consequences, however.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 26, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Pardon? The change to the fluff has no impact on the game. None. It doesn't matter if the character is cybernetically enhanced, a reincarnation of the god of archery, or just a really good shot. Those are all _descriptions_ of rule X, in in each case the effect in the game is the same - i.e. how the rule changes the character's ability to interact with the game world. Changing the rules for the Sharpshooter feat change how the character actually interacts with the game world. In short, so long as it makes sense it doesn't matter why he's a great shot, it just matters that he is now and wasn't before.




I think what @ad_hoc  is getting at is that changing the feat to include cybernetics necessarily adds cybernetics to the game world.

That creates a massive change to the world, if it is a low-tech, low-magic world to suddenly have cybernetically enhanced archers. You would have to find where they came from and many other aspects which would ripple out and make massive changes to the world.

So, I understand their position on this one. That is a setting changing difference, unless the setting supports magi-tech already.



raif11152 said:


> People can absolutely play their class wrong. As a DM, I just don't stop them from playing it "wrong". There of course may be consequences, however.





I am sure I don't actually want to know but

1) How do you think people can play their class wrong?

2) Since you would not step in and "stop" them, what sort of consequences are you talking about for a player like that?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 26, 2020)

I was assuming we were talking about a world with cybernetics. Obviously adding a little cyberpunk to your Faerun is a huge deal. In Eberron you could probably figure out how to re-skin that lightly and make it work just fine though. My point was more about the lack of impact the fluff has when it comes to describing abilities.

I am also dying to hear all about how people can play their class wrong. [insert popcorn eating gif here]


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 26, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> I was assuming we were talking about a world with cybernetics. Obviously adding a little cyberpunk to your Faerun is a huge deal. In Eberron you could probably figure out how to re-skin that lightly and make it work just fine though. My point was more about the lack of impact the fluff has when it comes to describing abilities.
> 
> I am also dying to hear all about how people can play their class wrong. [insert popcorn eating gif here]




I understand, but I think ad_hoc was taking a much more... I don't know if I want to say conservative view, but I believe they were assuming you were starting with a standard fantasy world


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 26, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> I understand, but I think ad_hoc was taking a much more... I don't know if I want to say conservative view, but I believe they were assuming you were starting with a standard fantasy world



I'm going to guess that's the royal 'you' since that example wasn't mine. Anyway, I think we've cleared that up. Now we can wait with baited breath for the down low on how people play classes wrong.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> I'm sorry, no where in the fluff or the mechanics does it talk about "learning" the ability. It just says you can do this because you think and act faster than everyone else.




Page 15 of the PHB:

"In the first tier (levels 1-4), characters are effectively apprentice adventurers. *They are learning the features that define them as members of particular classes*, including the major choices that flavor their class features as they advance (such as a wizard’s Arcane Tradition or a fighter’s Martial Archetype)."


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 26, 2020)

Similar/related, because everything on ENWorld is cyclical:









						D&D 5E - Do Classes Have Concrete Meaning In Your Game?
					

To clarify, do class names have a concrete meaning in your game world?  Do they exist as understood professions with associated abilities?  If someone introduces themselves as a "Fighter" is it automatically understood and assumed that they would have the class abilities of the Fighter class, as...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> On the contrary, this isn't a hard line at all. I believe that most D&D players would take the same view: A change to the actual mechanics of a class requires a houserule, *whereas most fluff changes are the player's prerogative as long as they fit into the world.*



This was true in 4e, but it's not true in 5e.  If players want to change something, they need to get DM approval.  I would expect minor fluff changes to be rubber stamped.  Larger changes would sometimes be denied.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Arilyn said:


> It's fluff. It's just supposed to explain and be the story behind the mechanics. It's easy to change the fluff, use the mechanics as written and still have a wealth of viable characters. No, there isn't a line, as long as the concept makes sense and fits into the campaign setting.




Fluff, though, doesn't exist in a vacuum.  It has to not only match the mechanics you are dealing with, but you have to be careful what your new fluff says, because it can also imply OTHER mechanics which if they don't exist, can cause disconnects.  

Take Chaosmancer's hesitation re-write of Cunning Action.  Because he uses hesitation as the reason he doesn't have cunning action and the loss of that hesitation as the reason it just appears out of nowhere, he creates a mechanical problem with my PC.  My PC has the same Int and Dex as his PC, so either I am forced by Chaosmancer to have a perpetual case of hesitation, which is no bueno, or my PC who doesn't hesitate should automatically get Cunning Action, despite not being a rogue.  

The same goes for the cyborg with extraordinary fine motor control and extraordinary vision.  Such a PC would also have bonuses to perception where vision is concerned, as well as seeing oncoming enemies before they can see you, giving the PCs an advantage when out in the open.  

Those two pieces of fluff are poorly written and cause disconnects when applied logically to the PC and the rest of the world, since the other implied mechanics will not be present.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Page 15 of the PHB:
> 
> "In the first tier (levels 1-4), characters are effectively apprentice adventurers. *They are learning the features that define them as members of particular classes*, including the major choices that flavor their class features as they advance (such as a wizard’s Arcane Tradition or a fighter’s Martial Archetype)."




I see so the Sorcerer's magic, metamagic, sorcery points, and first bloodline ability are learned? 

And if the sorcerer's abilities aren't learned, is it not reasonable that other abilities might not be learned? After all a warlock and cleric are granted powers as well, are they not? Rage is a learned ability?

But, you will likely call those exceptions while the example of cunning action isn't an exception, because of reasons you will likely try and make abundantly obscure.



Maxperson said:


> Fluff, though, doesn't exist in a vacuum.  It has to not only match the mechanics you are dealing with, but you have to be careful what your new fluff says, because it can also imply OTHER mechanics which if they don't exist, can cause disconnects.
> 
> Take Chaosmancer's hesitation re-write of Cunning Action.  Because he uses hesitation as the reason he doesn't have cunning action and the loss of that hesitation as the reason it just appears out of nowhere, he creates a mechanical problem with my PC.  My PC has the same Int and Dex as his PC, so either I am forced by Chaosmancer to have a perpetual case of hesitation, which is no bueno, or my PC who doesn't hesitate should automatically get Cunning Action, despite not being a rogue.
> 
> ...




But your character doesn't have the same background as mine, the training, the reason for his hesitance and the core of his identity in the fiction we have created, which sets up the fiction for him to actually be more highly skilled than he would present himself as.

My fluff seems "poorly written" only in the fact that I did not feel like posting the entire backstory and concept to be eviscerated as breaking something or other that you have deemed important. 

After all, it isn't even a bit of fluff that the rest of the party is likely aware of. I didn't tell them this after all, because no one asked me "why do you suddenly have cunning action as a level 2 Rogue?" but *I* wanted an explanation that made sense for my character, so I created one.

And, if the implied mechanics are that anyone can learn any class ability from level 1 to 4, then why can't an 10th level wizard decide to learn cunning action? Seems your fluff also has implied mechanics which will not be present


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 26, 2020)

Hmm, I think trying to suggest that every class ability is a learned skill is kinda silly. They just aren't all that kind of thing.

As for character fluff, it's not supposed to be relateable between characters. Why should it be? It's one player building narrative and fiction for their character. We're talking about people playing a TTRPG, not a bunch of best selling authors. Trying to harp too much on the 'quality' of their fluff seems a little high handed to me. Some people have weird ideas though, and I do agree that there is some kind of minimum level of 'fits the game world and campaign' that needs to be there, and I generally work with my players when their ideas fall short of that in one way or another. 

To say that the way one player chooses to describe their character needs to have some kind of impact on other character with similar stats is just silly though. I'd be glad the player is taking enough of an interest in their character to weave some fiction around their class abilities, something that generally indexes better role playing.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> I see so the Sorcerer's magic, metamagic, sorcery points, and first bloodline ability are learned?




Unless it specifically says otherwise, in which case it beats that general rule I quoted.  Oh, wait.  It does specifically say otherwise.

C'mon dude.  You aren't even trying to come up with a counter argument that works.



> And if the sorcerer's abilities aren't learned, is it not reasonable that other abilities might not be learned?




Yes, it's reasonable to think that if other abilities specifically say that they aren't learned, that they aren't learned.



> Rage is a learned ability?




Yes it is.  It takes effort and skill to channel anger that way.  If it didn't, the barbarian would have no control over when he rages or when it stops.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Unless it specifically says otherwise, in which case it beats that general rule I quoted.  Oh, wait.  It does specifically say otherwise.
> 
> C'mon dude.  You aren't even trying to come up with a counter argument that works.
> 
> ...





So, how do you learn to think quickly?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Hmm, I think trying to suggest that every class ability is a learned skill is kinda silly. They just aren't all that kind of thing.




Every ability, no.  The vast majority of these abilities are learned, though.  That's part of what experience is.  When you gain a level, your experiences, what you learned, gives you new abilities.  Even for a sorcerer, using X and Y innate abilities can allow them to learn Z ability when they level.  They just aren't book learning things like wizards.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> So, how do you learn to think quickly?



Practice.  The brain is something that can be exercised. You can also be born with high intelligence.  It's not the thinking quickly that the ability being learned, though.  It's the Cunning Action which takes advantage of being able to think quickly and your speed.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Practice.  The brain is something that can be exercised. You can also be born with high intelligence.  It's not the thinking quickly that the ability being learned, though.  It's the Cunning Action which takes advantage of being able to think quickly and your speed.




Practice. Got it. 

And you can train to increase your speed right? 

So any class in the game should be able to take Cunning Action when they level up, correct? I mean, anyone can practice mental excersises and focus on training their reaction times.

So, which mechanic exists for any class to take Cunning Action when they level up in their normal class?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 26, 2020)

Even the idea that "they learn Z ability when they level" is pretty much the opposite of the rest of what you're saying @Maxperson . Abilities and levels are both pretty abstract, but if you want to contextualize stuff and start talking about how that happens in world, you probably don't want to start with the idea that characters suddenly learn a whole bunch of new stuff all at once because something meta happened. The abstractness of abilities also kind of puts the lie to the idea that they're all, or even mostly, 'learned' in the way you mean - Rogues aren't 'practicing' cunning action, just like Barbarians aren't 'practicing' rage - your use of learned is an issue here, as much as I don't like playing the grammar card.

Cunning action is an ability that interacts with the rules and you aren't in a position to decide for everyone how that happens, or to tell people that their story for their character is 'wrong'. Again, the difference between fluff and rules seems to have slipped through the cracks here. I'm sensing a pattern.


----------



## raif11152 (Feb 26, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> I am sure I don't actually want to know but
> 
> 1) How do you think people can play their class wrong?
> 
> 2) Since you would not step in and "stop" them, what sort of consequences are you talking about for a player like that?




A class is a job. People do their jobs wrong all the time. Doing your job wrong has consequences. Some jobs, are dangerous. Doing a dangerous job wrong can cause injuries, fatalities, etc. 

Not sure what part you don't get. I do note that I was using the ENWORLD android app for the first time today and it replied to a comment rather than creating a base level comment, so my statement may be wildly out of context. If so, my bad.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Even the idea that "they learn Z ability when they level" is pretty much the opposite of the rest of what you're saying @Maxperson . Abilities and levels are both pretty abstract, but if you want to contextualize stuff and start talking about how that happens in world, you probably don't want to start with the idea that characters suddenly learn a whole bunch of new stuff all at once because something meta happened.




What on earth makes you think that happens.  The PC is learning his abilities as he uses them the entire time he is gaining experience.  When he levels, he has been learning things moving towards that ability for the entire level.  It's not as if he's gone from 0 to 100 just because his exp counter ticked over into the next level.



> The abstractness of abilities also kind of puts the lie to the idea that they're all, or even mostly, 'learned' in the way you mean - Rogues aren't 'practicing' cunning action, just like Barbarians aren't 'practicing' rage - your use of learned is an issue here, as much as I don't like playing the grammar card.




Sure they are.  Both of them.  From level 1 to level 2, the rogue is Dashing and Hiding, and probably Disengaging.  As he does that he is learning what works well and what doesn't.  Little tricks that click through a level of practice once he hits 2nd level.  Same with barbarians and rage.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 26, 2020)

raif11152 said:


> A class is a job. People do their jobs wrong all the time. Doing your job wrong has consequences. Some jobs, are dangerous. Doing a dangerous job wrong can cause injuries, fatalities, etc.
> 
> Not sure what part you don't get. I do note that I was using the ENWORLD android app for the first time today and it replied to a comment rather than creating a base level comment, so my statement may be wildly out of context. If so, my bad.




Yeah, I would recommend double-checking that you have read the thread and understand the current debate. 

A big part of the current debate is whether a character's personality is determined by their class, such as a barbarian being required to be uncivilized and therefore not being allowed to be a knight as well. 

Your answer, in that context, sounds like engineering character deaths because they played a concept you didn't agree with, which I am going to assume is far far far outside of what you actually would propose. 

Your response almost seems more geared to things like a ranged wizard with an 8 sword fighting the BBEG, which is a character acting in a way contrary to the role they are built for, which has not been a part of the discussion to date


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Practice. Got it.
> 
> And you can train to increase your speed right?




I've done it.  I was a sprinter when I was younger.  I got faster through practice.  Same with martial artists and striking speed.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> What on earth makes you think that happens.  The PC is learning his abilities as he uses them the entire time he is gaining experience.  When he levels, he has been learning things moving towards that ability for the entire level.  It's not as if he's gone from 0 to 100 just because his exp counter ticked over into the next level.
> 
> Sure they are.  Both of them.  From level 1 to level 2, the rogue is Dashing and Hiding, and probably Disengaging.  As he does that he is learning what works well and what doesn't.  Little tricks that click through a level of practice once he hits 2nd level.  Same with barbarians and rage.




Barbarian rage happens at level 1, no previous levels to gain XP in.

What if the rogue never gets to hide, dash or disengage during the entirety of their adventuring at level 1? Do they then not learn Cunning action at level 2?



Maxperson said:


> I've done it.  I was a sprinter when I was younger.  I got faster through practice.  Same with martial artists and striking speed.




I agree, but it seems ENWorld must have cut off the last part of my post, since you didn't see it. I'll repeat it for your convenience.

*So any class in the game should be able to take Cunning Action when they level up, correct? I mean, anyone can practice mental excersises and focus on training their reaction times.

So, which mechanic exists for any class to take Cunning Action when they level up in their normal class? *

It is a pretty big section of the post, and seems to appear for me, so I'm wondering how you missed it, but such are the vagaries of technology.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Barbarian rage happens at level 1, no previous levels to gain XP in.




And you think they were born at level 1 do you?



> What if the rogue never gets to hide, dash or disengage during the entirety of their adventuring at level 1? Do they then not learn Cunning action at level 2?




In the extremely unlikely event that happens, the rogue could have still been practicing during non-combat.  And in the very extremely unlikely even that the rogue somehow levels from 1 to 2 without being able to move, it would create one of those disconnects I mentioned.



> *So any class in the game should be able to take Cunning Action when they level up, correct? I mean, anyone can practice mental excersises and focus on training their reaction times.*




That's what multi-classing is for


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> And you think they were born at level 1 do you?




I don't but since you are talking about expeirence and levels, it is fair to point out there are no rules for level 0, so I could not assume you were adding those.




Maxperson said:


> In the extremely unlikely event that happens, the rogue could have still been practicing during non-combat.  And in the very extremely unlikely even that the rogue somehow levels from 1 to 2 without being able to move, it would create one of those disconnects I mentioned.




So, we must assume that the rogue is practicing hiding, disengaging from hostile forces, and running extra fast. And if the rogue is, say, planning on being an inquisitve investigator who doesn't do those things? 

Ah, but they must, the class demands it. Even if they have no proficiency in stealth to indicate they know how to hide in the first place. 

Very consistent.





Maxperson said:


> That's what multi-classing is for




I see. I figured that would be your answer.

So, in order to learn how to move quickly and train your mind through mental exercises, you first must have a dexterity of 13. Then you must learn how to wear light armor, figure out how to pick locks, disarm traps, set traps. Learn Thieve's Cant, very important to know the secret code of thieves. Then figure out sneak attack, whatever the fluff for that is. Then learn a new skill, any skill really, even how to be intimidating. Then get really good at some of the skills you have. 

Then wait a while while you actually train your ability to think quickly and move quickly, probably a long while, after all, the higher your level the longer it will take to learn some new skills... despite almost that entire paragraph happening in one level of advancement. 

Seems like that might make some bad fluff. After all, all of the fighter types know how to use leather armor, theives tools can be easily picked up, Theive's Cant too with just some gold and training. Got skills already, there are a few ways to get expertise... and yet none of that will give you Rogue Level 1. 

Strange, still seems like there is mechanic implied by your fluff that isn't in the game


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> So, we must assume that the rogue is practicing hiding, disengaging from hostile forces, and running extra fast. And if the rogue is, say, planning on being an inquisitve investigator who doesn't do those things?




Then you should probably talk to your DM about getting an ability that you will actually use.  Having Cunning Action is worthless if you don't do those things.



> So, in order to learn how to move quickly and train your mind through mental exercises, you first must have a dexterity of 13. Then you must learn how to wear light armor, figure out how to pick locks, disarm traps, set traps. Learn Thieve's Cant, very important to know the secret code of thieves. Then figure out sneak attack, whatever the fluff for that is. Then learn a new skill, any skill really, even how to be intimidating. Then get really good at some of the skills you have.




No game is perfect.  Having to jump through these hoops to "prove" your point just ends up supporting mine.  The game will have moments that don't make sense.  That doesn't mean that it's a good thing to amplify and increase the numbers of those moments.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Then you should probably talk to your DM about getting an ability that you will actually use.  Having Cunning Action is worthless if you don't do those things.




Right, so your defense of the limitation you imposed is to homebrew the problem away. 

Change the rules and there is no problem in your claims.





Maxperson said:


> No game is perfect.  Having to jump through these hoops to "prove" your point just ends up supporting mine.  The game will have moments that don't make sense.  That doesn't mean that it's a good thing to amplify and increase the numbers of those moments.




I see, you admit your logic is faulty, that your approach has the same problems you claimed my approach had, but that my approach is still worse because you feel like it increases the number of times it happens. 

Very clever, you don't even need to defend your positon if you don't care about it leading to the same place as the position you are arguing against.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Right, so your defense of the limitation you imposed is to homebrew the problem away.
> 
> Change the rules and there is no problem in your claims.




ROFL  Dude, YOU imposed that limit.  I didn't come up with a character who didn't ever use those abilities.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I've told this to you more than once, to Chaosmancer multiple time, and to others multiple times.  At LEAST 10 times now, so this is the last time I'm going to tell you.
> 
> It's the general theme of the fluff that matters, not the specifics written.  Can gnomes be in tribes?  Yes.  Can those tribes be in mountains?  Yes.  All that matters is that the gnome can meet the general theme of the barbarian class.




But, Barbarians can't come from mountains.  They specifically come from, "tundra, jungle or grasslands." (PHB 46).  So, according to you, gnomes do not meet the general theme of the barbarian class.  

So, no, you haven't told me.  You told me that dwarves could be barbarians because specific trumps general.  Fair enough.  But, that isn't the case here.  There is no specific to trump the general.  In fact, the specific, specifically, does not allow for gnome barbarians.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Hussar said:


> But, Barbarians can't come from mountains.  They specifically come from, "tundra, jungle or grasslands." (PHB 46).  So, according to you, gnomes do not meet the general theme of the barbarian class.




Go troll someone else.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Go troll someone else.



Sorry, but, how is using the rules you set out in this thread trolling?

You have SPECIFICALLY stated that the flavor text in the books are rules and cannot be changed without house rules.  They are ironclad.  The flavor text for barbarians specifies three locales that barbarians can come from.  So, can I make a barbarian that comes from a mountainous region or not?  And, if I can, how do you justify it?


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> ROFL  Dude, YOU imposed that limit.  I didn't come up with a character who didn't ever use those abilities.




Why do I always have to go back over the discussion we just had?

You said Cunning Action was a learned ability, that a 1st level rogue hiding, disengaging and dashing learned from those experiences and "unlocked" Cunning action at level 2.

I responded that they might not get the chance to hide, disengage or dash during combat in 1st level. It is after all, the shortest level in the game.

Your response was that they must practice those skills out of combat, during their downtime (Which would be even shorter at level 1, but I'll gloss over that)

I then asked, what about a Rogue whom it would make little sense to do something like practice hiding? Investigators or Swashbucklers would not need to hide, and they might not have even taken Stealth as a skill. Nothing outside of tradition requires Rogues to be skilled in stealth after all.

And your response was that if you were not going to use your abilities, you might as well change the rules to give you an ability you would use.

Which, misses the point. Perhaps the character doesn't want to hide, but the player does want dash and hide as a bonus action, they are playing a rogue after all. But, even if the character explicitly wouldn't learn the ability, they still get it, so how do we justify that? How do we square the fact that you must train a skill that you would not train to gain Cunning Action as a rogue?

This is a weakness in the argument that all abilities have fluff and all fluff are rules that should be obeyed. It breaks down and begins making less sense the more you dig into it. And, if you are unwilling to defend your own position, why must you arguing against mine?

Edit: Unless it is your position that all rogues must take the stealth skill. Then we have a whole different issue to discuss.



Hussar said:


> Sorry, but, how is using the rules you set out in this thread trolling?
> 
> You have SPECIFICALLY stated that the flavor text in the books are rules and cannot be changed without house rules.  They are ironclad.  The flavor text for barbarians specifies three locales that barbarians can come from.  So, can I make a barbarian that comes from a mountainous region or not?  And, if I can, how do you justify it?




You should go back a few pages where Max explained this before Hussar.

You see, barbarian tribes can live in mountains, that doesn't break the general theme. So the list of Tundra, Grassland or Jungle is merely an example list, after all Max has stated repeatedly that you don't need to follow the specific rules, like a list of geographic locations, but you must instead focus on following the general themes, like all barbarians are uncomfortable within city walls and don't like crowds.

It really is very simple, Max is just always right, no matter if it contradicts what he said before, because that was also right and he didn't say what you think he said. I should know, I've been responding to him for nearly three days and I seem to have gotten every single position he has taken wrong at multiple turns.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 26, 2020)

Yeah, you're right.  I should know better.  But, sometimes, just once in a while, playing whack a mole and spanking someone really thoroughly, is just so ... therapeutic.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> What on earth makes you think that happens.  The PC is learning his abilities as he uses them the entire time he is gaining experience.  When he levels, he has been learning things moving towards that ability for the entire level.  It's not as if he's gone from 0 to 100 just because his exp counter ticked over into the next level.



The way your previous post was worded it sounded like that was your model. So we agree on that anyway, nice.

Here's the thing about class abilities - they aren't really something the character practices, they're an abstract rule meant to represent a lot of different things about the character. The actions in D&D, things like Dash, Disengage, etc, are also abstracts, they aren't skills in the way that you want them to be. Some of them come closer to that than others of course. But a Rogue isn't 'practicing' cunning action, that's an abstract rule meant to represent some combination of speed, fast hands and quick thinking and the class gets it no matter which actions they use, what the character concept is, and regardless of practice of any kind. Practice can't be the answer anyway, for reasons already brought up - if it was just about practice then any character who practiced those things, say a fast DEX-based fighter, would also get the ability, but they don't. Why not? Because the rules are abstractions, not the result of character actions within the diagetic frame. Obviously the verisimilitude goes up when there is a better connection between actual character actions and new abilities, but that isn't how the game is designed and that bit is left to role playing.



Maxperson said:


> Sure they are.  Both of them.  From level 1 to level 2, the rogue is Dashing and Hiding, and probably Disengaging.  As he does that he is learning what works well and what doesn't.  Little tricks that click through a level of practice once he hits 2nd level.  Same with barbarians and rage.



Again, abstractions, although the actions come a little closer to mirroring what's actually happening in the fiction. It's not 'practice' though, if it were a fighter would be the king of disengaging since that's a core part melee combat training. I'm not suggesting that most rogues don't perform those actions, they do, of course, and Cunning Action makes sense a rogue ability too, because it reflects in a general way what rogues are usually good at, but it isn't tied to actual character concept or anything else. The fit between a specific character and the class abilities is always going to be fuzzy and that's on purpose - the abilities are designed to reflect most Rogues most of the time, but not every ability clearly reflects every Rogue all of the time.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Hussar said:


> You have SPECIFICALLY stated that the flavor text in the books are rules and cannot be changed without house rules.  They are ironclad.  The flavor text for barbarians specifies three locales that barbarians can come from.  So, can I make a barbarian that comes from a mountainous region or not?  And, if I can, how do you justify it?



I never said that.  Someone else said that they are all rules.  I've maintained from the start that the specifics can be changed, but if you change all of or the vast majority of the fluff, it becomes a new *homebrew* class.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> I responded that they might not get the chance to hide, disengage or dash during combat in 1st level. It is after all, the shortest level in the game.
> 
> Your response was that they must practice those skills out of combat, during their downtime (Which would be even shorter at level 1, but I'll gloss over that)




And all the rest of their lives in which they hid and ran around.



> I then asked, what about a Rogue whom it would make little sense to do something like practice hiding? Investigators or Swashbucklers would not need to hide, and they might not have even taken Stealth as a skill. Nothing outside of tradition requires Rogues to be skilled in stealth after all.




That is not what you said.  This is what you said, "So, we must assume that the rogue is practicing hiding, disengaging from hostile forces, and running extra fast. And if the rogue is, say, planning on being an inquisitve investigator* who doesn't do those things*? "

Those things.  All three.  Not just hide.  You were forced to come up with a white room, corner case PC who walks everywhere and has never even jogged for his entire life, has never hidden(and even investigators have to hide sometimes), and who has never run and will never run away.  The guy would have to stroll away from a dragon trying to eat him. 

Having to come up with an absurd white room character like that is pretty much auto fail.



> And your response was that if you were not going to use your abilities, you might as well change the rules to give you an ability you would use.




Yes. Someone absurd like that who has never and will never hide, move faster than a walk or run away from even the deadliest encounter should not have that ability and you should work with your DM to fix the broken PC.



> This is a weakness in the argument that all abilities have fluff and all fluff are rules that should be obeyed. It breaks down and begins making less sense the more you dig into it. And, if you are unwilling to defend your own position, why must you arguing against mine?




This is a blatant Strawman.  I've never claimed that all fluff are rules and should be obeyed and you know it.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, you're right.  I should know better.  But, sometimes, just once in a while, playing whack a mole and spanking someone really thoroughly, is just so ... therapeutic.



You mean you like to troll me.  This isn't the first time you have done so and it won't be the last.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> Here's the thing about class abilities - they aren't really something the character practices, they're an abstract rule meant to represent a lot of different things about the character. The actions in D&D, things like Dash, Disengage, etc, are also abstracts, they aren't skills in the way that you want them to be.




Not me.  The game itself.  I quoted the section that said they are learned.



> Some of them come closer to that than others of course. But a Rogue isn't 'practicing' cunning action, that's an abstract rule meant to represent some combination of speed, fast hands and quick thinking and the class gets it no matter which actions they use, what the character concept is, and regardless of practice of any kind.




No, of course he isn't practicing Cunning Action.  He IS practicing hiding and running, though, which becomes Cunning Action at the appropriate time.



> Practice can't be the answer anyway, for reasons already brought up - if it was just about practice then any character who practiced those things, say a fast DEX-based fighter, would also get the ability, but they don't. Why not?




Because they get other things for their practice.  Even with something as simple as running, there are different ways to practice it and different applications for even the same kind of practice.  The rogue learns X tricks and gets Cunning Action, the fighter learns Y tricks and gets Action Surge, the Barbarian learns Z tricks and can move faster and the wizard just gets tired as he's not interested in learning from his practice and just wants to learn more spells.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 26, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> It really is very simple, Max is just always right, no matter if it contradicts what he said before, because that was also right and he didn't say what you think he said. I should know, I've been responding to him for nearly three days and I seem to have gotten every single position he has taken wrong at multiple turns.



And yet multiple others, @Xetheral and @Fenris-77 as two examples, are having nice conversations with me.  They aren't getting things wrong or using fallacious reasoning the way you and @Hussar do.  The fault lies with you two deliberately twisting what I say like you do in this post(there have been no contradictions in this thread) and then piling on(trolling me).  You two should be ashamed of yourselves, but I know that you won't be.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> And all the rest of their lives in which they hid and ran around.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





ROFLOL

Oh my god, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad that you are serious. 

You want to extend it to every time they hide even as a child? Every time they have ever run?

That makes it so so so much worse for you. 

You realize that for basic military fitness, heck for basic fitness, you run a mile a day? Every day. 

A fighter with the soldier background has likely run a mile a day for *years*. A ranger with the outlander background probably has run cross-country even more than that.

Neither class can dash as a bonus action. 

A warlock hiding in libraries every week doesn't get to hide as a bonus action. Even though they might have been sneaking around for months to get the tomes they desire.

If you want to absurdum my argument to think I meant they have never run or hid in their life then you open the door to cunning action being open to any person with basic fitness.




Maxperson said:


> Because they get other things for their practice.  Even with something as simple as running, there are different ways to practice it and different applications for even the same kind of practice.  The rogue learns X tricks and gets Cunning Action, the fighter learns Y tricks and gets Action Surge, the Barbarian learns Z tricks and can move faster and the wizard just gets tired as he's not interested in learning from his practice and just wants to learn more spells.




Ah. Different people learn different tricks from the same practice? So the rogue and fighter who run a mile everyday, exact same training program, one will learn how to once an hour get a boost of attacks, the other will be able to quickly hide in the shadows every six seconds with no limits. 

It is an often observed phenomena that people going through the exact same training program come away with vastly different skills.



Maxperson said:


> And yet multiple others, @Xetheral and @Fenris-77 as two examples, are having nice conversations with me.  They aren't getting things wrong or using fallacious reasoning the way you and @Hussar do.  The fault lies with you two deliberately twisting what I say like you do in this post(there have been no contradictions in this thread) and then piling on(trolling me).  You two should be ashamed of yourselves, but I know that you won't be.




Maybe I should be ashamed, you've gotten me quite upset, but I still come back and try and reason with you. 

But again, I'm not twisting anything. You are saying everything I'm repeating. 

You have said that a specific sentence in a paragraph had to be followed, or it was a homebrew class.

You then said that the very next sentence in that paragraph is only a set of suggestions, not a prescription you have to follow or homebrew the class to change it. 

You said abilities must be learned. 

Then you have a problem with the implications of that. 

Now you are taking more extreme versions of that position to try and make sense of the situations you are proposing


----------



## Umbran (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> You mean you like to troll me.  This isn't the first time you have done so and it won't be the last.




*Mod note:*
Then perhaps you should make use of the ignore list?  Because repeatedly being nasty is obviously not working for you.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 26, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Yeah, you're right.  I should know better.




*Mod note:*
Yes, you should.  I mean, really.  You just _publicly admitted_ intent to not treat people in a civil manner.  Not bright.

How about you take a break from this discussion, and find one in which you don't feel this urge to treat people poorly...


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Not me.  The game itself.  I quoted the section that said they are learned.



I went into some detail about the various levels you can apply 'learned' at. My point was that the characters aren't learning class abilities - those are abstract functions of the rules. They are learning a host of in-game skills that those abilities are supposed to represent though. In the second case, the abstraction shows through because not every specific instance of a class actually uses or practices those skills in-game, but gets the ability anyway.



Maxperson said:


> No, of course he isn't practicing Cunning Action.  He IS practicing hiding and running, though, which becomes Cunning Action at the appropriate time.



Rangers practice running and hiding, and they don't get cunning action. Why? Because the abilities are abstractions and the Ranger class has different abstracted abilities. It's not about the character practicing running and hiding though, it can't be, or at least it's not just about that.



Maxperson said:


> Because they get other things for their practice.  Even with something as simple as running, there are different ways to practice it and different applications for even the same kind of practice.  The rogue learns X tricks and gets Cunning Action, the fighter learns Y tricks and gets Action Surge, the Barbarian learns Z tricks and can move faster and the wizard just gets tired as he's not interested in learning from his practice and just wants to learn more spells.



This feels like a bit of a reach to me. The argument has already fallen apart when it comes to basic stuff like disengage and cunning action. It only comes back together when take the level of abstraction into account. A very similar level of abstraction is why there are so many arguments about skills and stats. The connection between stealth and dexterity only, for example, isn't a product of the game world, it's a product of the rules. Interestingly, the abstraction I'm talking about is clearly indexed in the part of your post above. Maybe we aren't as far apart on this as it seems.


----------



## Arilyn (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I never said that.  Someone else said that they are all rules.  I've maintained from the start that the specifics can be changed, but if you change all of or the vast majority of the fluff, it becomes a new *homebrew* class.



I will agree that the character may not be a particular class, as written. Chaosmancer's barbarian, for example, is more knight than barbarian. But, since the knight is using all the barbarian features, mechanically he's a barbarian. For example:

CM: Hey, I have a homebrewed class for your campaign. Is that okay? 

GM: Let me look at it first. This is just a barbarian. Do you have later ability changes in mind? 

CM: Nope, happy with the official barbarian. Just thought, since he's not a tribal warrior, you might not approve, or want me to change the name of his class. 

GM: So, you are actually looking for background approval. It's good. But please write barbarian under class, so there is no confusion. 

Homebrew is changing actual rules and mechanics, or adding new feats and races. It's not just narrative fluff to explain your campaign world, which is just D&D "out of the box." The flavour text provides interest, colour and examples. It's to also help put us in the mood, just like the art does. It's not there as rules. So if a player wants a city druid, focusing on rats, pigeons, domestic animals and maybe oozes, that's cool. That's a nice change from the standard druid. And unless, some actual abilities are altered to make the class more urban, it's not homebrew. It's not a new class, it's just background. And background fluff is assumed to be highly mutable, and full of creativity. RPGers are an imaginative bunch, even when not changing mechanics.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 26, 2020)

Arilyn said:


> I will agree that the character may not be a particular class, as written. Chaosmancer's barbarian, for example, is more knight than barbarian. But, since the knight is using all the barbarian features, mechanically he's a barbarian. For example:
> 
> CM: Hey, I have a homebrewed class for your campaign. Is that okay?
> 
> ...




I agree that if you want to play a character with the Barbarian class which does not fit that class that you should bring it up to the table to get their buy in.

The line will differ by table. For you a city Druid who focuses on the wildlife in a city is fine. But what if the player wants to play a character with the Druid class who does not care about wildlife or nature in general?

You previously said my example of a non-religious Cleric was extreme and not what we were talking about. I would wager that a lot of people would find such a character to be just fine. 

How would you feel if someone brought a character (whatever that may be) to your game which you felt was not fitting for it?

My stance is that the PHB is a base line. Add in any additional setting rules, books, and supplements being used and players know what is considered acceptable.

My stance is that changing things is also fine. However, some changes are not fine. This goes for both 'fluff' and 'mechanics' though I do not recognize that RPGs have true 'fluff' the way other games do. I also don't think 'mechanics' in RPGs are written in stone as written in the books. They should be changed as seen fit by each table as anything else.

People in this thread apparently think my stance is extreme. I just don't get it. This is the way I've been playing RPGs my whole life and it's also the way all the players at my table play. As always the internet puts us in contact with people who have entirely different experiences and views so there is that.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I've maintained from the start that the specifics can be changed, but if you change all of or the vast majority of the fluff, it becomes a new *homebrew* class.



Would you say that my comparison between the flavor text to a line-of-best-fit is apt?


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 26, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> No game is perfect.  Having to jump through these hoops to "prove" your point just ends up supporting mine.  The game will have moments that don't make sense.  That doesn't mean that it's a good thing to amplify and increase the numbers of those moments.



I think Chaosmancer’s point is that you are applying a double standard: unorthodox builds are scrutinized for any inconsistencies between fluff and mechanics whereas any inconsistencies that already exist in the PHB are handwaved as “not important”. 

I think a better example of Chaosmancer’s point is Thieves’ Cant.  There are completely standard Rogue builds that have no reason to know thieves’ cant (Scout Rogues for instance).  I doubt you would argue that Scout Rogues are homebrew because of this inconsistency.

Yet you are treating Barbarian Knight as homebrew because of an equivalent inconsistency.


----------



## FrozenNorth (Feb 26, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> I'm glad something good is coming out of this thread. Hope you have a ton of fun with your concepts. The Lycanthropy thing sounds particularly awesome if you are going in the direction I'm thinking. Which is that the "spirit" of the curse was bound, but appears during the rage and other abilities.



I’m jealous.  Hey Arilyn, can I interest you in a priest of Ioun?  I didn’t want to go the cleric path so he is an Inquisitive Rogue with the Acolyte background and I play him like person devoted to the idea of Truth and sharing information with the world.


----------



## Arilyn (Feb 26, 2020)

FrozenNorth said:


> I’m jealous.  Hey Arilyn, can I interest you in a priest of Ioun?  I didn’t want to go the cleric path so he is an Inquisitive Rogue with the Acolyte background and I play him like person devoted to the idea of Truth and sharing information with the world.



For sure. Sounds awesome. I like the idea of a rogue dedicated to truth with the acolyte background. I'll steal that idea too.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 27, 2020)

Fenris-77 said:


> The connection between stealth and dexterity only, for example, isn't a product of the game world, it's a product of the rules. Interestingly, the abstraction I'm talking about is clearly indexed in the part of your post above. Maybe we aren't as far apart on this as it seems.



Yeah.  I don't think we are all that far apart.  There's definitely abstraction at work.  That abstraction is what forms the foundation that "teaches" the PC his new ability.  Think back.  How many times have you just suddenly known how to do something fairly difficult?  Probably none or next to none.  Your experiences, though, however they came to you, probably came together at some point and enabled you to do something.  Perhaps something you previously couldn't do years before, but when you were older and had done more, it was suddenly much easier or even easy.  

I've been using practice as my example, but that's not the only way such "teachings" happen.  Any other appropriate abstract that works for you will suffice.  I provided an example and one of my faults is that when someone challenges an example, I defend it and get caught up defending the example to vigorously instead of just saying it was an example and moving on.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 27, 2020)

Arilyn said:


> Homebrew is changing actual rules and mechanics, or adding new feats and races. It's not just narrative fluff to explain your campaign world, which is just D&D "out of the box." The flavour text provides interest, colour and examples. It's to also help put us in the mood, just like the art does. It's not there as rules.



Homebrew is fluff based.  House rules deal with mechanics.  Something can be both, for example, "Elves were wiped out 15000 years ago due to a magical fast acting sickness unleashed by orcs that is still around today.  We know it's still viable, because 30 years ago an elf from Sigil showed up and within 3 hours he was dead."  That's the homebrew fluff.  The house rule is that no PC can play an elf.  They don't exist in that world.



> So if a player wants a city druid, focusing on rats, pigeons, domestic animals and maybe oozes, that's cool. That's a nice change from the standard druid. And unless, some actual abilities are altered to make the class more urban, it's not homebrew. It's not a new class, it's just background. And background fluff is assumed to be highly mutable, and full of creativity. RPGers are an imaginative bunch, even when not changing mechanics.




Druids are wardens of nature.  They also try to balance civilization with nature, getting it to live in harmony.  The above druid is not outside the general theme of the class, so it wouldn't be homebrew in any case.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 27, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Would you say that my comparison between the flavor text to a line-of-best-fit is apt?



I had to look that up.  I didn't really go all that far with math.  Are you saying that the various aspects of the fluff are the data points and the mechanics is the drawn line?


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 27, 2020)

FrozenNorth said:


> I think Chaosmancer’s point is that you are applying a double standard: unorthodox builds are scrutinized for any inconsistencies between fluff and mechanics whereas any inconsistencies that already exist in the PHB are handwaved as “not important”.
> 
> I think a better example of Chaosmancer’s point is Thieves’ Cant.  There are completely standard Rogue builds that have no reason to know thieves’ cant (Scout Rogues for instance).  I doubt you would argue that Scout Rogues are homebrew because of this inconsistency.



There's no inconsistency.  Can a rogue be a scout type?  Sure.  The fluff of rogues and fighters is very broad and allows for the most variety in a single class.  It would not be a homebrew rogue if your scout knew thieves' cant, which is reasonable.  Scouts also go into towns and knowing the lingo would be useful.  If a player wanted his rogue scout to not know thieve's cant, I wouldn't have a problem homebrewing that out.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Feb 27, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Homebrew is fluff based.  House rules deal with mechanics.  Something can be both, for example, "Elves were wiped out 15000 years ago due to a magical fast acting sickness unleashed by orcs that is still around today.  We know it's still viable, because 30 years ago an elf from Sigil showed up and within 3 hours he was dead."  That's the homebrew fluff.  The house rule is that no PC can play an elf.  They don't exist in that world.




I know I harp on this point a bit MAx, but it bears repeating. 

Just because you sue the terms that way does not mean everyone else does. If I look up "homebrew classes" I am going to get mechanics and fluff, same with homebrew feats, homebrew spells, homebrew magic system, homebrew crafting system. 

I'm not even sure I could do a google search for "houserule class" because the community does not use the term in that way. 

Houserules, as I understand it, are generally meant to refer to meta-game rules. Such as a houserule where you roll hp every level, but if you roll below the average you take the average. 

Using terms in ways the community doesn't only creates confusion, and does not help any discussion you are trying to have.


----------



## Xetheral (Feb 27, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Homebrew is fluff based.  House rules deal with mechanics.  Something can be both, for example, "Elves were wiped out 15000 years ago due to a magical fast acting sickness unleashed by orcs that is still around today.  We know it's still viable, because 30 years ago an elf from Sigil showed up and within 3 hours he was dead."  That's the homebrew fluff.  The house rule is that no PC can play an elf.  They don't exist in that world.




Personally I would define homebrew as _new_ races, classes, feats, or spells (or similar player-facing mechanics) added to the game. I would define houserules as _changes_ made to the mechanics of printed races, classes, feats, or spells, or to resolution mechanics. Until recently I never would have considered a custom campaign setting or monster (or other DM-facing mechanics) to be homebrew. The _expectation_ at my tables was that the DM would create content, so it didn't make sense to us that such content should carry the patina of exceptionality that the term homebrew implied to us.

However, I'm not confident that my definition is in line with modern usage. On this forum in particular I've regularly seen homebrew to mean all new material that is neither "official" nor "third-party publisher", which would necessarily include custom campaign settings and monsters.

What I haven't seen (until this thread, anyway) is defining homebrew to mean fluff changes and house rules to mean mechanics changes. Maybe I've just not been reading the right threads, or maybe I just didn't notice the usage you're describing? In any case, your definition is unfamiliar to me. I'm not saying your definition is wrong, but at the very least my experience suggests that your definition is not universally accepted.


----------



## Coroc (Feb 27, 2020)

Xetheral said:


> Personally I would define homebrew as _new_ races, classes, feats, or spells (or similar player-facing mechanics) added to the game. I would define houserules as _changes_ made to the mechanics of printed races, classes, feats, or spells, or to resolution mechanics. Until recently I never would have considered a custom campaign setting or monster (or other DM-facing mechanics) to be homebrew. The _expectation_ at my tables was that the DM would create content, so it didn't make sense to us that such content should carry the patina of exceptionality that the term homebrew implied to us.
> 
> However, I'm not confident that my definition is in line with modern usage. On this forum in particular I've regularly seen homebrew to mean all new material that is neither "official" nor "third-party publisher", which would necessarily include custom campaign settings and monsters.
> 
> What I haven't seen (until this thread, anyway) is defining homebrew to mean fluff changes and house rules to mean mechanics changes. Maybe I've just not been reading the right threads, or maybe I just didn't notice the usage you're describing? In any case, your definition is unfamiliar to me. I'm not saying your definition is wrong, but at the very least my experience suggests that your definition is not universally accepted.




Yea sometimes it is only the wording, as with fluff its all names and smoke. What people do not get these days is that class (subclass, items, deities, spells, races) is fluff, only the underlying mechanic is crunch.

So if you create a new class but model it 1:1 based on an existing classes mechanic that would be homebrew but not a houserule. A houserule (i use) is that a 1 on the d20 does something sometimes.
A houserule I use is that quarterstaff 1handed is not possible and two handed does 1d6. I altered a mechanic aka crunch.

What is not a houserule but homebrew and pure fluff is, if I create a spell which works in every aspect (damage dice save etc.) like a fireball, but does acid damage instead.

It is easy: as soon as you alter the math, or add things which have an impact on the math, e.g. a skill which gives +1 on some save or attack, then it is a houserule. If it is equal to another skill which is RAW, then it only adds fluff. E.g. keying skills of different abilities, intimidate with STR or such, is fluff.
You would start mumbling about attribute distribution etc. but keep in mind I said intimidate with STR, not every CHA skill and CHA save with STR instead, and that makes the difference.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 27, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> I had to look that up.  I didn't really go all that far with math. Are you saying that the various aspects of the fluff are the data points and the mechanics is the drawn line?



In my original context, I would say that the fluff is the line-of-best-fit, a generalization meant to encompass the available data points present: i.e., the various barbarian characters, both player character barbarians and barbarians in media. So barbarian player characters will naturally vary in distance to the "fluff line-of-best-fit."


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 27, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> In my original context, I would say that the fluff is the line-of-best-fit, a generalization meant to encompass the available data points present: i.e., the various barbarian characters, both player character barbarians and barbarians in media. So barbarian player characters will naturally vary in distance to the "fluff line-of-best-fit."



One thing with the line-of-best-fit is that even though people can pick different data points when they draw the line and all be "right," they will all be fairly close together.  That fits what I have been saying about the changes to the fluff being okay as long as they fit the general theme of the class, so in that context I agree that line-of-best-fit works.  

Can a gnome be tribal? Yes.  Can they be wild and uncivilized? Yes.  Are the mountains outdoors like the other terrains mentioned?  Yes.  Gnome barbarians are fine as they can fit the general theme of the barbarian class.  A cultured knight who has a bad temper does not fit the general barbarian theme and the line-of-best-fit would not apply to that.  Again, that's not to say that such a character is bad or wrong.  It's just not the barbarian class, even if it uses the barbarian class mechanics.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 27, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> One thing with the line-of-best-fit is that even though people can pick different data points when they draw the line and all be "right," they will all be fairly close together.  That fits what I have been saying about the changes to the fluff being okay as long as they fit the general theme of the class, so in that context I agree that line-of-best-fit works.
> 
> Can a gnome be tribal? Yes.  Can they be wild and uncivilized? Yes.  Are the mountains outdoors like the other terrains mentioned?  Yes.  Gnome barbarians are fine as they can fit the general theme of the barbarian class.  A cultured knight who has a bad temper does not fit the general barbarian theme and the line-of-best-fit would not apply to that.  Again, that's not to say that such a character is bad or wrong.  It's just not the barbarian class, even if it uses the barbarian class mechanics.



Unless I am mistaken you are missing the point of a line-of-best-fit: The very nature of a line-of-best-fit means that not everything will fit or conform to the line drawn (i.e., the fluff), but you are complaining that the dots aren't hugging the line, which misses the point.


----------



## Maxperson (Feb 27, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Unless I am mistaken you are missing the point of a line-of-best-fit: The very nature of a line-of-best-fit means that not everything will fit or conform to the line drawn (i.e., the fluff), but you are complaining that the dots aren't hugging the line, which misses the point.



From what I read of the best-in-line-fit, the lines all fall withing a fairly small variance.  Not large ones.  Again, I had to look it up since the first I heard of it was yesterday, but that's what I saw.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 27, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> .It's just not the barbarian class, even if it uses the barbarian class mechanics.



This is the heart of our disagreement. You obviously care about the color text as definitional for the class. I don't. We can now proceed on our merry ways.


----------

