MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Let me try to take you at your word, and put out a few examples that I think will show how crazy saying that book-fluff is the only right way to play.
I'm not sure how you keep reading absolutes into my posts. (And if you are aware [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] and me are different posters)
Already said fighter is a generic warrior and not likely an IC construct.First, please let me know the definitive fluff for the Fighter. You know, the book-fluff that is the only type of fighter you'll allow.
A short sword could be any sword of such size and overall characteristics. So, no? (now if you wanted to refluff a gladius or a claymore...)I'm playing in an official 5e setting, Forgotten Realms. I have a character from Kara-Tur which is oriental themed. Am I playing the game wrong if I describe my character having a wakizashi instead of a short sword?
Of course, it's lucky I'm playing a character from Kara-Tur because I wanted to play the Samurai fighter subclass from XGtE, and I understand you wouldn't allow it without Japanese fluff.
Somehow I'm conditioned to consider plain disregard of flavor as a sign of munchkinism, but whatevs your PC, not mine. In my mind I would still keep considering your character as Japanese in denial, that wouldn't change things, but some players can be nasty about it.
I've got a new player who's familiar with fantasy tropes from reading but not D&D classes. She wants to play an elf with a strong nature connection who can transform into birds and other beasts of the forest, but she's never heard of druids except with Stonehenge and doesn't want to be part of their organization. Is this person unsuited to play D&D without serious reeducation? Or can they play D&D as long as I shoot down their character concept?
No reason all druids ought to belong to the druid's society -which is setting dependent- but certainly only a druid would belong in such society.
This borders on strawman. If it doesn't exist, of course you can approximate it. Though I'm not sure any game has or needs that much of a fine resolution.Okay, the new player has a friend who wants his character to fight with a rapier and stiletto, should I insist it's a dagger and he's not to call it a stiletto because it will ruin the fun for the other players?
That's a problem with the system. And like I said not everything is -or has to be- an in game construct.He's going to play a swashbuckler, do I explain that until he takes the subclass at 3rd he needs to adhere to the "official" fluff of the rogue class, he can't be out of the shadows and full of panache until then?
Same example as with the samurai/druid before. No idea how you extrapolate my personal preferences/game style into an imperative for everybody else. If you can somehow turn a D&D wizard into an innate caster that doesn't desire her powers and views them as a curse without being constantly put out of immersion by the dissonance between flavor and mechanics and somehow convincing everybody in the party that you are not that kind of caster despite clear evidence to the contrary -or that it becomes almost active sabotage of the party by deliberately playing dumb and essentially withholding key resources form the party- then more power to you. I certainly can't, that is why I need the sorcerer -and the Divine Soul archetype while at that-.I want to play a hard-swilling dwarven tavern brawler, is the monk class closed to me?
Or let me put forward an example for you. Would you honestly buy (and seriously treat as that) a high level fighter with maxed Constitution, Dexterity and Strength, two fighting styles and one of those -5/+10 feats as a weak, frail defenseless waif that is afraid of blood and faints at the mere idea of violence?