D&D 5E Do Classes Have Concrete Meaning In Your Game?

[Greg K]

We have to obey the rules, but fluff is not rules.

This to me is the disagreement. In my opinion, fluff is part of the setting and any change from the default fluff of what a class means or how certain archetypes are represented mechanically in a given campaign is, by default, the purview of the DM and not the player (hence, talk to the DM first about the setting, house rules, and changes in the basic player's book). Sometimes, in the setting, there maybe multiple approaches or limits by cultures,there may just be one single way for the campaign, or none at all in the view of the DM. The player might make a suggestion, but the final decision is not up the player. (this may vary with individual DMs and how much influence they give the players on co-development of the setting).

As an aside, if a player comes in to any of the groups with whom I game (mine included) insisting that their (the player's) fluff is immune to the DM's view of setting appropriateness, the player will be shown the door.

 

[pemerton]

The conditions for getting supernatural martial arts are right there in the class that gets supernatural martial arts - training and asceticism, just to go by the prominent header.

And we do know if the accuracy is luck or skill, because a fighter can come up and tell you "I trained with the Warriors of Valhalla to improve my skill at arms," while someone who just rolls a lot of lucky 20's doesn't have that narrative.

<snip>

It's all fluff. Mechanically, all that's happening is rolling a d20, adding a particular modifier, and rolling damage. Even what is "magic" and what is "not magic" is fluff. "Spells" are "Maneuvers." "Summoned Creatures" are "hirelings." "Magic items" are "items of exceptional craftsmanship." D&D tends to value this fluff distinction, but there's no reason an individual table needs to, and if they're looking to maximize flexibility, they probably shouldn't!

We have to obey the rules, but fluff is not rules.

I think IAB has a fairly narrow view of what is rules.

To me, it seems clear that a longsword being a bladed weapon is not just "fluff". It's a rule, which interacts with a host of other rules (eg rules for dealing slashing damage; rules for purchasing equipment; rules for encumbrance; etc).

Contrast the traditional description of gnomes as having large noses. That's not a rule; it's mere colour. It doesn't interact with any of the game systems. (Except in 3E if the optional rule for gnomes buying Scent as a feat is in use.)

In the 1st ed AD&D PHB, that monks live in monasteries is a rule, related to the rule for level progression, for gaining followers and building a monastery, etc. But in 5e I don't see that it is a rule at all - there are no game systems that relate to or depend upon it. It's mere colour.

The fundamental problem I have with each of the above character concepts is that they have no tethers to the rest of the game via the world or the other characters to help describe their differences.

Well, I wrote each out in one sentence. Of course they don't have any richer description!

It's all empty color

I don't think being taught martial arts by an intelligent magical animal is empty colour at all. I think it's pretty rich colour that establishes a host of backstory opportunities.

I've never had a PC with that backstory in my game, but I have GMed a game where one of the PCs was believed (at the start of the campaign) to be a fox who had willed itself into human form as part of a program of self-improvement, but who then turned out (as per further backstory development by the player) to be one of the heavenly animal lords banished to earth for wrongdoing. That backstory played a significant role in driving the campaign.

Mechanically, the PC in question was a hengeyokai ranger/ninja. It wouldn't have in any way improved the game, though, to insist that the player stick to the standard backstories for these PC building elements.

 

[Remathilis]

It seems funny to me that a longsword is a tangible concept in D&D, but a paladin isn't. A longsword is 15 gp martial weapon that does 1d8 slashing and has the versatile (d10) property. That's all it is, rules wise. It can be a tulwar, a katana, an axe, a chainsaw, or a lightsaber in appearance if the fluff doesn't matter. Yet it DOES matter.

The fluff dictates the crunch, not vice-versa. Someone sat down and said "I want to make a paladin that resembles holy knights of yore; what abilities should that archetype have?" They didn't say "I want a heavily armored warrior who can heal and is good at fighting supernatural evil; what archetype should I give that?" You can't have the crunch without the fluff. (In fact, some of the worst classes in 3e and 4e put the cart before the horse and designed the mechanics first, and the archetypes second. Which is where we got Duskblades, Invokers, and Spellthieves from, I wager).

 

[Shasarak]

It seems funny to me that a longsword is a tangible concept in D&D, but a paladin isn't. A longsword is 15 gp martial weapon that does 1d8 slashing and has the versatile (d10) property. That's all it is, rules wise. It can be a tulwar, a katana, an axe, a chainsaw, or a lightsaber in appearance if the fluff doesn't matter. Yet it DOES matter.

Well it all started in 4e and then 5e just totally broke the Paladin concept over its knee. Evidently it did not test well.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It seems funny to me that a longsword is a tangible concept in D&D, but a paladin isn't. A longsword is 15 gp martial weapon that does 1d8 slashing and has the versatile (d10) property. That's all it is, rules wise. It can be a tulwar, a katana, an axe, a chainsaw, or a lightsaber in appearance if the fluff doesn't matter. Yet it DOES matter.

Um... In 5E, a katana or a larger tulwar are modeled with the longsword. (I'd argue that a smaller tulwar would be a scimitar.) It's entirely fungible. As for a chainsaw or lightsaber, those are ruled out by virtue of being setting/genre-inappropriate and by the fact that those would start getting into mechanical differences.

But the point is, we're not saying "flavor doesn't matter." We're saying it's flexible, and some examples are more baked-in than others. It changes the entire flavor of a world to allow chainsaws. It doesn't--or at least often won't--to allow tulwars. Similarly, it doesn't necessarily change the flavor of an entire world (depending on the world, of course) to allow a monastic barbarian or an elven spy who uses monk mechnanics.

 

[Remathilis]

Similarly, it doesn't necessarily change the flavor of an entire world (depending on the world, of course) to allow a monastic barbarian or an elven spy who uses monk mechnanics.

No, but it dilutes the flavor the barbarian class and monk class, and it tramples the archetypes of the more obvious classes (monk and rogue respectively). Which ends up the problem to me: a monastic barbarian is a monk who isn't a monk, an elven spy is a rogue who isn't a rogue (well, technically, s/he's part rogue due to MC, but I digress). It weakens class identity, and D&D is a game of strong class/archetype identity. If a barbarian, or a fighter, or a monk can all be a "rogue", what's the point of the rogue class? If a fighter can be a "ranger", why make a ranger class?

It doesn't sit right with me to cherry pick the best mechanics and then re-write whole new classes on top of them.I realize at this point we'll have to agree to disagree, but someone who takes the class "barbarian" should be expected to be somewhat barbaric in his nature; not just a variant monk who picked "rage" over "martial arts".

 

[empireofchaos]

Um... In 5E, a katana or a larger tulwar are modeled with the longsword. (I'd argue that a smaller tulwar would be a scimitar.) It's entirely fungible. As for a chainsaw or lightsaber, those are ruled out by virtue of being setting/genre-inappropriate and by the fact that those would start getting into mechanical differences.

According to the current classification, katanas and tulwars would be classed as scimitars. They are significantly lighter than a longsword - katanas can be used with another weapon, and longswords are versatile, so are usable two-handed (they are really what used to be called a bastard sword). Not to mention - they are one-sided weapons. So they're really not the same thing.

I fail to see how a tulwar or a katana are any more genre appropriate for say, a viking game, than a chainsaw or a light sabre. People running around alongside Ragnar Lodhbrok with katanas, claiming they are really longswords that fit with their character concept, and should be allowed just because they are in accordance with the longsword "rules" would be genre inappropriate. Period.

But the point is, we're not saying "flavor doesn't matter." We're saying it's flexible, and some examples are more baked-in than others. It changes the entire flavor of a world to allow chainsaws. It doesn't--or at least often won't--to allow tulwars. Similarly, it doesn't necessarily change the flavor of an entire world (depending on the world, of course) to allow a monastic barbarian or an elven spy who uses monk mechnanics.

And what's sauce for the longsword is sauce for the Jason Bourne or James Bond (who, incidentally, received their training in highly distinct, professionalized structures whose products would have little trouble identifying with something like a "spy class" as a really existing entity).

 

[Lanefan]

But I think that speaks to the point being made by those who say that classes don't, per se, bring detailed story elements with them.

The decision that being a monk means monasteries and dojos rather than magical animals at the bottom of the garden is not inherent to the game. It's a particular decision about a particular campaign setting.

If said decision is proactively ever made. If not, the default in this case is monasteries and dojos.

If a player wants one story approach and the GM wants another, the game text doesn't provide any sort of arbiter or solution here.

Not sure about 5e but 1e is pretty clear that the DM always has the final word.

In the 1st ed AD&D PHB, that monks live in monasteries is a rule, related to the rule for level progression, for gaining followers and building a monastery, etc. But in 5e I don't see that it is a rule at all - there are no game systems that relate to or depend upon it. It's mere colour.

Not if you're using the training-rules option for level-up and-or if you've put the idea of name-level strongholds etc. back in; both of these take monasteries etc. well beyond just colour and put them in the game's structure.

Lanefan

 

[Greg K]

If said decision is proactively ever made. If not, the default in this case is monasteries and dojos. Not sure about 5e but 1e is pretty clear that the DM always has the final word

From the 5e Basic Player's Handbook v02 page 3:
"Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."

 

[pemerton]

It seems funny to me that a longsword is a tangible concept in D&D, but a paladin isn't. A longsword is 15 gp martial weapon that does 1d8 slashing and has the versatile (d10) property. That's all it is, rules wise. It can be a tulwar, a katana, an axe, a chainsaw, or a lightsaber in appearance if the fluff doesn't matter. Yet it DOES matter.

As [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] posted, it can't be a lightsabre (eg it can't cut through metal as a lightsabre does), nor can it be a chainsaw (it isn't powered by fuel, it doesn't contain any moving parts, it can't easily cut through trees and logs, etc).

Mechanically, a longsword is a martial weapon that deals slashing damage (and hence is bladed), and has a certain weight and (by implication of that weight, plus its versatile status) at least certain parameters on its length.

As far as past versions of D&D are concerned it encompasses broadswords, bastard swords, falchions and some scimitars.

It is distinguished from an axe by its weight (less) and its price (more).

A paladin also has certain parameters established by the mechanics, such as having sworn an oath, having certain miraculous abilities in virtue of having sworn that oath, etc. But (just to pick one example, and in contrast with 1st ed AD&D) a paladin is not obliged to be a participant in a particular sort of social hierarchy. Whereas a 1st ed AD&D paladin is obliged to seek alliances with noble fighters and clerics, which - even before the rewrite of the class in UA - positions that paladin as being a knight, or holding (or at least aspiring to) similar status.

Deciding, in 1st ed AD&D, that paladins need not be knights would be a house rule, requiring a deletion or rewrite of the relevant part of the class restrictions. In 5e, by contrast, a paladin could be a peasant revolutionary who hates the nobility.

Someone sat down and said "I want to make a paladin that resembles holy knights of yore; what abilities should that archetype have?" They didn't say "I want a heavily armored warrior who can heal and is good at fighting supernatural evil; what archetype should I give that?"

In AD&D, they then decided that part of the class mechanics was being a knight (and hence seeking alliances or service with noble fighters and clerics). In 5e, though, they didn't write that particular aspect of the archetype into the rules. Which means that someone who plays a resolutely commoner paladin in 5e is not changing or breaking any rule.

The fluff dictates the crunch, not vice-versa.

<snip>

You can't have the crunch without the fluff.

It seems to me that a person can use the game systems without following along with all the mere flavour. A person who decides that, in his/her game, elves have green skin, need not change any of the game systems around elves. Because none of those systems depend upon the colour of elven skin. This is quite different from (say) the rules around longswords - which clearly do depend upon longswords being bladed weapons with no moving parts, rather than (as was mooted upthread) force wands or lightsabres or chainsaws.

Deciding that monks typically lack self-discipline would be a system change - because it requires rewriting the meaning of the monk classes dependence upon WIS as a stat. But deciding that not all monks come from monasteries isn't making any sort of system change at all. If that's what you would call a case of "having the crunch without having the fluff", then it's perfectly possible to have it.

No, but it dilutes the flavor the barbarian class and monk class

<snip>

It doesn't sit right with me to cherry pick the best mechanics and then re-write whole new classes on top of them.I realize at this point we'll have to agree to disagree, but someone who takes the class "barbarian" should be expected to be somewhat barbaric in his nature; not just a variant monk who picked "rage" over "martial arts".

To me this seems to be a statement of your personal preference for what monks and barbarians should be like in your D&D games. I don't see that you are giving any reason why someone should share your preference, though.

The "flavour" of the monk class consists in the actual game systems that constitute that class (eg not wearing armour and instead relying on self-disciplined training for defence; supernatural martial arts; etc). Those systems - unlike in 1st ed AD&D - don't include anything about monasteries.

Not if you're using the training-rules option for level-up and-or if you've put the idea of name-level strongholds etc. back in; both of these take monasteries etc. well beyond just colour and put them in the game's structure.

Sure, you can houserule that stuff back in. But that doesn't mean that its there as part of the published game system. (Whereas, in 1st ed AD&D, it is there as part of the published game system.)

There has been a general trend, over the past 35 years, to relax or eliminate those elements of AD&D class mechanics that mandated a particular social or campaign logic for particular classes: alignment restrictions have been relaxed, racial limitations have been relaxed, training/fight-to-level-up mechanics have been dropped, the idea of "name level" and automatic attraction of followers has been dropped, etc.

These are real changes to the game systems. One consequence of them is that the social/background interpretation of many classes has been freed up, compared to what it was in early AD&D.