D&D 5E Do You DM or Play with Flair?

[Tequila Sunrise]

[MENTION=5890]Saeviomagy[/MENTION]
[MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION]

Clerics are the ministers of communities, and each cleric is a messenger and vessel of all gods. Some clerics favor one god over others, but no cleric is foolish enough to exclude any god of recognized importance from his prayers and invocations, no matter how much he may find a particular god distasteful.

The D&D priest (aka cleric) is actually odd compared to most real world priests of polytheistic faiths. My cleric hews more closely to real world priests, in that each one is a servant of all his culture's gods and is not supposed to play favorites.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I’m all for classes being played with flair – a rogue should feel like a rogue (whether they’re an assassin, cutpurse, burglar, or “expert treasure hunter”), not just a collection of abilities, or worse just a means to an end of getting the sneak attack ability.

That being said, I think alignment restrictions are better-suited to an actual 1e game, and might chafe with the 5e system/players. I saw Chris Perkins speak recently, and he said something about “past edition holdovers that don’t necessarily fit with the current concept of fun in 5e,” and that has stuck with me, making me reevaluate some of my own DMing style.

But if your players are on-board with your system, go for it, whether you decide to do so in 1e or 5e. Heck, I still have a hard time with any paladin that’s not LG (though I am working on that). As for the system itself, it definitely seems to favor the lawful alignments over anything else at first glance (perhaps because chaotic behavior isn’t as easy to classify always).

Curiously, what does a being a rogue feel like? Bonus points for avoiding circular reasoning: don't refer to anything in the class description.

 

[Arilyn]

[MENTION=5890]Saeviomagy[/MENTION]
[MENTION=6816042]Arilyn[/MENTION]


The D&D priest (aka cleric) is actually odd compared to most real world priests of polytheistic faiths. My cleric hews more closely to real world priests, in that each one is a servant of all his culture's gods and is not supposed to play favorites.

Yes, you could go with this, which would be very interesting. You would need to change up DnD clerics to accommodate the change, however. Right now it is assumed that a cleric is dedicated to one God. I do like the idea of a cleric praying to the storm God before embarking on a sea voyage, or a war God just before a big battle. It does fit our history more closely. Still not seeing the need for wakefulness, however.

 

[Arilyn]

Yes, you could go with this, which would be very interesting. You would need to change up DnD clerics to accommodate the change, however. Right now it is assumed that a cleric is dedicated to one God. I do like the idea of a cleric praying to the storm God before embarking on a sea voyage, or a war God just before a big battle. It does fit our history more closely. Still not seeing the need for wakefulness, however.

Sorry, missed the auto correct. Meant lawfulness, not wakefulness!

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Wouldn’t know, I'm not a rogue, only a quality analyst, with some prior levels in librarian and archivist…

But to attempt to answer your question, there are many ways to play a rogue. Looking at literature and legend alone, it varies - just look at Bilbo Baggins, Aladdin, Cudgel the Clever, Locke Lamora, Hanse Shadowspawn. But let’s look at Locke Lamora. He’s a skilled con man, amongst other things. That’s one of his main skills. But it’s his audacity and wit, though, that makes him an interesting character. He wouldn’t be half as fun to read about if his sharp mouth didn’t get him into trouble, too.

And as a DM, I want to see interesting characters. It makes my job easier and more exciting.

Curiously, what does a being a rogue feel like? Bonus points for avoiding circular reasoning: don't refer to anything in the class description.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I like the idea of playing with flair. I dislike these implementations of it. I love that in 5e I can play a High Elf Noble Barbarian from Waterdeep if that's what I want to play. What would I gain by outlawing that?

Alignment restrictions are in my opinion the least fun way to elicit quality Roleplaying.

You know now that I think about it, my characters already have Flair: Backgrounds.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Wouldn’t know, I'm not a rogue, only a quality analyst, with some prior levels in librarian and archivist…

But to attempt to answer your question, there are many ways to play a rogue. Looking at literature and legend alone, it varies - just look at Bilbo Baggins, Aladdin, Cudgel the Clever, Locke Lamora, Hanse Shadowspawn. But let’s look at Locke Lamora. He’s a skilled con man, amongst other things. That’s one of his main skills. But it’s his audacity and wit, though, that makes him an interesting character. He wouldn’t be half as fun to read about if his sharp mouth didn’t get him into trouble, too.

And as a DM, I want to see interesting characters. It makes my job easier and more exciting.

Perhaps, then, I misunderstood your argument, which seemed to say that taking the rogue class meant something that should be unique to the rogue class and not just getting rogue class mechanics. But your examples here seem to all point to character archetypes which are rather independent of the mechanics (although certain mechanics do work well with some archetypes). Take Indiana Jones as an archetype: skilled, lucky, knowledgeable. Many would go with the rogue class for this archetype because of the name, but aside from the skill focus the mechanics of that class aren't that great of a fit. I had a player in one of my games do a spot on Indy style character as a knowledge cleric focused on recovering ancient religious artifacts. You could do a decent job of Indy as a dex fighter with the skilled feat. So many way to get at that concept through various class mechanics. There's nothing, to me at least, that says that a class isn't anything more than a bag of mechanics for getting at a concept.

Now, I can see an argument about that way of thinking enabling players that only think of mechanics and not characters, but, honestly, they're going to be the same way even with closely tied fluff to class.

 

[ad_hoc]

Yes, 37 pieces of it.

 

[Miladoon]

To me, class is just a framework to hang mechanical tidbits. I think if you are heading towards the old classics you are getting there.

Currently, I try to emphasize to my players how important character concept is, and how that is not entirely attached to what we come to call a class. I won't argue if the player says he is playing a ranger using a rogue class for the chassis.

That said, I do tweak the classes to add flavor or just to tinker about. Here are some proposals I am putting together for a new campaign:

Wild Magic Sorcerers:
Will roll a 1d20 whenever they cast a (sorcerer) spell. On a 1, they will roll on the Magic Surge chart. Whenever they use Tides of Chaos, they will immediately roll on the Magic Surge chart and reset the Tides of Chaos feature. Nothing really new here.

Way of the 4 Elements Monk:
- You learn: Control Flame, Gust, Mold Earth, and Shape Water from Elemental Evil Players Companion.
- Water Whip and Fist of Unbroken Air use a Bonus Action.

Rogue:
You use Sneak Attack with finesse, ranged weapons, simple melee weapons with the light property (not unarmed strike), and longsword.

Beast Master Ranger:
At level 7, the ranger gets an additional animal companion that functions as the write up for the initial companion, however, this beast can be large and have a CR of 1/2.

The ranger can use his attack action to direct both animals to attack during the ranger's turn. Beasts with multiattack only get to use multiattack when conducting an Attack of Opportunity.

 

[Coroc]

To me, class is just a framework to hang mechanical tidbits. I think if you are heading towards the old classics you are getting there.

Currently, I try to emphasize to my players how important character concept is, and how that is not entirely attached to what we come to call a class. I won't argue if the player says he is playing a ranger using a rogue class for the chassis.

That said, I do tweak the classes to add flavor or just to tinker about. Here are some proposals I am putting together for a new campaign:

Wild Magic Sorcerers:
Will roll a 1d20 whenever they cast a (sorcerer) spell. On a 1, they will roll on the Magic Surge chart. Whenever they use Tides of Chaos, they will immediately roll on the Magic Surge chart and reset the Tides of Chaos feature. Nothing really new here.

Way of the 4 Elements Monk:
- You learn: Control Flame, Gust, Mold Earth, and Shape Water from Elemental Evil Players Companion.
- Water Whip and Fist of Unbroken Air use a Bonus Action.

Rogue:
You use Sneak Attack with finesse, ranged weapons, simple melee weapons with the light property (not unarmed strike), and longsword.

Beast Master Ranger:
At level 7, the ranger gets an additional animal companion that functions as the write up for the initial companion, however, this beast can be large and have a CR of 1/2.

The ranger can use his attack action to direct both animals to attack during the ranger's turn. Beasts with multiattack only get to use multiattack when conducting an Attack of Opportunity.

Your houserules seem to be fine, but why the rogue longsword thing?
A longsword is the most misinterpreted weapon in D&D ever. A real historical Longsword is more like a 1m40 Greatsword and would be used with two hands all the time. The thing in the players hand book is a versatile version of this aka a bastard sword which can be used 1 handed if need be aka I want to use a shield / hold the reigns of a mount while fighting. It is probably 1m20 of blade length.

The thing you want to depict as a rogue weapon is either an arming sword damage type S / P or a rapier Damage type mainly P. The rapier is the heavier of these two weapons and has the longer reach 1m20 approx. but it is still a rogues weapon keyable on dex imho. The arming sword is a sidearm also for urban environment I would rate it at 1w8 slashing for game purpose it is 1 handed only with a blade length of about 0,9 m

So if you are houseruling anyway why not do it like that ? Btw I do it like that but the arming sword is a strength weapon.