Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[cbwjm]

The background changes are pretty much mechanical, though. It allows you to take the soldier/guard background, but swap a skill proficiency to arcana if you were say a guard for an archmage in Halruua(sp). I think that sort of thing is great to leave in the players' hands.

I'm talking about completely changing the fluff of a class from being a Barbarian, to being a Mean Drunken Master or Angry City Guard and having nothing to do with being a barbarian at all. That's not just an unconventional barbarian, it's becoming no barbarian at all.

We already have "non-barbarian" barbarians in the game though. The dwarven battlerager doesn't come from a barbarian tribe, at least the only examples I've read about is that they are a specialist warrior class amongst the dwarves of Bruenor and the zealot could be from any background that follows a war god that divinely inspires their rage.

 

[Xetheral]

Right. That's not what they are talking about, though with fluff alterations to class in this thread. At least not the conversation I'm responding to anyway. The class of barbarian gives these X, Y and Z abilities. That's the barbarian class. It's not an urban warrior class. It's not a muscle mage class. It's the barbarian class.

So go ahead and play an unconventional BARBARIAN. If you want to re-fluff the class into something else entirely, you are going to have to talk to me about it and see if we can come up with something. No guarantees, because ALL of the abilities from 1-20 have to fit the new fluff.

Isn't it though? What is the difference between ignoring the part of the class fluff that says that Barbarians view civilization as a weakness (to play a reform-minded tribal barbarian) and ignoring the part of the class fluff that says Barbarians "are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls" (to play an urban warrior)? They're in the same paragraph of fluff. Why is ignoring one sentence of fluff fine and dandy, but ignoring a nearby sentence isn't?

More specifically, what is it about being an "urban warrior" that makes it incompatible with being an "unconventional Barbarian"?

A feral street child who has never been outside the city walls, and abides by no rules other than those of the urban jungle (but can maybe fake it well enough for polite society on occasion) sounds to me like both an unconventional Barbarian and an "Urban Warrior". Her rage is "...draw[n] from a roiling reservoir of anger at a world full of pain". That quote is one of the options for Barbarians listed on PHB 46 in the class fluff. But this character concept violates other class fluff about not being comfortable in cities, and ignores the fluff about tribal affiliation. Does that mean the character can't be an unconventional Barbarian, and requires special DM permission because as an urban warrior it's "something else entirely"?

How much of the printed fluff can a player ignore before crossing the line into "something else entirely"?

 

[Xetheral]

I think the more interesting, and definitely more divisive, question in this thread isn't about authority; it's about expectation. Should a player expect that class fluff is merely a suggestion, and reskinning to fit your concept is the norm, which is normally rejected only if it violates currently standing campaign design? Or should a player expect to play a variation on the tropes within the PHB, expanding beyond them only with careful negotiation with the DM?

If I put that up as a poll question, my guess is it would be 50/50, with maybe a slight lean towards the first option.

I've been playing since 2nd Edition AD&D, and I don't think I've ever played a character that was only a variation on tropes listed explicitly in a PHB. It wasn't until I started reading forums that I even learned that anyone expected their players to do so. I'd be very interested to see the results of a such a poll--my own experience clearly doesn't include a representative sample of the variety of opinions on this topic. (Not that a forum poll is a representative sample either, but at least it's a bigger sample.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

95% of the arguments on this board revolve around some variant of:

A: DMs suck, and I know that because I once had a terrible DM! Player agency FTW!

B: No, players suck because they are entitled and don't try to collaborate. Rule 0 FTW!

Then someone brings up the usual, "You can always walk away," and then someone is all like, "But I can't because it's hard to find a table and/or I play in AL," and then someone else tell everyone to suck it up, buttercup.

Anyway, the joke of it (to me, because I think most things are funny) is that someone proposed that the solution to an ill-concieved background is to CHANGE THE ENTIRE SETTING. Which, you know, whatever man. Some settings you can't really do that, and some settings (cough cough FR) have so little personality you can just Spell Sunder or whatever to them and no will even notice.

So, yeah, I've never had any of these issues because my players and I talk to each other with respect and understanding and try to have fun, instead of trumping each other with power plays (IT'S MAH FLUFF ... NOT, ITS MAY SETTING). It's all good, though.


(Ps- If you ever find yourself trying to respond to my posts with some variation of "You didn't prove X," then you're doing it wrong. The more you know!)

Right, okay, so then, because you've seen threads (for the sake of argument, many) where people are behaving poorly, it's okay to assume that the best argument to put forward is one where people are behaving badly? Sorry, dude, don't buy it.

Further, if you think that my post was saying you didn't prove X, you read it wrong. I was saying that I can't even get to what you're trying to say because it's because an asshat being an asshet (not you, your example asshat) and I'd not put up with the asshat, so I never get to whatever you're trying to say.

 

[Maxperson]

We already have "non-barbarian" barbarians in the game though. The dwarven battlerager doesn't come from a barbarian tribe, at least the only examples I've read about is that they are a specialist warrior class amongst the dwarves of Bruenor and the zealot could be from any background that follows a war god that divinely inspires their rage.

They're just dwarven barbarians is all. They would fall into the unconventional barbarian category, not the barbarian class re-fluffed as non-barbarian.

 

[Maxperson]

Isn't it though? What is the difference between ignoring the part of the class fluff that says that Barbarians view civilization as a weakness (to play a reform-minded tribal barbarian) and ignoring the part of the class fluff that says Barbarians "are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls" (to play an urban warrior)? They're in the same paragraph of fluff. Why is ignoring one sentence of fluff fine and dandy, but ignoring a nearby sentence isn't?

You aren't ignoring the part that says "are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls" to play an urban warrior. You ignore that part to play a barbarian who comes to town and joins the guard. An urban warrior isn't a barbarian at all. He was born civilized and despite his anger, is not any sort of barbarian at all.

More specifically, what is it about being an "urban warrior" that makes it incompatible with being an "unconventional Barbarian"?

Urban warriors are born and raised civilized. Barbarians are not. I have no problem with one going to civilization and trying to fit in and enjoying civilization, but someone born civilized with a bad temper is not a barbarian.

A feral street child who has never been outside the city walls, and abides by no rules other than those of the urban jungle (but can maybe fake it well enough for polite society on occasion) sounds to me like both an unconventional Barbarian and an "Urban Warrior". Her rage is "...draw[n] from a roiling reservoir of anger at a world full of pain". That quote is one of the options for Barbarians listed on PHB 46 in the class fluff. But this character concept violates other class fluff about not being comfortable in cities, and ignores the fluff about tribal affiliation. Does that mean the character can't be an unconventional Barbarian, and requires special DM permission because as an urban warrior it's "something else entirely"?

That child still lives in the city, knows the city rules, even if he breaks them, and so on. Even "feral", that person is going not going to be a barbarian. I don't have an issue working with the player on feats or other ways to represent something similar to rage in the game, though.

 

[Xetheral]

You aren't ignoring the part that says "are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls" to play an urban warrior. You ignore that part to play a barbarian who comes to town and joins the guard. An urban warrior isn't a barbarian at all. He was born civilized and despite his anger, is not any sort of barbarian at all.



Urban warriors are born and raised civilized. Barbarians are not. I have no problem with one going to civilization and trying to fit in and enjoying civilization, but someone born civilized with a bad temper is not a barbarian.



That child still lives in the city, knows the city rules, even if he breaks them, and so on. Even "feral", that person is going not going to be a barbarian. I don't have an issue working with the player on feats or other ways to represent something similar to rage in the game, though.

You appear to have a predetermined definition of what is and is not a "Barbarian" that you're using to decide which pieces of class fluff it's permissible to ignore, and which pieces are essential. For example, you're fine with a Barbarian moving to a city and enjoying it, so long as they weren't raised there. As best I can tell, that distinction is nowhere to be found in the text of the PHB.

Are you using a dictionary definition of the word "barbarian" and using it to define the D&D Barbarian class? Some other extrinsic source? (I would note that using dictionary definitions to determine what is and is not essential fluff for each class will produce problematic results when you get to the Druid class.)

Regardless of where your predetermined definition of Barbarian comes from, since it's not in the PHB your players may not share the same definition. I would suggest that it would be impractical to expect your players to be able to deduce which parts of the Barbarian fluff you consider essential (and thus requiring special approval) when you're basing your decisions off something extrinsic to the PHB.

 

[cbwjm]

They're just dwarven barbarians is all. They would fall into the unconventional barbarian category, not the barbarian class re-fluffed as non-barbarian.

Except they aren't really barbarians, their an elite fighting group (or at least a fighting group) within dwarf society. I wouldn't classify them as barbarians at all, however, when it comes to game mechanics, the barbarian class fits perfectly.

 

[Maxperson]

You appear to have a predetermined definition of what is and is not a "Barbarian" that you're using to decide which pieces of class fluff it's permissible to ignore, and which pieces are essential. For example, you're fine with a Barbarian moving to a city and enjoying it, so long as they weren't raised there. As best I can tell, that distinction is nowhere to be found in the text of the PHB.

Are you using a dictionary definition of the word "barbarian" and using it to define the D&D Barbarian class? Some other extrinsic source? (I would note that using dictionary definitions to determine what is and is not essential fluff for each class will produce problematic results when you get to the Druid class.)

Regardless of where your predetermined definition of Barbarian comes from, since it's not in the PHB your players may not share the same definition. I would suggest that it would be impractical to expect your players to be able to deduce which parts of the Barbarian fluff you consider essential (and thus requiring special approval) when you're basing your decisions off something extrinsic to the PHB.

Barbarians come from uncivilized areas, not inside of them. Let's look closer at your street urchin and the barbarian class. These abilities are nonsensical for such a person:unarmored defense, fast movement, brutal critical, indomitable might, and primal champion. That's the problem with re-fluffing classes into something completely different. There are usually abilities that don't fit.

 

[Maxperson]

Except they aren't really barbarians, their an elite fighting group (or at least a fighting group) within dwarf society. I wouldn't classify them as barbarians at all, however, when it comes to game mechanics, the barbarian class fits perfectly.

Except that they are barbarians. They are a wild and crazy fighting group that lives the wild life inside of dwarven areas. They are revered, and powerful, but are not elite in the same way that a highly trained and organized fighting group is. They fit the barbarian class, though in an unusual way.........unlike a street urchin.