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

[prabe]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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
Normally, a changeling can only assume humanoid forms. But a changeling who devotes themselves to the art of shapeshifting can transcend this limitation, mastering the ability to assume a wide array of shapes. At its core, a menagerie is a Moon druid focused on their shapeshifting powers.

You could play this as a character in touch with primal forces, in which case you could speak Druidic and cast any spells on the druid list. however, if you want to play the character as a master-of-shapes without delving into the primal connection, you could swap Druidic for a standard language and focus on spells that fit either shapeshifting abilities or changeling powers. Barkskin, darkvision, jump, longstrider, meld into stone, poison spray, resistance, and similar spells could all tie to shapeshifting mastery. Charm person, guidance, hold person, and the like could reflect enhanced psychic abilities. And healing spells, enhance ability, protection from energy and such could reflect an ability to alter the forms of others; I could see cure wounds being a sort of disturbing thing where you touch someone and scar over their wounds using your own body tissue.

Vadalis Monarch
The Mark of Handling gives a character a mystical connection to the natural world. But this gift isn’t something the heir earns; it is their birthright. A Vadalis heir could present druidic magic as a symptom of their dominion over nature. The same connection that lets you influence the behavior of animals could allow you to assume their forms… or even to control a wider range of creatures with charm person and hold person.

A Vadalis monarch could function as a normal druid and could even potentially understand Druidic, but I’d play up the flavor that this is a power of your mark and something you demand as opposed to a petition to spirits or natural forces.

Weretouched Master
Shifters are well suited to primal paths and to being traditional druids or rangers, and shifters can be found in most of the Eldeen sects. However, you could play a shifter druid as an expert in shapeshifting as opposed to being a servant of nature. As with the changeling menagerie, I’d make this a Moon druid and encourage spells that reflect control of shape. A shifter might not take charm person or hold person, but even without druidic faith, speak with animals, animal friendship, and similar spells could be justified as being a manifestation of the shifter’s lycanthropic heritage.

 

[prabe]

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]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.