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

[Fenris-77]

I like that we're back hip deep into the 'canon' argument without anyone mentioning it. @Paul Farquhar - I agree, using one class to 'invalidate' another is indeed rubbish in game where the DM decides what to use. Also rubbish is the idea that the fluff is somehow inviolable and that changing it is tantamount to changing a rule (i.e. homebrew, used a pejorative). Both notions are complete bollocks - they are personal takes on how to play the game, not immutable rules of D&D. Feels are not facts.

 

[prabe]

You've changed the entire domain with that. It went from a domain about the order of things to one of dominance over others.

I'm prepared for mockery about this, but my sarcasmometer is on the fritz at the moment, and I'm new enough here (and don't know you well enough) to feel certain without it. Is this sarcasm or no?

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm prepared for mockery about this, but my sarcasmometer is on the fritz at the moment, and I'm new enough here (and don't know you well enough) to feel certain without it. Is this sarcasm or no?

It makes me happy to see people asking that question instead of just assuming. Thank you prabe.

 

[Hussar]

It makes me happy to see people asking that question instead of just assuming. Thank you prabe.

To be fair, though, given past history, it unfortunately isn't sarcasm.

As far as "class powers define character" goes, well, that's pretty easy to disprove.

My character, hunting through the wilds comes across an ogre and gets into a fight. I cast Hunter's Mark on the ogre. What class am I?

Later on, another character smites a foe with his sword. What class is he?

After a bunch of fighting, another character casts cure wounds. What class is he? That same character dropped a lightning bolt earlier in the day. Does that change your answer?

So on and so forth. There are so many different ways for different classes to do the same thing. Clerics gain smite abilities, and, my Forge Priest had paladin spells. An Oath of Vengeance paladin gains Hunter's Mark. A druid can cast Lightning Bolt, as can a cleric. The notion that you could positively identify class by observing spells cast and whatnot is simply not true. There are almost no abilities in any class that aren't also done by another class.

 

[Azzy]

It depends. If there's a class or subclass that is actually called Samurai, then he's not a Samurai. Samurai were more than just honorable warriors. Samurai had very specific training and requirements.

No. A big no. Samurai had different training throughout the centuries. Also, not all samurai were warriors. Just because a class or sublass called "samurai" exists doesn't mean that it's the only way to model a samurai. That's just dumb.

 

[Krachek]

I played a paladin of vengeance that was a kind of mafia leader.
its background was a fallen noble, struggling to recover title and power to protect its family.
not the usual paladin, but a lot of fun with the rest of the party.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Are you saying I am now asking to play a "Homebrew" character because my origin story doesn't match the basic description of paladins in the PHB? Are you further saying that if I do want to play a character with this background I can't use the rules for paladins because "that's how paladins work, not possessed divine champions"?

Yes. There is enough complexity within the setting already, without you trying to play something that isn't covered yet. There's no benefit to allowing your concept into the setting. All it does is dilute our knowledge about how the world works, so that now we know less than we did before.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Yes. There is enough complexity within the setting already, without you trying to play something that isn't covered yet. There's no benefit to allowing your concept into the setting. All it does is dilute our knowledge about how the world works, so that now we know less than we did before.

I don't know what setting you're playing, but it sounds boring.

 

[Don Durito]

I think part of the issue is that subclasses, like Paragon Paths and Prestige classes before them exist in a kind of nebulous space where there sort of supposed to correspond to game world institutions and realities and sort of not.

On the one hand Samurai is just a fighting style with an evocative name, on the other hand they get Elegant Courtier at level 7, which only syncs with the rest of what the class does if we take the title seriously.

Certainly we get enough fluff thrown in about various Paladin Oaths that it hardly seems out of line for the DM to take that fluff seriously and insist that players stick to it (otherwise what exactly is it for?). On the other hand, many of us aren't playing in the default setting (which is mostly non-existent anyway), so we feel free to ignore a lot of the fluff.

There is something very annoying and basically...inelegant, about the idea of a setting that has a Samurai social class, and a samurai subclass, but these don't sync up in anyway. But at the same time it would seem wrong to insist someone play the subclass when a battlemaster can fulfill the concept just as well (and of course if a knight can be a paladin then why not a Samurai?).

 

[Jd Smith1]

You guys have heard the phrase "your class is not your character," right? the idea is that you don’t have to be an baby-eating psychopath just because your sorcerer has the Abyssal bloodline. You don’t have to be a purehearted hero just because you know your way around a smite evil.

I'm curious if this is a real problem that people have encountered, or if it's just a good soundbite. Have you ever encountered a GM or another player who told you that you were "playing your class wrong?" I may just be lucky in my groups, but I haven't ever encountered that mess out in the wild.

Comic for illustrative purposes.

I take the view that the PC's choice of a class reflects their outlook. They chose an intensive course of training for a specific outcome.

Being a Druid who hangs out in town, a Cleric who neglects the tenants of his faith, a Paladin who does not set the moral example, is going to be penalized in my campaigns. A class is not a character, but it still must be depicted properly.

Now the vanilla classes such as fighter, barbarian, bard, those don't carry that responsibility because they are just skill packages.

I don't allow multi-classing. I've never liked that aspect.