Ah, I understand now. I don't consider that "mush" though, I consider that "good game design".
If I want my character's archetype to be a swashbuckler, I can be:
A Dex-based Battlemaster Fighter;
A Swashbuckler Rogue;
A Valor Bard or a Swords Bard; or even
A Kensei monk; or
A Pact of the Blade Warlock.
This is a good thing. If I want the character to be tankier, I would go with the Fighter. Higher damage? Rogue. Want to add some magic? Bard or Warlock. More options from the player side are a feature, not a bug. Creative players are happy players and unorthodox characters are interesting characters.
Best part about this? Less decision paralysis. A new player who wants to be a Swashbuckler isn't confronted with a ton of hard choices: he chooses Swashbuckler Rogue (it's right in the name!). A more experienced player isn't bored playing their 10th Swashbuckler Rogue because he can build the archetype different ways and they play differently on the table.
From the DM side? The core of the character is the same: a Dex-based, one-handed finesse swordfighter with high Charisma who is probably trained mostly in Cha-skills. The different versions of the character have different capabilities, but none of these capabilities break the game.
Plus, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Want to throw your players a curveball ? Their highborn antagonist begins to rage on the second round of the battle. The pirate casts water-breathing and stabs at them from underwater. The elf runs UP a tree and starts shooting arrows at them.
What is more, enforcing narrow character archetypes doesn't help those classes with niche identities, it hurts them.
Let's take the Barbarian. It has a pretty niche identity described by others in this thread. A greatsword Fighter with the Outlander background replicates that identity, and fits 100% in the existing Fighter identity. So the Fighter is absorbing part of the Barbarian's niche, and the Barbarian can't do anything about it because his archetype is so narrow. Sucks to be him.
Most of the "narrower" archetypes are in the same boat. Ranger? Scout Rogue with Outlander background (hell, even regular Rogue with Outlander background). Paladin? Fighter with Acolyte background (and maybe Magic Initiate (cleric)). Monk? Fighter with Hermit background (and Tavern brawler feat).
If a particular character doesn't fit the tone of the campaign, that is an issue, but this is a hobby that rewards people's imagination.
I agree and this sounds good, however, I have never seen the argument "your class is not your character/your class is your character" debate brought to the table for the other players to weigh in. The argument is always stopped at the "does not fit into the game setting" aka the setting as the GM defines it. Which is the GMs right at session 0.
If its an issue when a GM shifts the setting after several sessions of player investment into an idea. This can be caused by the GM or the player with the character in question. Its hard to say without a case by case examination and like I said, that's not going to happen at the table with the other party members. If the GM shifts it to deal with problematic play and the rest of the players were to agree with the change then its the player. If the GM shifts it on their whim of how they feel alone after session 0, despite no players at the table having issue with current play, the GM is sticking it to the player in question. It doesn't come to the table because if it does then the GM has to accept that table might accept the "wrong answer" and is easier to call "game setting" and get what they want. This particularly true if other players are not aware of the debate because if happens outside their gaming session and/or the player isn't aware of what is going on in a way to question "setting" like the GM having the only setting source book but not letting anyone see it "because of spoilers" etc.
This is something that gets said over and over again. The implication here is that it is more imaginative to play a weird character or one with a gimmick or what have you than one of a strong classic archetype.
Make a memorable Wood Elf Ranger. That takes imagination and skill.
Improv actors show their creativity by working within the rules given to them. It's not creative for them to just come up with random things and change the rules because they can't think of anything within them.
Putting Noble and Barbarian together is not a flex of someone's imagination. That doesn't take much creativity. Picking Barbarian because they want the Rage mechanic isn't a player being creative.
Playing a Kenku or a Thri-Kreen or an anthropomorphic rhinoceros is not more imaginative than playing an Elf or a Human even if they aren't seen as often.
I've seen it all before. It's not clever.
Make a memorable character not just a gimmick.
But back to the 'mush'. No, it isn't good game design. If the rules represent everything then they represent nothing. Math in service of nothing isn't good design in an RPG. There are built in features in the game which do blur the classes. Backgrounds are core which can do that a little. Feats do it more. Multiclassing blows it all away.
But many players want to go even further. They create houserules to make many thematic options which all have the same result. So those themes don't really mean anything as they aren't differentiated by the game itself.
Classes need to have identity. Otherwise what's the point?
That's the core of the issue. To you barbarian is a skill set. To me barbarian is a skill set. But to some people barbarian is an identity, making the skills and the upbringing inseparable.
It's fine if people want to play it that way, but it's not per core rules. The problem is the people who insist it is a core rule, and anyone who plays differently is playing wrong.
A background can be more important than the class. The Why is important for any kind of improv.
A large fantasy city with an extensive sewer system would be considered to have it's own ecology. Any ecological system would be a valid choice for a Druid. Therefore a city Druid is very reasonable.
As far as the PHB, can anyone answer 'Why' do barbarians rage? What is required for them to have that ability? If it's called Rage, are you allowed to be calculating and rational?
A full time noble could very well be an adventurer with the class just some combat training. A campaign with "For King and Country " theme would easily do that. Adventures could even have zero treasure with the expected treasure being called income from your estate.
Imagination is not required to just pick Barbarian and Noble. It is required to justify why it exists within the setting.
Players should not be limited to only having the DM's imagination. The DM should be inspired by the players imagination. Yes this is a balancing act.
A background isn't more or less important than class. They are two sides of the coin and when it comes to figuring out the character identity, both need to be considered.
A street urchin who becomes a wizard need to have a story that meshes both of those things into his identity in a way that makes sense. Perhaps he was an urchin that a wizard saw potential in and brought into his tower to train. Maybe he was a wizard's apprentice whose master was slain and he ran out into the streets without money or books and had to live for a time scrounging and begging before re-acquiring a book and setting out to adventure.
However you come up with it, both background and class are critical to the identity of the PC.
Okay. If your position is factually true, then you should be able to quote the PHB correct? The part where it says that Barbarians are disqualified from the Noble Background?
Here, I'll help you, since you might be away from your books at the moment. I'll put all the relevant text I can think of in spoilers.
PHB 125
"Every story has a beginning. Your character’s background reveals where you came from, how you became an adventurer, and your place in the world. Your fighter might have been a courageous knight or a grizzled soldier. Your wizard could have been a sage or an artisan. Your rogue might have gotten by as a guild thief or commanded audiences as a jester.
Choosing a background provides you with important story cues about your character’s identity. The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring? Where did you get the money to purchase your starting gear, or, if you come from a wealthy background, why don’t you have more money? How did you learn the skills of your class? What sets you apart from ordinary people who share your background?
The sample background in this chapter provides both concrete benefits (features, proficiencies, and languages) and roleplaying suggestions."
I went ahead and bolded an interesting part for you. It is the one where it lists two different backgrounds for each of the Fighter, Wizard, and Rogue. Now, it doesn't state out right, but it would seem to imply that you can choose different options.
Still, maybe noble is more specific?
You understand wealth, power, and privilege. You carry a noble title, and your family owns land, collects taxes, and wields significant political influence. You might be a pampered aristocrat unfamiliar with work or discomfort, a former merchant just elevated to the nobility, or a disinherited scoundrel with a disproportionate sense of entitlement. Or you could be an honest, hard-working landowner who cares deeply about the people who live and work on your land, keenly aware of your responsibility to them.
Work with your DM to come up with an appropriate title and determine how much authority that title carries. A noble title doesn’t stand on its own — it’s connected to an entire family, and whatever title you hold, you will pass it down to your own children. Not only do you need to determine your noble title, but you should also work with the DM to describe your family and their influence on you.
Is your family old and established, or was your title only recently bestowed? How much influence do they wield, and over what area? What kind of reputation does your family have among the other aristocrats of the region? How do the common people regard them?
What’s your position in the family? Are you the heir to the head of the family? Have you already inherited the title? How do you feel about that responsibility? Or are you so far down the line of inheritance that no one cares what you do, as long as you don’t embarrass the family? How does the head of your family feel about your adventuring career? Are you in your family’s good graces, or shunned by the rest of your family?
Does your family have a coat of arms? An insignia you might wear on a signet ring? Particular colors you wear all the time? An animal you regard as a symbol of your line or even a spiritual member of the family?
These details help establish your family and your title as features of the world of the campaign.
Skill Proficiencies: History, Persuasion Tool Proficiencies: One type of gaming set Languages: One of your choice Equipment: A set of fine clothes, a signet ring, a scroll of pedigree, and a purse containing 25 gp
Feature: Position of Privilege
Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.
Suggested Characteristics
Nobles are born and raised to a very different lifestyle than most people ever experience, and their personalities reflect that upbringing. A noble title comes with a plethora of bonds — responsibilities to family, to other nobles (including the sovereign), to the people entrusted to the family’s care, or even to the title itself. But this responsibility is often a good way to undermine a noble.
Hmm, don't see anything that says "Prerequisites" or "Mutually Exclusive with this Class"
But, I could very possibly be missing a section of the PHB. If you could quote me the exact page number where it tells you which backgrounds you are not allowed to take with which classes, because doing so would break the rules of the game, then I would be much obliged.
Because, if you can't, that would imply that despite your claims that "the class would be called something else if this was allowed" that, actually, it is allowed.
Background and Class are not required to be 50/50 split.
Some players will consider the background something the character did for barely any time does not affect the final result.
Others will consider where you came from as the most important thing about themselves.
....
A large fantasy city with an extensive sewer system would be considered to have it's own ecology. Any ecological system would be a valid choice for a Druid. Therefore a city Druid is very reasonable.
....
While I agree with the rest of your posting, this statement should be rather:
While a city (/sewer ) druid (What is this guy doing? Taking care of giant rats, rot grubs and dangerous fungal toxins?) is possible, it is normally much more reasonable to have a sewer worker and plumber guild active in a fantasy city with a large sewer system.
