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

[Don Durito]

I love the equivalencies in this thread.

If you're going to be snarky at least make sure you understand the point being made.

Which is that there is simply no way to know where to draw the line. There are no criteria that can be used for judgement that aren't basically the abritrary and subjective judgement of the poster about what it reasonable. You act as if the above is clearly ridiculous, but it's an example I saw on rpgnet some years ago, so someone clearly thought it was within the line of acceptable reskinning. (And rpgnet tends to be less traditional than this place, so I've seen people defending the right of players to play exactly the same kind of character as I just described, in exactly the same terms as posters in this thread.)

So where do we draw the line? Wherever the hell we feel like. That's where. There was a GM on the Paizo boards a few years ago that insisted all players had to be willing to play anime girls as characters. Was she being unreasonable? If she was able to get players to play games than who is to say? She got the players she wanted presumably as she was playtesting early Pathfinder (with many TPKs I believe).

 

[Maxperson]

It isn't homebrew.

Then you will have no problem showing me how barbarians in every setting that doesn't home brew them out include barbarians channeling ghosts from those killed in the Mourning. Otherwise, it's a homebrew made up by WotC for that setting.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If you're going to be snarky at least make sure you understand the point being made.

Which is that there is simply no way to know where to draw the line. There are no criteria that can be used for judgement that aren't basically the abritrary and subjective judgement of the poster about what it reasonable. You act as if the above is clearly ridiculous, but it's an example I saw on rpgnet some years ago, so someone clearly thought it was within the line of acceptable reskinning.

So where do we draw the line? Wherever the hell we feel like. That's where. There was a GM on the Paizo boards a few years ago that insisted all players had to be willing to play anime girls as characters. Was she being unreasonable? If she was able to get players to play games than who is to say? She got the players she wanted presumably as she was playtesting early Pathfinder (with many TPKs I believe).

I am sorry if I offended, but your point did not come across as "the line is arbitrary" your point came across as "if we let them change anything, they will expect us to allow any concept"

Because, I didn't find your example as "clearly ridiculous" I've seen that sort of idea floated as well in various places. But not in this thread, except as a rebuttal to the position that we can change some small details and play the personality we choose for our character.

If we are going to see "unwilling warlock" in the same light as "magical cat in a mech suit" then there is no position that can be reasonable. Either we must never change a single word of the book, or we must allow every random concept to be accepted.

But that is not what one side has been talking about for the last 48 hours, despite the other side constantly resorting to calling our concepts gimmicks, unimaginative, comparing them to taking characters from other genres, saying that to allow such changes you might as well remove all possible lore and just have a random number generator.

In that sort of debate environment, I'm sure you can see how I assumed your position was not "the line can be drawn where we want by our taste" and more "if we give them an inch, they will take a lightyear, do not falter and allow change"

 

[abirdcall]

If you're going to be snarky at least make sure you understand the point being made.

Which is that there is simply no way to know where to draw the line. There are no criteria that can be used for judgement that aren't basically the abritrary and subjective judgement of the poster about what it reasonable. You act as if the above is clearly ridiculous, but it's an example I saw on rpgnet some years ago, so someone clearly thought it was within the line of acceptable reskinning. (And rpgnet tends to be less traditional than this place, so I've seen people defending the right of players to play exactly the same kind of character as I just described, in exactly the same terms as posters in this thread.)

So where do we draw the line? Wherever the hell we feel like. That's where. There was a GM on the Paizo boards a few years ago that insisted all players had to be willing to play anime girls as characters. Was she being unreasonable? If she was able to get players to play games than who is to say? She got the players she wanted presumably as she was playtesting early Pathfinder (with many TPKs I believe).

Yeah.

The point is that everyone has a line.

People will say it is ridiculous to stop someone from 'refluffing' things until someone does something they don't like.

The default group norms of a table should be with what is in the books. Then go from there.

Don't be upset if you show up to a table with a character who doesn't follow the rules and people say sorry we're not into that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Then you will have no problem showing me how barbarians in every setting that doesn't home brew them out include barbarians channeling ghosts from those killed in the Mourning. Otherwise, it's a homebrew made up by WotC for that setting.

Max, do you realize what homebrew means to most people?

To most posters, Homebrew does not mean "any change to the core PHB text", it means "changes I personally made at my table"

Therefore, anything officially released, such as the official lore for Eberron, cannot be homebrew. Because Keith Baker made it for his setting, which is an official setting, and it was officially published by the Wizards of the Coast.

If I make a new rule, it can be seen as Homebrew. If WoTC makes a new rule it cannot be seen as homebrew. It is a rule for that setting.

 

[Maxperson]

No. The language of the 5e PHB is that barbarians might, often, or can be uncivilized NOT that they are. Your position here that "barbarians are uncivilized" is prescriptive and not descriptive or a generalization. Your view seems antithetical to the actual language and spirit of 5e, which, on the whole, is exceptionally skittish about dictating how things are in your game, table, or setting.

This is the portion talking about being civilized. Show me where "might," "often" and "can be" are parts of it.

"People of towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals, as if denying one’s own nature was a mark of superiority. To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign
of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature, keen instincts, primal physicality, and ferocious rage. Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. They thrive in the wilds o f their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt."

It says, "...civilization is no virtue..." and "Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds." Those are prescriptive sentences that the game gives, not me. Barbarians as a class are those things. HOW that comes about is up to the players and the fluff is mutable.

 

[Maxperson]

Max, do you realize what homebrew means to most people?

You're arguing semantics. The only difference between what WotC doing and you doing it at home is who did it. The result is exactly the same. A change to the class that applies only to one specific setting.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is the portion talking about being civilized. Show me where "might," "often" and "can be" are parts of it.

"People of towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals, as if denying one’s own nature was a mark of superiority. To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign
of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature, keen instincts, primal physicality, and ferocious rage. Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. They thrive in the wilds o f their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt."

It says, "...civilization is no virtue..." and "Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds." Those are prescriptive sentences that the game gives, not me. Barbarians as a class are those things. HOW that comes about is up to the players and the fluff is mutable.

To the point a poster made some time again then, do you allow Dwarven Barbarians?

Dwarves live underground, not in Tundras, Jungles or Grasslands. So they cannot be Barbarians correct? I'll add Goliaths. Goliaths live in the mountains, mountains are not Tundra, Jungles or Grasslands. So, no Goliath Barbarians, right?

How prescriptive do you get? How many Barbarian concepts are "homebrew" because they do not fit the "rule text" exactly?

 

[Azzy]

Then you will have no problem showing me how barbarians in every setting that doesn't home brew them out include barbarians channeling ghosts from those killed in the Mourning. Otherwise, it's a homebrew made up by WotC for that setting.

If it's in a WotC book, it cannot--by definition--be homebrew. It may be setting-specific, but it shows that the default fluff of the PHB is not sacrosanct and that it can be changed without destroying the class.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're arguing semantics. The only difference between what WotC doing and you doing it at home is who did it. The result is exactly the same. A change to the class that applies only to one specific setting.

No, you are being contrary. Homebrew, literally broken into "brewing at home" is used to talk about rule changes done by fans at home. Rule changes done by the company are variants, errata, or new releases.

Otherwise Volo's, Mordenkainen's, Xanathars and every book released in the future are "homebrew" because they change the rules of the game. And that is not how people use those words, despite the fact that the rules change at the end of the process