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

[Chaosmancer]

Right, you deliberately avoided my point which has been quite clear. Setting specific fluff and crunch from WotC are the equivalent of homebrew. They exist in that setting and only that setting unless a DM alters things to allow them somewhere else.

Bringing up some sort of general class as an example of what I am saying being incorrect is disingenuous. The altered example that I gave is representative of my point. At no point did I argue that a general class like wizard would be homebrew simply because it appears in Eberron.

Ah, so you changed my point without informing me, and just assumed that I would understand what you were attempting to say?

So, you would in fact get upset if someone told you the Artificer was homebrew, because it is not. It is a general class, which was what I was saying.

So, you agreed with me and the point I was making. If you had just said that, this whole process would be going faster.

I also must assume since you continue to ignore it, that you agree with the assertion that barring homebrew, Goliath Barbarians are breaking the rules, because Barbarians cannot live in the mountains.

You also never responded to the point I brought up about if "loving to fight" was uncivilized enough to count for my Barbarian Nobleman. Since they only need to be considered a little "uncivilized" to count, right? You seem to be willing to just change and jump past things, so until you say otherwise I must assume it is true.

So, anything setting specific, is homebrew. And everything written in the PHB is the rules no matter what.

So, All Half-Orcs either grew up in an Orc tribe (which we will assume is evil, since the rules in the Monster Manual says they are chaotic evil) or in the slums. This we know because the rules say so "Half-Orcs most often live among orcs.....Whether proving themselves among rough barbarian tribes or scrabbling to survive in the slums of larger cities"

So, a Half-Orc Folk Hero who grew up in a farming community would be against the rules, correct? Because that is not "in the slums of a larger city"?

Tieflings can't be acoyltes, paladins or clerics right? Because the rules state for tieflings "found mostly in human cities or towns, often in the roughest quarters of those places, where they grow up to be swindlers, thieves, or crime lords."

I mean, I guess they say "often" so if instead my tiefling grew up "among other minority populations in enclaves where they are treated with more respect" I might be able to squeeze out an exception and not be a swindler, thief, or crime lord.

I guess that is good that all the tieflings and orcs cover the criminal and urchin backgrounds, because you can't play a gnome with that background. "Gnomes who settle in human lands commonly gemcutters, engineers, sages or tinkers." Can't be a charlatan that way.

Hmm, I do wonder who the acolytes are supposed to be, none of the races are really religious in their descriptions. And I can't use most of the stuff for Humans in the PHB, because that is homebrew material for the Forgotten Realms. In fact, per RAW, I don't have any legal names for humans, because they are all homebrew from the Forgotten Realms, unless Mulan, Illuskan, Turami, and Calishite are supposed to be generic regions across the game world.

Oh, wait, Elves Dwarves and Humans are allowed to be acolytes, because they can be clerics, it says so in the very first bit where they describe a human cleric, an elf cleric, and a dwarf cleric.

Hmm, this is odd. There is a picture of a half-orc paladin, but are Half-Orcs allowed to be paladins? They aren't mentioned in the first few paragraphs, and ekeing out an existence in the slums isn't exactly conducive to a Paladin path. I mean, I guess they could have been brought from the slums of a large city into a temple, but then they wouldn't be "ekeing out" and existence, so I guess I would have to talk to my DM about homebrewing the race so that it was allowed.

I can keep going, and going, and going.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, so you changed my point without informing me, and just assumed that I would understand what you were attempting to say?

So, you would in fact get upset if someone told you the Artificer was homebrew, because it is not. It is a general class, which was what I was saying.

So, you agreed with me and the point I was making. If you had just said that, this whole process would be going faster.

Your point is irrelevant to my point, which was what you were responding to. My point is that official settings are equivalent to homebrew settings.

I also must assume since you continue to ignore it, that you agree with the assertion that barring homebrew, Goliath Barbarians are breaking the rules, because Barbarians cannot live in the mountains.

Why would I agree with that. Have you even been paying attention to what I have been saying? You have to meet the general theme of the sections, not all the specific words used. Mountains are outdoors and have tribes that live on them, just like plains and forests. Goliath Barbarians fit the general barbarian fluff.

You also never responded to the point I brought up about if "loving to fight" was uncivilized enough to count for my Barbarian Nobleman. Since they only need to be considered a little "uncivilized" to count, right? You seem to be willing to just change and jump past things, so until you say otherwise I must assume it is true.

Being civilized or not is like alignment. Having one or two behaviors that don't fit your alignment(civilized) doesn't make you an uncivilized person.

The theme of the barbarian is someone who generally lives and fits outside of civilized society and doesn't feel comfortable in the middle of crowds or civilization.

So, All Half-Orcs either grew up in an Orc tribe (which we will assume is evil, since the rules in the Monster Manual says they are chaotic evil) or in the slums. This we know because the rules say so "Half-Orcs most often live among orcs.....Whether proving themselves among rough barbarian tribes or scrabbling to survive in the slums of larger cities"

I ignore much of what you say, because quite frankly they misstate my position like this comment and not worth my time to respond to. I've clarified enough times that if you are either not bothering to try and understand or are deliberately misstating my position. Be aware, I'm not going to respond to most of the things you say that misstate my position like this. I deleted the rest of your post for that reason.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Your point is irrelevant to my point, which was what you were responding to. My point is that official settings are equivalent to homebrew settings.

Except noone except you uses "homebrew" to mean "setting lore". You have put forth the idea that anything not in the PHB is homebrew. Even if it is official material.

And, yet again, you are dodging the question I actually asked. Almost as though you don't want to admit the answer. I did not ask about a group denying my character because it does not fit the setting. I said the groups rule was "no homebrew" and I brought a generic class (the artificer) and was told it was homebrew. It isn't. Unless you think that when WOTC says "yet the class can be found throughout the D&D multiverse " that they are not saying it is a generic class that fits between settings.

So, considering it is a generic class and not setting specific, is it homebrew or not? Yes or no answer, though I would like an explanation of your answer. Just not yet another evasion.

Why would I agree with that. Have you even been paying attention to what I have been saying? You have to meet the general theme of the sections, not all the specific words used. Mountains are outdoors and have tribes that live on them, just like plains and forests. Goliath Barbarians fit the general barbarian fluff.

I'm sorry. Obviously you've forgotten your own position.

See, this section of text from PHB page 46 is a rule that must be followed "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. "

In fact, it must be followed absolutely, you must fit within this framework. Because these are the rules. Therefore, you cannot play a barbarian who is comfortable with civilization.

The next sentence is "They thrive in the wilds of their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt. " This is the same section, the same paragraph, the same rules.

Are you trying to tell me that "To a barbarian civilization is a weakness" is a rule that all characters must follow, but "their homelands are tundras, jungles or grasslands" is, what? A suggested list? I'm not bound to those?

One is a rule that is prescriptive, telling me what must absolutely be true, but the other is a mere suggestion and not prescriptive? I mean, your defense of including dwarves wasn't to say that their homelands are just a suggestion, your defense of dwarves being barbarians was that there is a specific example of a dwarven barbarian in the third paragraph. Why did you need to call that a "specific rule that trumps the general rule" if the places that barbarians live are not prescriptive rules?

You can't weasel out of a position that all text in the PHB are rules by saying that "well, these rules are just general themes, you don't have to match them exactly."

Being civilized or not is like alignment. Having one or two behaviors that don't fit your alignment(civilized) doesn't make you an uncivilized person.

The theme of the barbarian is someone who generally lives and fits outside of civilized society and doesn't feel comfortable in the middle of crowds or civilization.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to respond to this point, because you have in no way demonstrated how this rule is prescriptive and enforceable as compared to the other rule which is simply a general theme. We can revisit this point once you have shown me how we can tell which rules and rules and which rules are not rules.

I ignore much of what you say, because quite frankly they misstate my position like this comment and not worth my time to respond to. I've clarified enough times that if you are either not bothering to try and understand or are deliberately misstating my position. Be aware, I'm not going to respond to most of the things you say that misstate my position like this. I deleted the rest of your post for that reason.

Honestly, I'm not surprised you are ignoring it. Because it seems like your position has changed from "everything in the PHB is a rule that must be followed" to "well, most of these are just general themes that must be adhered to"

Though, I will say skipping the part about human names all being from the Forgotten Realms, leaving no RAW human names since all Forgotten Realms details are homebrew and not real rules, is a mistake since that does seem to address exactly the point that you say you are defending, which is that all setting information is homebrew.

I guess, unless it isn't.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Fluff are rules, it's just people tend to be more lax about changing them. Everyone has a line past which they say, wait, no, you can't actually do that.

That's one way of looking at it. I tend to think of it more along the lines of fluff are examples. While it makes sense to pay attention to examples, examples are all they are. They are one way of playing, and, by and large, they are pretty solid ideas. They are not, however, ironclad. Often the examples are contradictory (as in the barbarian dwarf example above) or stated in somewhat ambiguous terms with qualifier like "often" or the like.

But, that being said, your way of looking at it works for me as well.

 

[Maxperson]

That's one way of looking at it. I tend to think of it more along the lines of fluff are examples. While it makes sense to pay attention to examples, examples are all they are. They are one way of playing, and, by and large, they are pretty solid ideas. They are not, however, ironclad. Often the examples are contradictory (as in the barbarian dwarf example above) or stated in somewhat ambiguous terms with qualifier like "often" or the like.

Every rule is nothing more than an example. Rolling a d20 + modifiers is an example. Some people don't like that particular example and use 2d10 + modifiers. All house rules are, are people deciding an example rule isn't to their liking and changing it.

 

[Xetheral]

Every rule is nothing more than an example. Rolling a d20 + modifiers is an example. Some people don't like that particular example and use 2d10 + modifiers. All house rules are, are people deciding an example rule isn't to their liking and changing it.

To clarify, are you equating permitting a player to play a civilized character who has levels in the Barbarian class with changing the primary resolution mechanic of 5e? You see both as simply declining to follow an example in the rulebook?

 

[Maxperson]

To clarify, are you equating permitting a player to play a civilized character who has levels in the Barbarian class with changing the primary resolution mechanic of 5e? You see both as simply declining to follow an example in the rulebook?

I am not equating them, no. There was nothing in my post even hinting at some sort of equality between those two things.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Every rule is nothing more than an example. Rolling a d20 + modifiers is an example. Some people don't like that particular example and use 2d10 + modifiers. All house rules are, are people deciding an example rule isn't to their liking and changing it.

Every rule is an example, except those that you have to follow. I guess you found my previous post to not be worth responding to? Your idea of what the rules are and when and how you have to follow them is mercurial and seems to shift depending on how best to disagree with the person you are talking to.

It doesn't help that you seem to have a vastly different set of vocabulary than the rest of us.

 

[Maxperson]

Every rule is an example, except those that you have to follow.

Show me one rule that you have to follow and you will be wrong. In D&D not one rule is set in stone such that the DM cannot change it if he wants. All of them are examples. ALL of them.

I guess you found my previous post to not be worth responding to?

Correct.

Your idea of what the rules are and when and how you have to follow them is mercurial and seems to shift depending on how best to disagree with the person you are talking to.

I've consistently supported the right to homebrew and house rule in this and every other thread where I've spoken about it. Your inability to understand others is not my responsibility.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I am not equating them, no. There was nothing in my post even hinting at some sort of equality between those two things.

Probably the "all rules are examples" and "all houserules are people just changing the example" parts were what hinted at it.

After all, you keep claiming that "uncivilized barbarians" are the rules, and that changing that is a houserule. Just like 1d20+mod is a rule and 2d10+mod is a houserule.

Are there now different tiers of rules on top of themes and examples?