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

[Aldarc]

Read what I quoted.

Someone literally said 'class is just mechanics'.

I read it. Did you? Also, that quote you provide here is LITERALLY not in what you quoted.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Completely false.

I'm sorry, I must be confused yet again. I guess you would prefer me to say I didn't play a barbarian at all? I must have written some other class name and used some other mechanics then,

I don't force people into anything. Nobody is required to accept my help. These are just more of your false accusations. When I say "work with" the player. I meant it.

It seems you have some deep seated need to have revenge on me for your misperceived slight. I don't see any other reason for you to deliberately change what I'm saying so much.

Ah, so if I had shown up at your table with my Barbarian Knight, and told you of the idea that he is a questing knight looking for honor and glory for his courtly love and believes in the Chivalric code, you would have been fine letting me play it exactly as that?

I mean, sure, you might have mentioned that it didn't quite match up with the barbarian, but when you offer to "help" me homebrew a better solution to the class and I said "No, this is what I want, I'm happy with it" would you have let me play that character at the table?

If I refused to change the details (except perhaps which noble family he belonged to, which kingdom he hailed from, the setting details since noble lineages and kingdom structures can be important to the DM) would I be allowed to play it?

I wasn't speaking about you.

Bitter? Yes, I'm getting bitter about this discussion.

Misrepresentation? No, I don't think I have misrepresented you once. You just seem to see giant gulfs between the meaning of words and think saying things like "he is just mistaken" is not the same as saying "he is wrong"

And it is truly frustrating to have to fight down every nuance of every definition on every point, because you just can't seem to accept that there are holes in your position.

That's not accurate. There is 'fluff' throughout the class descriptions.

Every ability has 'fluff'.

They all represent things. Strip that away to just the 'mechanics' and it doesn't actually take up that much space.

Instead of Barbarian picture 'class A'. Then imagine just having 'ability 1, ability 2, etc.' Instead of 'Rage' it just says what it does 'Bonus Action for +2 damage...'.

It's hard to do because the 'fluff' is so integral to the game as you agreed. And if you change it you are no longer playing the class you are playing something else. Another way to say that is 'not following the PHB'.

Every ability has fluff?

Cunning Action states "Your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly."

That would mean rogues are quick and light on their feet. Able to process information quickly. They have a high Intelligence and a high dexterity.

A rogue with 12 in INT and DEX still gets this ability, but the wizard, the swashbuckling fighter, the ranger, none of them get it. Even if their INT and DEX are 22 each.

What about a rogue's fluff explains them being faster than everyone else?

How does that compare to the Monk and Barbarian who are actually faster if no bonus action is used to dodge, because their movement speed increases?

IF cunning actions "fluff" is a rule that describes the gameworld, how does it slot into this game world, what are the conditions for its use? If it is that rogues are criminals, why do fighters with the criminal or urchin background not get the same speed benefit? They lived in the same environment and also focused on dexterity, lockpicking and sleight of hand, but they can't get the same abiities.

This sort of discreprancy is what shows that the fluff has to be mutable. If it is unmutable, these things cause the world to snap in half or simply be full of boring tropes. If they are mutable, then they are simply suggestions for why things work.

I'm playing a human rogue thief. I decided that Cunning Action came from him working to stop his hesitation, he isn't hesitating before acting as much, so he can do a bit more. Fast Hands I decided is because he desperately started practicing after a party member went down and he realized he didn't have time to heal him and deal with the enemy bearing down on them.

That isn't in the fluff of the description. In fact, the point that my rogue could accurately be described as an alchemist and medic isn't in the Rogue class at all.

 

[Fenris-77]

Part of the difficulty with the Barbarian class is that it's the only one that offers such specific cultural and location information in the 'fluff'. You don't see anything in the fighter or rogue fluff that suggests a particular place and culture for example, and this lack is true of all the other classes, although the Ranger and 'not urban' comes close to causing the same sort of argument. That said, D&D generally leaves the description and background of the character to the player - the player decides where they're from, what kind of person they are, what they look like and all the rest. Even the Barbarian fluff is mostly about the idea of rage more than it is about being from a tribal culture. Regardless, none of the color text in a class is a rule, it is not mandatory, and players can use whatever part of it they like.

The mechanics describe how the class actually works and how it allows the player to interact with the game world. The mechanics are what is 'balanced' and the mechanics are what the rules of D&D uses to tell players how they can exert agency on the diagetic frame of the game world. Exerting force on the fluff, which is to say deciding that it is prescriptive rather than suggestive, is a choice. There's nothing wrong with saying "at my table Barbarians are from tribes X, Y, and Z". But the limits of that authority end at your table. There is no evidence or proof you can provide that show the colour text to be a mandatory part of the class - it just isn't so.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, I didn't realize that gnomes had been brought up. I did see dwarves, and you answered that specific trumps general. Fair enough.

So, what specific element of gnome lore, in your view, allows for a gnome barbarian by the rules?

I've told this to you more than once, to Chaosmancer multiple time, and to others multiple times. At LEAST 10 times now, so this is the last time I'm going to tell you.

It's the general theme of the fluff that matters, not the specifics written. Can gnomes be in tribes? Yes. Can those tribes be in mountains? Yes. All that matters is that the gnome can meet the general theme of the barbarian class.

 

[Maxperson]

That's not accurate. There is 'fluff' throughout the class descriptions.

Every ability has 'fluff'.

They all represent things. Strip that away to just the 'mechanics' and it doesn't actually take up that much space.

Instead of Barbarian picture 'class A'. Then imagine just having 'ability 1, ability 2, etc.' Instead of 'Rage' it just says what it does 'Bonus Action for +2 damage...'.

It's hard to do because the 'fluff' is so integral to the game as you agreed. And if you change it you are no longer playing the class you are playing something else. Another way to say that is 'not following the PHB'.

Sure, but there is room for change as long as it meets the general barbarian theme. Primal Might for one tribe could be Invigoration of the Earth Mother for the next, Strength of Stone for the dwarven tribe, and One with the Elephant for the plains tribe.

 

[Xetheral]

If a class is just a bundle of mechanics then why give them names? Why spend so many pages on describing what the class is.

Just give the list of mechanics.

The thing is, if the PHB was only 'mechanics' and all the fluff was removed there would be no game there.

A 'fluffless' RPG can't work.

The fluff can be removed from chess and it would still be a game.

Remove all that identity, narrative, theme, etc. from an RPG and all that is left is a bunch of nonsense math.

I'm very confused as to why you claim that not following the fluff in the class descriptions (but keeping the mechanics) is the same as having no fluff at all. If the fluff in the class descriptions is replaced with new class-specific fluff, setting-specific fluff, and/or character-specific fluff, a game can still be full of fluff. You apparently disagree, but I don't understand why. Could you clarify?

To address your question as to the purpose of the fluff in the PHB, I interpret its function as illustrating how the the classes can correspond to traditional archetypes. That's useful information, especially for new players--it provides a starting point with which a specific exemplar can be compared and contrasted. I see the function of those descriptions as illustrating possibilities, rather than limiting options.

 

[Maxperson]

Every ability has fluff?

Yes.

Cunning Action states "Your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly."

That would mean rogues are quick and light on their feet. Able to process information quickly. They have a high Intelligence and a high dexterity.

AND they learned the ability.

A rogue with 12 in INT and DEX still gets this ability, but the wizard, the swashbuckling fighter, the ranger, none of them get it. Even if their INT and DEX are 22 each.

Because they didn't learn the ability.

What about a rogue's fluff explains them being faster than everyone else?

Nothing. They aren't faster than everyone else. They just learned one way to use their abilities and call it Cunning Action. The wizard, fighter and ranger learn other ways to use their abilities.

How does that compare to the Monk and Barbarian who are actually faster if no bonus action is used to dodge, because their movement speed increases?

Apples and oranges.

This sort of discreprancy is what shows that the fluff has to be mutable. If it is unmutable, these things cause the world to snap in half or simply be full of boring tropes. If they are mutable, then they are simply suggestions for why things work.

There isn't a discrepancy. You've just left out the step of "learning the ability."

I'm playing a human rogue thief. I decided that Cunning Action came from him working to stop his hesitation, he isn't hesitating before acting as much, so he can do a bit more.

So he was slower than everyone else before he learned that ability? And after he's the same as everyone else? Not every other character hesitates, so if you stop hesitating you are just moving normally now. How did you model the penalty that hesitating would give you? Were you unable to use Dash, Hide and Disengage in the first round, because you hesitated?

 

[Arilyn]

Part of the difficulty with the Barbarian class is that it's the only one that offers such specific cultural and location information in the 'fluff'. You don't see anything in the fighter or rogue fluff that suggests a particular place and culture for example, and this lack is true of all the other classes, although the Ranger and 'not urban' comes close to causing the same sort of argument. That said, D&D generally leaves the description and background of the character to the player - the player decides where they're from, what kind of person they are, what they look like and all the rest. Even the Barbarian fluff is mostly about the idea of rage more than it is about being from a tribal culture. Regardless, none of the color text in a class is a rule, it is not mandatory, and players can use whatever part of it they like.

The mechanics describe how the class actually works and how it allows the player to interact with the game world. The mechanics are what is 'balanced' and the mechanics are what the rules of D&D uses to tell players how they can exert agency on the diagetic frame of the game world. Exerting force on the fluff, which is to say deciding that it is prescriptive rather than suggestive, is a choice. There's nothing wrong with saying "at my table Barbarians are from tribes X, Y, and Z". But the limits of that authority end at your table. There is no evidence or proof you can provide that show the colour text to be a mandatory part of the class - it just isn't so.

Really good point about the Barbarian having more specifics in the fluff. We refluff a lot at our table, and Barbarian is the class that gets the most fluff treatment. In fact, refluffed Barbarians are more common than the default, because of the issue you raised.

Treating fluff as mechanics that must be followed puts unnecessary constraints on the players. I totally agree there is nothing even remotely in the books that makes this a likely conclusion. I am sure the game designers are more than happy to see players put their own spin on the classes.

 

[ad_hoc]

Part of the difficulty with the Barbarian class is that it's the only one that offers such specific cultural and location information in the 'fluff'. You don't see anything in the fighter or rogue fluff that suggests a particular place and culture for example, and this lack is true of all the other classes, although the Ranger and 'not urban' comes close to causing the same sort of argument. That said, D&D generally leaves the description and background of the character to the player - the player decides where they're from, what kind of person they are, what they look like and all the rest. Even the Barbarian fluff is mostly about the idea of rage more than it is about being from a tribal culture. Regardless, none of the color text in a class is a rule, it is not mandatory, and players can use whatever part of it they like.

The mechanics describe how the class actually works and how it allows the player to interact with the game world. The mechanics are what is 'balanced' and the mechanics are what the rules of D&D uses to tell players how they can exert agency on the diagetic frame of the game world. Exerting force on the fluff, which is to say deciding that it is prescriptive rather than suggestive, is a choice. There's nothing wrong with saying "at my table Barbarians are from tribes X, Y, and Z". But the limits of that authority end at your table. There is no evidence or proof you can provide that show the colour text to be a mandatory part of the class - it just isn't so.

You are inferring that the mechanics are a mandatory part of the class.

Is that your position?

 

[Fenris-77]

You are inferring that the mechanics are a mandatory part of the class.

Is that your position?

Sure is, and I'm stating it. not inferring it - no inference is necessary. Also, feel free to just answer the question without the rhetorical set up post. We can all see where you're going.

Is your position that the mechanics aren't a mandatory part of the class class? More importantly, is your position that the colour text is also somehow a 'mechanic' or in some other way a mandatory part of the class? No offense, but I'd love to see you offer a shred of evidence that that is the case.