D&D 5E Fluff & Rule, Lore & Crunch. The Interplay of Class, System, and Color in D&D

[Snarf Zagyg]

Again, this is edition dependent.

Originally the ranger class was exactly the rangers from Lord of the Rings, including proficiency with the Palantir.

I agree, and nodded to that in the OP.

That said, I think that there are two things that can be said about 5e, which is why I started the thread and put up the poll (because I was curious what other people thought):

1. Some classes in 5e are more "lore heavy" than other classes.

2. People approach 5e in different ways. For lack of a better way of putting it, some people attach meaning and "rule-like" substance to the lore of classes, and others concentrate only on the mechanical aspects. I don't think either approach is incorrect, I'm just wondering how different people handle it.

 

[prabe]

2. People approach 5e in different ways. For lack of a better way of putting it, some people attach meaning and "rule-like" substance to the lore of classes, and others concentrate only on the mechanical aspects. I don't think either approach is correct, I'm just wondering how different people handle it.

I think you mean that neither approach is incorrect? Or something like? It seems more in keeping with your general point. Your phrasing makes it seem as though both approaches are entirely wrong, which ... doesn't seem like you, to be honest (though I could be wrong about that).

Sorry.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think you mean that neither approach is incorrect? Or something like? It seems more in keeping with your general point. Your phrasing makes it seem as though both approaches are entirely wrong, which ... doesn't seem like you, to be honest (though I could be wrong about that).

Sorry.

In English "I don't think either approach is correct" does not typically imply they are entirely wrong, though it potentially could. If you wanted "entirely wrong", you'd probably use a strengthener like "I don't think either approach is at all correct".

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think you mean that neither approach is incorrect? Or something like? It seems more in keeping with your general point. Your phrasing makes it seem as though both approaches are entirely wrong, which ... doesn't seem like you, to be honest (though I could be wrong about that).

Sorry.

I suppose my three options in response are:
1. To gracefully acknowledge my typo; or
2. To surreptitiously edit my post and pretend it never happened, given that I am infallible; or
3. To assume it was purposeful as part of my general misanthropy and swerve hard into that.


Thinking ....

Given that other people are generally terrible, listen to Nickelback and play Bards, I would have to say that whatever they are for, I am against.

 

[prabe]

I suppose my three options in response are:
1. To gracefully acknowledge my typo; or
2. To surreptitiously edit my post and pretend it never happened, given that I am infallible; or
3. To assume it was purposeful as part of my general misanthropy and swerve hard into that.


Thinking ....

Given that other people are generally terrible, listen to Nickelback and play Bards, I would have to say that whatever they are for, I am against.

I figure those options aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Voadam]

To me, classes have lore. We don't play out of the SRD for a reason.

For me that reason is because the 5e SRD is so limited in material and options. I played out of the SRD through all of 3.0., 3.5, and Pathfinder 1e. The 4e "SRD" was even worse.

 

[prabe]

In English "I don't think either approach is correct" does not typically imply they are entirely wrong, though it potentially could. If you wanted "entirely wrong", you'd probably use a strengthener like "I don't think either approach is at all correct".

I didn't think it was the intent--as I said, it's not in keeping with what @Snarf Zagyg typically says--but why be unintentionally unclear?

 

[Voadam]

I am a big fan of using the mechanics to execute cool concepts and reskinning if that works.

I did a LG devout Cuthbertian warrior as a rogue in 3.5 for instance. In my current 5e campaign that I am running two of the characters are World of Darkness concept Werewolves and Werebears. Mechanically one is a human druid and the other is a shifter barbarian. It works really well.

 

[TwoSix]

I agree, and nodded to that in the OP.

That said, I think that there are two things that can be said about 5e, which is why I started the thread and put up the poll (because I was curious what other people thought):

1. Some classes in 5e are more "lore heavy" than other classes.

That's generally one of my bigger philosophical issues with 5E (and D&D more generally). I like games with broad classes where the flavor is assumed to be put in by the player. I like games with specific classes, where the classes map strongly onto in-game lore. I get annoyed when the game tries to split the difference, like D&D does when you contrast something like paladin with fighter.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That's generally one of my bigger philosophical issues with 5E (and D&D more generally). I like games with broad classes where the flavor is assumed to be put in by the player. I like games with specific classes, where the classes map strongly onto in-game lore. I get annoyed when the game tries to split the difference, like D&D does when you contrast something like paladin with fighter.

That's true, but I think that's a feature, or a bug (?), that's always been with D&D to a greater or lesser extent because of the very nature of how it originated.

The original two classes (Fighting Man, Magic User) covered the entire spectrum of two archetypes.

Then, they added a third, gish, class that also happened to be weirdly lore-heavy for bizarrely specific reasons (the Cleric as a Van Helsing type).

Once you have those three (basically FIGHT, SPELL, and GISH) everything that came after it became more lore-heavy, with the possible (possible!) exception of the Thief.

Halflings, Elves, and Dwarves were Tolkien.

Rangers were Strider. Paladins were Three Hearts. Assassins, Bards, Illusionists- all weirdly specific "subclasses." The Druid was a very specific conception of Sustare's idea of proto-Romano-Celtic ideas that were around in the 70s. And the Monk was straight-up Remo Williams.

Since then, you have the same issue. You have to include the lore-light core classes (such as Fighter, Wizard) and if you want some continuity, you also have to make a place for the other classes that mostly exist because of some tie-in to traditional lore.


IMO, etc.