4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[D'karr]

It goes slightly further than this. You need to get your alternate concept working every time you use the power, and need to get it working for all Paladin powers. I'm not sure this can be done.

I don't particularly think that it can't be done. I think that it might be putting too much effort in the wrong direction. It might be a waste of time. Specially if there are other classes, or multiclass options that easily get you 90% there.

For example if I was going to "reflavor" all my powers to become a swashbuckler, I probably would not start with a base class such as warlock, shaman, or wizard, etc. I would find a class that closely resembles mechanically, if not necessarily thematically (story), those things that I think a swashbuckler would do.

It would be martial, it would not concentrate on ranged attacks. It would work well with light or no armor. It would have some, or lots of mobility type attacks. After I've determined the mechanical things that I want my class to do, then I can choose a close approximation. Based on that mechanical expectation, the two weapon ranger, the rogue, or even the slayer might fit what I need. Two other classes I might consider are the swordmage and the avenger, but their close ties to arcana and religion might require a lot more work for reflavoring.

So it can be done, it's just how much work you want to put into it to keep it simple and still "thematically" appropriate.

 

[B.T.]

So, you fall into that unfathomable "the fluff in the books is somehow privileged and shouldn't be changed" camp, eh?

Mechanics should reflect what they are trying to represent. If the fluff of the rogue's power is that you're backstabbing someone, then the mechanics should reflect backstabbing. That could mean a variety of things--from only applying while physically behind someone to simply attacking when the target is unaware--but it needs to represent what it claims to represent. It's about being able to associate what happens mechanically with our expectations in-game.

Suppose we were to eliminate an armor bonus to AC and instead gave everyone a bonus to AC based on class and level. Armor is now a texture painted on the models. Does fighting guards wearing chainmail mean anything? Does telling your players that the knight is wearing plate armor indicate anything about his wealth, status, and likelihood of beating you up? Does telling your players that the noble is wearing robes let them know he's vulnerable to physical attacks? No, it means nothing. Everything is just a sprite in the gameworld.

Play how you like to play, but remember, there are MANY other ideas of how to use the game to have fun than just yours or the ones the authors thought of. They are all equally worthy of consideration.

You are telling me that I need to be more inclusive of other playstyles while disregarding my own playstyle.

Tell all you like, but I wanted to play a heavily-armoured divine tank warrior, not a hide-clad primal striker, so your orders are inadequate as well as pompous. Moreover, if flavour is a rule as you seem to think, you shouldn't have advised me to play a barbarian instead, because my character is a wealthy formally educated noble with no primal or animalistic connections whatsoever. By your own logic, that advice would be unacceptable.

If fluff is mutable, then by your own admission your objections to the barbarian class don't matter. The implied background of the barbarian doesn't matter.

 

[Fox Lee]

This has never been the problem in my mind. This is fairly self-evident. I'm simply wondering why this is considered a particularly salient point as a "strength" for the 4e rule set. You choose to play a paladin, and by golly, your character's mechanical crunch has them act like a paladin. This is hardly different than 3e, or 1e.

Are we simply assuming that "choosing to fight in a thematically appropriate way" makes it easier / more relevant to explore paladin-ey themes?

Not a problem for me either. My opinion is that it's achieved better in 4e mainly because of the clear lines between mechanics and thematics; the system openly acknowledges that these two are not the same, and that the latter can be changed arbitrarily as long as the former remains constant. This allows you to use the mechanical options presented as a tool for expressing a concept, rather than the more traditional view of a pre-defined package. You can think more in terms of "my character should be like xyz, what mechanical choices would let me play that?" instead of "my character is a Ranger, what can I do?" (though, of course, there is nothing to stop you from doing the latter if you wish, which is why I consider this a better game).

Earlier editions - really, all RPGs that aren't rules-heavy and plenty that are as well - blur the line between what the game needs to function properly, and what the game designers thought was good flavour. As a result, they tend to rely on simply telling you how to describe a power or how to roleplay a class. In 3e/3.5, anything with an alignment restriction or variant makes a good example - they don't encourage you to show "suitable" behaviour by creating abilities than benefit from that behaviour, so much as they simply tell you "you can't do that" or punish you in-character for behaving in a different fashion. This makes them better defined, but also inelegant (because they tell rather than show) and rigid in terms of adaption to non-standard concepts.

I guess a lot of it is positive reinforcement versus punishment, and instruction versus encouragement. A 3.5 pally tells you how to be a paladin, and punishes you if you don't observe its flavour correctly; a 4e pally shows you how to be a paladin by giving you powers that encourage you to stand in the midst of foes and shield your allies, and gives you little return if you use those abilities in a sub-par fashion. Consequently, a 3.5 pally essentially refuses to be used for concepts that are at odds with its flavour, while a 4e pally happily adapts to anything that's not at odds with its mechanics.

In short, a 3.5 pally says "here is my flavour, play me right or choose something else", while the 4e pally says "these are my abilities, use them well or choose something else." Since using your abilities poorly will always be bad as long as there rules and tactical choices, I consider the 4e requirement to be inevitable, whereas I find the 3.5 requirement to be tyrannical and unnecessary.

3.5 pally is a paladin class you can play, while 4e pally is a class you can use to create a paladin. It's a subtle difference sometimes, but for me at least, it's a critical one.

If fluff is mutable, then by your own admission your objections to the barbarian class don't matter. The implied background of the barbarian doesn't matter.

Yeah, but I didn't say "I don't want to play that because its fluff doesn't suit my character", I said "I don't want to play that because it doesn't do what my character should do". Things like wearing hide or plate armour, being a striker or a defender, or getting rage instead of channel divinity, are not fluff (though being divine or primal is admittedly on the fence).

You, conversely, did treat flavour as law for case A, while totally ignoring it in case B. I'm pointing out that you're being hypocritical, not agreeing with your postulate.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't particularly think that it can't be done. I think that it might be putting too much effort in the wrong direction. It might be a waste of time. Specially if there are other classes, or multiclass options that easily get you 90% there.

I'm talking of the specific "Sneaky Paladin" rather than general reskins here. I do do plenty of reskins.

Mechanics should reflect what they are trying to represent.

What the mechanics are trying to represent is the character I have in mind. In 4e I usually start off with a picture of the character I want to play then make the character based on that. The mechanics for a PC should therefore reflect that PC rather than reflecting some arbitrary notion. What I seldom do (but have to do if they are set up the way you want them to be) is say "I want to be a wizard. What does that mean in D&D?"

If fluff is mutable, then by your own admission your objections to the barbarian class don't matter. The implied background of the barbarian doesn't matter.

Fluff is mutable. Mechanics aren't. The objection to the barbarian is that it doesn't reflect the valiant plate armoured warrior so much as a foaming at the mouth beserker.

 

[D'karr]

Mechanics should reflect what they are trying to represent.

Under most circumstances they do. There are a few corner cases but there are still ways to "flavor" them to represent what they do.

If fluff is mutable, then by your own admission your objections to the barbarian class don't matter. The implied background of the barbarian doesn't matter.

Flavor is indeed mutable. However in a class system, the designer has made some mechanical assumptions when they built the class. For example the Paladin is proficient in Plate Armor, the Barbarian is not. So if I reflavor the barbarian and say that he wears heavy armor I'm making a mechanical assumption that the base class does not support. The thematics of the class has supporting mechanics that are tied to it. If I want to change the flavor, and it clashes with the mechanics then I have some work to do to keep the "new" class thematically relevant.

You can do with the system whatever you want, it's just a matter of how much work you want to put on your shoulders to keep the mechanics, and the story in some kind of sync. Some mechanics lend themselves better in some circumstances (Paladin Plate Armor) than others (Avenger Cloth Armor). If I'm reflavoring to a theme which would be better supported by divine power, single target melee attacks, and light armor, then the Avenger Class is probably a better fit than the Paladin Class, or the Barbarian Class.

It really boils down to how much work you want to do to keep thematic elements and mechanic elements in sync.

I think there is this belief that just because you can do reflavoring, at will, that the reflavoring should not take the underlying mechanics into consideration. That is simply not true.

If you don't take the underlying mechanics into consideration you usually end up with thematically ridiculous situations. If you want to play like that nothing really prevents it. The system will do whatever you want it to do. I would then ask, why? What is the purpose of it, just to prove that you can make ridiculous flavor?

 

[pemerton]

In 3e/3.5, anything with an alignment restriction or variant makes a good example - they don't encourage you to show "suitable" behaviour by creating abilities than benefit from that behaviour, so much as they simply tell you "you can't do that" or punish you in-character for behaving in a different fashion.

<snip>

A 3.5 pally tells you how to be a paladin, and punishes you if you don't observe its flavour correctly; a 4e pally shows you how to be a paladin by giving you powers that encourage you to stand in the midst of foes and shield your allies, and gives you little return if you use those abilities in a sub-par fashion.

<SNIP>

3.5 pally is a paladin class you can play, while 4e pally is a class you can use to create a paladin. It's a subtle difference sometimes, but for me at least, it's a critical one.

Nicely put.

I didn't say "I don't want to play that because its fluff doesn't suit my character", I said "I don't want to play that because it doesn't do what my character should do". Things like wearing hide or plate armour, being a striker or a defender, or getting rage instead of channel divinity, are not fluff (though being divine or primal is admittedly on the fence).

I think there is this belief that just because you can do reflavoring, at will, that the reflavoring should not take the underlying mechanics into consideration. That is simply not true.

Agreed with these too.

Suppose we were to eliminate an armor bonus to AC and instead gave everyone a bonus to AC based on class and level. Armor is now a texture painted on the models. Does fighting guards wearing chainmail mean anything? Does telling your players that the knight is wearing plate armor indicate anything about his wealth, status, and likelihood of beating you up? Does telling your players that the noble is wearing robes let them know he's vulnerable to physical attacks? No, it means nothing.

In 4e the principle determinant of NPC AC is role and level. The principle determinant of PC AC is class and level, mediated through the class armour proficiencies and preferred stats, together with the rules on armour types, masterwork armour and stat mods.

But nothing follows from that that the PCs cant draw inferences from armour worn to NPC wealth and status. That depends entirely on how the GM sets up the gameworld, and narrates the NPCs within it.

 

[pemerton]

I don't know, 2E paladins were a bit different from fighters or rangers when surrounded by foes.pretty sure 2e paladins have a ten foot aura of protection, that gives evil opponents a -1,penalty to attack. If they have a holy sword they project a circle of power that provides magic resistance. Also +2 to saves he recieves, wasn't too shabby in the AD&D system (bonuses ike that were much harder to come by prior to 3E).

I mentioned the +2 to saves. I never saw a Holy Sword in play - they're pretty rare on the item tables.

But as for the circle of protection - it's an AC buff, but it's just as strong if you're fighting one target as many. What' distinctive about Valiant Strike is that that is not true.

 

[B.T.]

I'm pointing out that you're being hypocritical, not agreeing with your postulate.

I'm hardly being hypocrtical, merely pointing out that, by your own reasoning, the barbarian-paladin debate is moot if the fluff is mutable. If your character is an atheist with anger issues, he's not a paladin. He sounds like a barbarian to me. Or, if you really object to the barbarian, he's a fighter. Otherwise you're going to have to explain why your atheist non-divine paladin has healing powers and the ability to blast his enemies with light.

What the mechanics are trying to represent is the character I have in mind. In 4e I usually start off with a picture of the character I want to play then make the character based on that. The mechanics for a PC should therefore reflect that PC rather than reflecting some arbitrary notion. What I seldom do (but have to do if they are set up the way you want them to be) is say "I want to be a wizard. What does that mean in D&D?"

If the character you have in mind is a sneaky guy who stabs people in the back, you play a rogue because that's what the mechanics represent. If your character is a berserker, you play a barbarian. If your character is a fighter with powers tied directly to his service to his god and his overall goodness, you play a paladin. If your character is a fighter who is an atheist, you don't play a paladin.

Writing that last line gives me an insight into the disconnect between playstyles. The traditional D&D paladin had mechanics that specifically represented the divine nature of the paladin: the code of conduct and the potential to fall. The 4e paladin can eat babies and still not lose his powers, so it's only natural that players not rigidly define the source of said powers. When the paladin is just a fighter with radiant powers, there's no need to make him anything but that.

 

[D'karr]

The traditional D&D paladin had mechanics that specifically represented the divine nature of the paladin: the code of conduct and the potential to fall.

I think that the problem with those "mechanics" was that they were not really mechanics at all. DMs could decide willy-nilly if a particular act had violated the "code". A "code" which was also nebulous. I don't recall ever seeing one published. So it became a "mechanic" whose sole basis for adherence/enforcement was opinion. If a Paladin "lied" during an interrogation by enemies of his god, he might incur the wrath of the DM. However, killing sentient creatures and taking their stuff was completely fine.

It made for the entire alignment of LG to be regarded as Lawful Stupid.

The 4e paladin can eat babies and still not lose his powers, so it's only natural that players not rigidly define the source of said powers. When the paladin is just a fighter with radiant powers, there's no need to make him anything but that.

The Paladin in 4e is defined as a "Champion of a particular Ethos". That's my closest definition based on the class writeup. That particular Ethos might be espoused by the tenets of a particular deity and their faith. Since nothing is published in the books except for broad "domains", and categories for the default gods, there are no "rules" for adherence to the ethos. Similarly there were no rules in AD&D except punishing the player if he broke the nebulous tenets. However, just because the "rules" don't have any consequences it doesn't mean that the DM and player can't work together on those areas which become questionable - according to the "Ethos".

Just because the game doesn't spell everything out doesn't mean that a DM, and player can't come up with interesting things in their game. The best part about this is that the "ethos" acknowledgement is being made by the best people to do so; the players at a particular table. I prefer this rather than a game designer that has no idea of the "ethical" game that a particular table might want to play imposing his particular views on anything, except as a sidebar example.

I would have liked to have seen a Faiths and Pantheons type book that explored things like that, but that is mostly flavor, not mechanics.

 

[Imaro]

Not a problem for me either. My opinion is that it's achieved better in 4e mainly because of the clear lines between mechanics and thematics; the system openly acknowledges that these two are not the same, and that the latter can be changed arbitrarily as long as the former remains constant. This allows you to use the mechanical options presented as a tool for expressing a concept, rather than the more traditional view of a pre-defined package. You can think more in terms of "my character should be like xyz, what mechanical choices would let me play that?" instead of "my character is a Ranger, what can I do?" (though, of course, there is nothing to stop you from doing the latter if you wish, which is why I consider this a better game).

Earlier editions - really, all RPGs that aren't rules-heavy and plenty that are as well - blur the line between what the game needs to function properly, and what the game designers thought was good flavour. As a result, they tend to rely on simply telling you how to describe a power or how to roleplay a class. In 3e/3.5, anything with an alignment restriction or variant makes a good example - they don't encourage you to show "suitable" behaviour by creating abilities than benefit from that behaviour, so much as they simply tell you "you can't do that" or punish you in-character for behaving in a different fashion. This makes them better defined, but also inelegant (because they tell rather than show) and rigid in terms of adaption to non-standard concepts.

I guess a lot of it is positive reinforcement versus punishment, and instruction versus encouragement. A 3.5 pally tells you how to be a paladin, and punishes you if you don't observe its flavour correctly; a 4e pally shows you how to be a paladin by giving you powers that encourage you to stand in the midst of foes and shield your allies, and gives you little return if you use those abilities in a sub-par fashion. Consequently, a 3.5 pally essentially refuses to be used for concepts that are at odds with its flavour, while a 4e pally happily adapts to anything that's not at odds with its mechanics.

In short, a 3.5 pally says "here is my flavour, play me right or choose something else", while the 4e pally says "these are my abilities, use them well or choose something else." Since using your abilities poorly will always be bad as long as there rules and tactical choices, I consider the 4e requirement to be inevitable, whereas I find the 3.5 requirement to be tyrannical and unnecessary.

3.5 pally is a paladin class you can play, while 4e pally is a class you can use to create a paladin. It's a subtle difference sometimes, but for me at least, it's a critical one.

I'm having a hard time seeing the difference, ultimately (going by your statements above) both games basically seem to be saying... play a certain way or have an unfun experience... am I missing something here?