D&D 5E Do Classes Have Concrete Meaning In Your Game?

[Mouseferatu]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/s/ref=is_s_ss_i_0_5?k=ari+marmell&sprefix=ari+m

Thanks, man.

 

[empireofchaos]

Well, if the story of the barbarian class is that they are from more primitive, uncivilised areas of the world then not even WotC sticks to that. They've given us the updated battleragers in SCAG, dwarven warriors who fly into a rage but who do not come from a tribal background. In this case, WotC took the class and adapted it to concept. I remember back in 3e that I created a beserker fighter by multiclassing with barbarian, he didn't go native to get the rage mechanic, to look at him, people wouldn't have thought he was a barbarian. The barbarian class only existed on the character sheet, as far as anyone knew he was a skilled warrior who was known to sometimes fall into a battle rage. A change in story to fit the concept.

"Dwarf barbarians are famed and feared warriors among the fiercely proud clans that have reclaimed territories like Mithril Hall and Gauntlgrym." (SCAG, p. 121). One - That wording seems to jibe with the "story" told in the PHB about barbarians seeing "civilization [having] no virtue, but [regarding it as] as sign of weakness" (PHB, p. 46) (to answer an earlier question, that story - as opposed to mechanics - runs like a red thread through all the versions of the barbarian class). Two - battleragers are of a type - so individuals are not simply exemplifying a mere character concept, but belong to a structure of some sort. And three - they follow a specific archetype with its own crunch - the argument in favor of "no class" had been premised in part on simple re-skinning, rather than a partial redesign.

I should add that I'm not a huge fan of the setting (FR) or this take on the barbarian, but if push came to shove, and someone really wanted to play one in a setting where I permit the general class, there is enough class story to work with there that I'd probably allow it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

"Dwarf barbarians are famed and feared warriors among the fiercely proud clans that have reclaimed territories like Mithril Hall and Gauntlgrym." (SCAG, p. 121). One - That wording seems to jibe with the "story" told in the PHB about barbarians seeing "civilization [having] no virtue, but [regarding it as] as sign of weakness" (PHB, p. 46) (to answer an earlier question, that story - as opposed to mechanics - runs like a red thread through all the versions of the barbarian class). Two - battleragers are of a type - so individuals are not simply exemplifying a mere character concept, but belong to a structure of some sort. And three - they follow a specific archetype with its own crunch - the argument in favor of "no class" had been premised in part on simple re-skinning, rather than a partial redesign.

I should add that I'm not a huge fan of the setting (FR) or this take on the barbarian, but if push came to shove, and someone really wanted to play one in a setting where I permit the general class, there is enough class story to work with there that I'd probably allow it.

Um, just curiously, but you are aware that dwarves in the Realms (and in many other fictions) are socially organized into clans structures and are generally fiercely proud of their clans? That doesn't make them savage or less civilized, it's just the social organization they prefer -- large family clan structures. There's nothing in your bold italics that even gets close to suggesting that dwarven clans see 'civilization [having] no value.' For reference, see Scottish clans, which are legally recognized today in Scotland.

 

[empireofchaos]

Um, just curiously, but you are aware that dwarves in the Realms (and in many other fictions) are socially organized into clans structures and are generally fiercely proud of their clans? That doesn't make them savage or less civilized, it's just the social organization they prefer -- large family clan structures. There's nothing in your bold italics that even gets close to suggesting that dwarven clans see 'civilization [having] no value.' For reference, see Scottish clans, which are legally recognized today in Scotland.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that (the pervasive Scottish accent of dwarf characters in films and other popular media notwithstanding), it's not contemporary Scotland, or its clans, that FR is modeling. If for no other reason, than Scotland's "feared warriors" today represent something other than their clan? And until the 18th century, Scotland was very much peripheral relative to the main centers of European "civilization" (or whatever you want to call it).

Then of course there are two more points I made that your comment completely ignores.

 

[Arial Black]

Personally. I think you are disingenuous and not arguing in good faith- especially, how you wrote this beautiful background and then way you worded the last line.

It probably went more like this

Player: Hey, DM, do wood elves exist in your world? Can I play one? Have you added any restrictions as to what class/background they can be?

DM: Yes, you can play a wood elf, and they can have any class and background.

Player: So, all 11 classes are available for me to play? All their paths? All backgrounds?

DM: Yes, yes and yes. You can even tweak your background in any way you want within the parameters set in the background section of the PHB. You can even create your own from scratch, but I'll need to approve it if you do.

Player: Do you allow multiclassing and feats?

DM: Yes to both.

Player: Okay, my PC is a female wood elf rogue 1/monk 2 (you said we'd be starting at level 3). She has the 'spy' variant of the 'criminal' background. Is that all okay?

DM: Solid.

Then, without questioning the DM about the setting and cultures, you went off and wrote your elaborate backstory. Proudly, you handed him what you thought was a brilliant masterpiece that any DM should accept. You presented it to the DM and he said, "This is a nice background, but it doesn't fit the campaign and cultures". Since you stated in a prior post that DMs have to accept your background, because you used races, classes, and other options available in the campaign and, therefore, you have the right to determine the fluff, you probably got upset and called him a jerk.

See,it can be played both ways and is not a good place to start an argument (as in a discussion).

I think I owe you an apology here: that conversation didn't take place. The point I was trying to make is that it would be absurd for a DM to disallow a PC when:-

a.) every single rule set by the game and the DM has been followed to the letter, and

b.) the 'reason' it is disallowed is the absurd idea that the characters in the game know about the game mechanics.

This conversation (up to the absurd last line) could have taken place, as each line is a true thing about this PC's creation, but it didn't play out as a single conversation in reality.

Now, that aside, let us assume that everything you stated was above board except the last line which seems intentionally designed to be prejudicial. You asked the DM about races, classes, feats, classes and multi-classing. That is common. It is also a point at which many players go off and make a character. Neither the player nor the DM brought up the limits on the setting or the limits on the player. That would make them both wrong and to blame ( I personally, avoid this. The player gets a 1-2 page handout with the overviews of the cultures including classes,variants, and subclasses that are appropriate. Then, there are similar handouts for each culture that go into a little more indepth (the player can read it or we can talk about it covering the points). Once the player finds a culture that they like, we can start talking about their character concept and background and work from there to make something that we can agree on (hopefully)). However, the DM told you to make a background without real guidance.

Sent off by the DM, you built a multi-page backstory in which "You intertwined published lore, adventure hooks that don't contradict published lore, adventure hooks specific to this adventure" and stuff you made up that didn't contradict published lore. You never confirmed limits for inventing new stuff and the DM didn't give you any guidelines (Personally, if I were the DM, there would again be plenty of discussion going on, but the DM gave you free rein). The DM gave free rein and liked your backstory. That is cool.

In reality, this was for the organised play of Princes of the Apocalypse. This campaign is set in the Forgotten Realms, a setting I've been familiar with for decades. Since 1st edition. The DM didn't have to give me a two-page summary of 'his' world; I've read literally thousands of pages about this 'campaign world'.

The specifics of the campaign world in this published campaign, as far as character creation are concerned, are available to me. I read what it said about the Elves of the High Forest faction; taking that as my faction needed no more DM approval than taking any of the other factions available to players of this campaign. Although a DM in a home game could arbitrarily limit our faction choices, he can't do that in organised play.

Oh, and I didn't actually write down my backstory; the DM and I spoke about it at length. I could easily write it down if I wanted, though.

Now, we get to the part of the monastery- In my opinion, you both are at fault for not communicating earlier. The DM is at fault for sending you off without more discussion on acceptable limits or any other guideline. You were at fault for creating an organization (and possibly a specific culture of wood elves) for the campaign without talking to the DM). Personally, I put much more of the blame on the DM for giving free rein and sending you off to make a character without any real guidelines and pretty much a blank state. However, it is still your responsibility, in my opinion, to communicate with the DM if you are going to do this (Kids this is why it is important for the player and DM to communicate *throughout* the character generation process. It keeps players and DMs on the same page!)

Yeah, I made up the Lachrymae Shevarash. The DM could've nixed that if he wanted to. But why would he? According to the rules for the Criminal background, they get a Criminal Contact. Since Spy is an official variant of Criminal, it seems that Criminal Contact would actually be Spy Contact, but as a game feature I don't expect one to be more 'powerful' an advantage than the other. In fact, it gives the DM power over me, and I'm okay about that because I chose to give him that form of power.

But who has the authority over background? In one way, the DM has the authority over everything in his game, but if he extends this to the PCs then he might as well be playing Magic Story Time, hand out pre-gens and make all the decisions on behalf of the player so that everything stays under his control.

When a player makes up a backstory, guess what? He makes stuff up!

Player: Hey DM, my backstory is that, when I was around 12 years old, my father...

DM: Father? What are you talking about? I didn't give you permission to alter MY world by adding NPCs that YOU made up! What about the delicate balance of my world? And what have you written on your character sheet? 'Right handed'? In MY world, ALL elves are left handed! Wait, what colour hair...!

(No, this isn't a real conversation, just pointing out an absurd extreme to illustrate that just because it's the DM's world doesn't mean the players have no part in the creation of their own PC)

Of course, if the player says that his PC is actually King of the Elves, well, shoot it down. Fire at will!

So, to what extent should players be allowed to invent? It's a judgement call, but the player should not invent something that messes with the established way things work in the world, without getting the DM on board. With my elven spy, nothing about the Lachrymae Shevarash impacts the campaign unless the DM wants it to. He can just treat it as any other Elves of the High Forest faction; it's just flavour. But isn't flavour an essential part of elevating what could be essentially a really complex board game into a Role-Playing Game?

Now as for your prejudicial last line. I doubt that happens. Either you overstepped your bounds and created a new organization and the DM does not approve and says so (again, he or she is at least partially to blame) or your background is so wonderful that they a) allow your monastery; or b) the DM says to include some monastery incorporating the natural elements. Either way, it is the DM's call even if I feel the DM is at least partially or shoulders the majority of the blame (a setting/campaign issue has priority as players are told to talk to their DM). You as a player then have the choice to a) make the adjustment, b) choose to play something different, or c) walk. However, if you insist that you put all that work and are playing the character without making the change, then yes the DM has the right to say, "Sorry, you are no longer welcome" (personally, I think they are wrong because they bear a large part of the responsibility by not communicating, but it is his or her campaign and final decision).

And now to the relevance of the infamous 'last line' to this thread: there are lots of good reasons for a DM to intervene in the character creation process, but 'monks only come from monasteries' is, in context, absurd.

First, on its face, the building isn't the person. If a monastery-trained monk learned that his monastery had been destroyed, would he lose his class abilities?

Next, in game, a 'monk' can be a person trained in a monastery, but that relates to the Acolyte background, not a limit on the game mechanics of characters raised there. They could be a Commoner, Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, even *gasp* monk in terms of game mechanics, but creatures in the game can have no concept of game mechanics.

Whether or not a PC with levels in the Monk class actually identifies as a 'monk' in game is up to the player, not the DM! The DM does not exercise mind control! He is not the Thought Police! What the player thinks is up to him.

The fluff in the class descriptions are not rules, they are mere examples to get your imaginations flowing. Stereotypes can be useful, but there is no rule limiting players to one of the three stereotypes in the descriptions for each class.

In game, there may well be an organisation that calls itself 'Shadow Monks', but the creatures in the game cannot know the game mechanics of other creatures. It's possible that non-monks (in terms of class levels) are Shadow Monks in game, by using other means that resemble those abilities. And just because one group calls itself Shadow Monks in game does not limit anyone else from taking shadow monk class levels and fluffing a backstory that doesn't involve the in game Shadow Monks in any way.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that (the pervasive Scottish accent of dwarf characters in films and other popular media notwithstanding), it's not contemporary Scotland, or its clans, that FR is modeling. If for no other reason, than Scotland's "feared warriors" today represent something other than their clan? And until the 18th century, Scotland was very much peripheral relative to the main centers of European "civilization" (or whatever you want to call it).

Then of course there are two more points I made that your comment completely ignores.

Yes, I ignored those because I felt your point that the existing barbarian fluff matched up with battleragers because you felt that Dwarven clans are representative of fringe, less civilized social structures was sufficient for an individual reply. To followup to your replay, the defining Dwarven social structure in the Realms (and in most other settings) is the clan. Unless you're postulating that all Dwarves that belong to a clan are uncivilized wildmen, your association fails. Your strange diversion on my example of how clans can easily be (and are) part of a highly developed civilization by pointing out they don't have to be aside, you're still entirely wrong that the fluff of battleragers being part of a Dwarven clan is coherent with seeing 'civilization [having] no value.' it is not coherent.

But to address your final two points: two is a rehash of the argument we've been having -- that you view fluff as the definition of the class whereas others view it as suggestive. Obviously, I've disagreed strongly on that point in the past and took it as a given that you'd understand my continued failure to be persuaded by it.

Your third boils down to accepting a refluff only if the designers write it into a book they sell to you. I felt that I didn't have anything positive to say about that, so I didn't say.

 

[empireofchaos]

Yes, I ignored those because I felt your point that the existing barbarian fluff matched up with battleragers because you felt that Dwarven clans are representative of fringe, less civilized social structures was sufficient for an individual reply. To followup to your replay, the defining Dwarven social structure in the Realms (and in most other settings) is the clan. Unless you're postulating that all Dwarves that belong to a clan are uncivilized wildmen, your association fails. Your strange diversion on my example of how clans can easily be (and are) part of a highly developed civilization by pointing out they don't have to be aside, you're still entirely wrong that the fluff of battleragers being part of a Dwarven clan is coherent with seeing 'civilization [having] no value.' it is not coherent.

They live in the mountainous north, close their borders to outsiders, and one of their main domains is described as being "more mine than city". That's pretty congruent to regions that have been defined as "barbaric" (rightly or wrongly) in the past. But you are characteristically missing the point. I don't care whether dwarvish clans in FR are "objectively" barbaric or not. Just like genetics are not dealt with in any detail in the rulebooks, neither is dwarvish clan character and its opposition to or rejection of civilization - it's a question of how you want to interpret the little it says. To the extent that the clans are patterned on those of the Scottish highlands, they are patterned on them in the form they existed in prior to the formation of the UK - i.e. when Scotland was in fact peripheral. I was merely saying I could easily interpret dwarvish clans as such if a player was dead set on playing a battlerager.

But to address your final two points: two is a rehash of the argument we've been having -- that you view fluff as the definition of the class whereas others view it as suggestive. Obviously, I've disagreed strongly on that point in the past and took it as a given that you'd understand my continued failure to be persuaded by it.

It's not my view - the organization into clans is stipulated by SCAG, and by you above. It's just giving a GM that wants to situate a character within a class something to work with. Your position seems to be to simply take offense at the question of who trained the character, etc., and to rule the question out of court altogether.

Your third boils down to accepting a refluff only if the designers write it into a book they sell to you. I felt that I didn't have anything positive to say about that, so I didn't say.

No, if you'd followed the discussion that generated my response, you would know that I only addressed SCAG in response to a claim that even WotC doesn't follow the notion that classes can be concrete that gave the Dwarven Battlerager as an example of such. I was simply responding by saying that the Battlerager could easily be interpreted as a peripheral type, that it has social organization, and that it was not a "refluff", but a partial redesign of the mechanics, which along with others, I thought was a good idea when a somewhat different spin on a class is introduced (and then, people were arguing against that because redesign is so onerous - but here, it's done for you!). That's all. I'm not sure what kind of mental gymnastics need to be performed to interpret that as accepting a refluff only if the designers sell it to you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

They live in the mountainous north, close their borders to outsiders, and one of their main domains is described as being "more mine than city". That's pretty congruent to regions that have been defined as "barbaric" (rightly or wrongly) in the past. But you are characteristically missing the point. I don't care whether dwarvish clans in FR are "objectively" barbaric or not. Just like genetics are not dealt with in any detail in the rulebooks, neither is dwarvish clan character and its opposition to or rejection of civilization - it's a question of how you want to interpret the little it says. To the extent that the clans are patterned on those of the Scottish highlands, they are patterned on them in the form they existed in prior to the formation of the UK - i.e. when Scotland was in fact peripheral. I was merely saying I could easily interpret dwarvish clans as such if a player was dead set on playing a battlerager.

So it's okay to 'reinterpret' fluff if it suits your needs to accept a character concept or new class build? Recall this is FR we're talking about, so you're doing more than reinterpreting the loose fiction in class descriptions and instead deciding the fiction on a whole race in a well defined setting is open to such. That's some unstable ground you're staking there.

It's not my view - the organization into clans is stipulated by SCAG, and by you above. It's just giving a GM that wants to situate a character within a class something to work with. Your position seems to be to simply take offense at the question of who trained the character, etc., and to rule the question out of court altogether.

Yes, the setting of the FR says how Dwarves are organized. I've been very constant that the DM always retains veto power when any refluff violates setting fictions. You're making the argument that setting fictions can be refluffed to match class fictions, and I'm already on record disagreeing that class fictions are binding, much less over setting fictions that I do see as binding (on the DM's say-so, at least, I wouldn't slavishly follow FR fiction if I ran it, but I'd be very, very clear as to where my game diverged). So, yeah, it's 'out of court altogether' because it's just an attempt to rehash a matter and courts looks down on rehashing matter that's already fully argued.

No, if you'd followed the discussion that generated my response, you would know that I only addressed SCAG in response to a claim that even WotC doesn't follow the notion that classes can be concrete that gave the Dwarven Battlerager as an example of such. I was simply responding by saying that the Battlerager could easily be interpreted as a peripheral type, that it has social organization, and that it was not a "refluff", but a partial redesign of the mechanics, which along with others, I thought was a good idea when a somewhat different spin on a class is introduced (and then, people were arguing against that because redesign is so onerous - but here, it's done for you!). That's all. I'm not sure what kind of mental gymnastics need to be performed to interpret that as accepting a refluff only if the designers sell it to you.

It was pretty easy given you, yourself, said that you didn't like it but you'd make room for it in your game because it was in SCAG. Perhaps that was rhetorical flourish, but you can't get all offended that someone took you that way. And you did 'refluff', your refluff was just of the setting fiction on dwarves, not the class. Again, I don't think moving the target of the refluff from the class to the setting fiction on dwarves leaves you on stable ground.

To step away from the sidetrek of possibly barbaric dwarves, the main differences between us seem to be:

1) where we draw the line on refluffing material. You're more 'by the book', I'm a bit more freeform. Neither are wrong.

2) you desire to create a world by tying mechanics intimately to the fiction. I don't, and prefer to build worlds ignorant of mechanics. Both are valid and attempt the goal of providing a sufficiently self-contained and coherent fiction that players can engage and achieve buy-in. Neither is particularly more effective or better, and both work.

3) you prefer to create mechanics than to refluff fiction. I prefer to create fiction to refluff mechanics. I don't see anything wrong with either approach. For me, creation of mechanics is the more tedious and unfun of the two options -- I'd prefer new fiction over new mechanics.

In summary, I think that personal preference isn't a good reason to get into an internet slap fight over who's way is better/more right. I gladly cede the ground on my way being any better or any more right than yours. Each works, respectively, and that's great for everyone. My entire point for this thread wasn't to 'win' but to find out if my perspective, which I had not previously questioned, was common or not. To that end, this thread has been a tremendous success, as I've found out that the two approaches are pretty evenly split, with a very healthy middle ground meaning that it's a spectrum, not a binary. I've seen great examples on both sides, and I'm truly happy for everyone, including you , that they get some much joy and passion from their games. My only complaint is how many times I (and others) were told that not treating class as fiction is the wrong way to play (frex, "If you do that, you should play a classless system"). That wasn't optimal, but, in context of the rest of the great posts in this thread, only a minor annoyance.

Thanks for playing, everyone! (pun(s) fully intended)

 

[empireofchaos]

So it's okay to 'reinterpret' fluff if it suits your needs to accept a character concept or new class build? Recall this is FR we're talking about, so you're doing more than reinterpreting the loose fiction in class descriptions and instead deciding the fiction on a whole race in a well defined setting is open to such. That's some unstable ground you're staking there.

Yes, the setting of the FR says how Dwarves are organized. I've been very constant that the DM always retains veto power when any refluff violates setting fictions. You're making the argument that setting fictions can be refluffed to match class fictions, and I'm already on record disagreeing that class fictions are binding, much less over setting fictions that I do see as binding (on the DM's say-so, at least, I wouldn't slavishly follow FR fiction if I ran it, but I'd be very, very clear as to where my game diverged). So, yeah, it's 'out of court altogether' because it's just an attempt to rehash a matter and courts looks down on rehashing matter that's already fully argued.

It's not a reinterpretation, it's just an interpretation, simply based on the fact of where they live, the fact that they contest the same space with e.g. orcs, and the fact that they adopt the kinds of battle tactics (raging) that more organized forces eschew.

It was pretty easy given you, yourself, said that you didn't like it but you'd make room for it in your game because it was in SCAG.

No, not because it was SCAG, because someone (hypothetically) really wanted to play that archetype!

Perhaps that was rhetorical flourish, but you can't get all offended that someone took you that way. And you did 'refluff', your refluff was just of the setting fiction on dwarves, not the class. Again, I don't think moving the target of the refluff from the class to the setting fiction on dwarves leaves you on stable ground.

Again, I don't think my reading here flies in the face of the dwarf fluff as laid out in this supplement. But if it really comes down to it, I think I'm on record in this conversation as saying that class is more central than race to the game, precisely because while I can easily imagine the game without races, or with very different races, I cannot imagine it without classes (or with classes so different that at least the basic ones are not close cognates of the basic ones of the standard game). So I don't see an inconsistency.

To step away from the sidetrek of possibly barbaric dwarves, the main differences between us seem to be:

1) where we draw the line on refluffing material. You're more 'by the book', I'm a bit more freeform. Neither are wrong.

2) you desire to create a world by tying mechanics intimately to the fiction. I don't, and prefer to build worlds ignorant of mechanics. Both are valid and attempt the goal of providing a sufficiently self-contained and coherent fiction that players can engage and achieve buy-in. Neither is particularly more effective or better, and both work.

3) you prefer to create mechanics than to refluff fiction. I prefer to create fiction to refluff mechanics. I don't see anything wrong with either approach. For me, creation of mechanics is the more tedious and unfun of the two options -- I'd prefer new fiction over new mechanics.

In summary, I think that personal preference isn't a good reason to get into an internet slap fight over who's way is better/more right. I gladly cede the ground on my way being any better or any more right than yours. Each works, respectively, and that's great for everyone. My entire point for this thread wasn't to 'win' but to find out if my perspective, which I had not previously questioned, was common or not. To that end, this thread has been a tremendous success, as I've found out that the two approaches are pretty evenly split, with a very healthy middle ground meaning that it's a spectrum, not a binary. I've seen great examples on both sides, and I'm truly happy for everyone, including you , that they get some much joy and passion from their games. My only complaint is how many times I (and others) were told that not treating class as fiction is the wrong way to play (frex, "If you do that, you should play a classless system"). That wasn't optimal, but, in context of the rest of the great posts in this thread, only a minor annoyance.

Thanks for playing, everyone! (pun(s) fully intended)

I would quibble about the "by the book" distinction (I would just say I like classes as at least somewhat coherent, because that accords with what I regard as the spirit of the game, rather than necessarily the letter). And I, at any rate, never suggested that you should play another game because your way is "wrong" - I repeated several times that it was an aesthetic rather than a logically necessitated choice (though I obviously like mine better).

Everything else you say here I heartily subscribe to, and would add that this discussion not only served to shed light on different outlooks, but also helped me (and not only me, I suspect) better define my position.

 

[flint071]

My players work within their classes. All depends what you are used to I suppose. Part of the intricacy of the character is finding a way to bring the class specific abilities and concepts to the table without too much drift.

As a DM I am a lenient as I feel necessary to allow the class to be played, but with the intent of the character class intact.

If you want to be a bard, be a bard. If you want to make a fighter make a fighter but give him ukulele as a proficiency.