Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6761375" data-attributes="member: 7635">Here's the thing; you can play against type, but you gotta KNOW your playing against type. For example, said barbarian might have the Acolyte (or Hermit) background to represent his religious training, and he might channel the fury of the God of War or God of Strength in a way similar to the wildmen beyond the Vale, or he learned such skills while being a missionary among a tribe, or studied their fighting style as an unorthodox, forbidden school of martial arts based around emulating the Northman's Berserker state. Anyone who watched him fight would remark his style is similar to that of the "barbarians", even if he himself wasn't the archetypical "born on the edge of society" barbarian. In reality, what I don't like is the "pick and choose" method of fluff-and-crunch mixing where someone tries to get the best of both worlds, like "I want to be a magician that channels the blood of dragons, but I don't like the sorcerer class so I'll be an infernal warlock and just refluff everything to be draconic" type of stuff. I grew tired of it in 3e (where people would build bbn1/rog3/ftr4/PrestigeClassX can claim they were building a "thief") or how 4e told me that if I wanted to use a bow, I needed to be a ranger (regardless if I wanted to be a rogue or a fighter). Its probably an over-reaction, but if you want to be a barbarian, you need to tell me how you learned those skills rather than cherry-picking them for the best mechanical benefit.</blockquote>

Verification