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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="empireofchaos" data-source="post: 6764113" data-attributes="member: 6800918">I stand to be corrected, of course, but what I'm hearing people arguing is that "Classes are strictly metagame concepts and have no meaning in game". Perhaps I heard that in the wording of the initial survey. And I hear people saying that of course there is flavor, but the flavor is a "character concept", not a class flavor. That's not the same thing.And what we're arguing is: 1) The flavor given is just one of the options/possibilities, but within a certain range of possibilities (wider in the case of the "basic" classes like fighter, and considerably narrower in cases of, say, monks, paladins, barbarians, etc.)2) We're saying that this range of flavors is inseparable from the class mechanics, that it is the spirit that connects the various elements of the class, and makes them a coherent whole, that can be understood by a character as a calling.And we're asking 3) why the crunch has metaphysical priority over the fluff in the minds of those who disagree with us. If the player is within her rights to ask a DM to accept a refluffed version of the class that the DM sees as flying in the face of his idea of the class' identity, how is that different from a player coming and saying "I really love the description of the barbarians in the PHB as raging, foolhardy tribesmen. But in my conception, barbarians should be able to wear armor, cast spells, and have d10 instead of d12. If you're not an overbearing DM, you should let me play this barbarian (and think of recrunching some of your NPC barbarians too, while you're at it)."</blockquote>

Verification