Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6765462" data-attributes="member: 2067">This is kind of missing the point - if a class is an element of fiction, not just an abstract rules chassis, then the story material associated with it isn't a "fluff example," it's as much a part of the class as the mechanics are - they are a package deal. That doesn't "limit" a player from making their own fluff any more than any other group decision does - it removes certain character concepts. I can't play Bugs Bunny in a gothic horror setting, I can't play a gnome barbarian in Dark Sun, and in a world where the mechanics of the barbarian class are embodied in the fiction, I can't just play a simple re-skin.Of course, I could play that friar as someone who was trained as a barbarian warrior, but learned from a priest who was spreading the word of their god that my rage was akin to a divine state. And I could also play that friar as, say, a cleric with Unarmored Defense instead of armor proficiency and a domain that let me rage with a Channel Divinity. Or as a monk with an option to spend 2 ki points to rage like a barbarian.Personally, I like both of those options much better than a re-skin. No one thinks that. For one, subclasses are seen as descriptive, not proscriptive - these are three (ish) examples of different takes on this class. There may be more. Heck, in a game that uses the SCAG + PHB, there explicitly ARE more! And part of the fun of linking fiction and mechanics is in finding a new fictional home for any novel mechanics that your table might need. I imagine there are many who don't really care what the fiction is as long as the mechanics "work," and vice versa. I've certainly played with players that would fall into those camps. It's a legit preference - some folks love the flexibility of a system where the fluff doesn't matter (I still miss some of the flexibility of 4e!), some folks don't care what the mechanics do as long as they can pretend to be their awesome character and talk in funny voices with their friends (this can be especially true of newbies - a newbie in my in-person game is useless when it comes to remembering how his character works, but his PC is notable and prominent and interesting). The conditions for getting supernatural martial arts are right there in the class that gets supernatural martial arts - training and asceticism, just to go by the prominent header.And we do know if the accuracy is luck or skill, because a fighter can come up and tell you "I trained with the Warriors of Valhalla to improve my skill at arms," while someone who just rolls a lot of lucky 20's doesn't have that narrative.It's all fluff. Mechanically, all that's happening is rolling a d20, adding a particular modifier, and rolling damage. Even what is "magic" and what is "not magic" is fluff. "Spells" are "Maneuvers." "Summoned Creatures" are "hirelings." "Magic items" are "items of exceptional craftsmanship." D&D tends to value this fluff distinction, but there's no reason an individual table needs to, and if they're looking to maximize flexibility, they probably shouldn't! Similar to the above point - classes are descriptive, not prescriptive. They say "these are things that members of this class can do," not "these are the ONLY things that members of this class can do." I'm not interested in saying X is allowed and Y is forbidden, I'm interested in saying "tell me more and lets find a way to represent that mechanically."The fundamental problem I have with each of the above character concepts is that they have no tethers to the rest of the game via the world or the other characters to help describe their differences. They all fail to ask why this happens. They are different, but they don't get specific or relevant about their differences. It's all empty color, <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CallARabbitASmeerp" target="_blank">calling a rabbit a smeerp</a>, making a distinction without a real difference. So if a player wanted to play these PC's, I'd want to add flesh to these bare bones and make them distinct and meaningful in ways that anchor them mechanically and to the fiction. If you write your PC's spellbook in hieroglyphs, why don't you use normal wizard sigils? Where did you learn these hieroglyphs? Who taught them to you? Did they use hieroglyphs in their spellbook? What languages do you know - are any of them hieroglyphs? Explain them to me, and explain what their context is. And maybe I'll ask you to use one of your language selections to invent or learn this special hieroglyphic magical language (which could be helpful in that enemy mages aren't likely to know it!), and connect an NPC or a dozen to this foreign wizardry tradition that you are now a part of. Mechanical connection (heiroglyphic language). World connection (a group of heiroglyph-using wizards).If your PC acquired wild sorcery through a cursed tome, what's the story of that tome? Where did you find it? What happened to it afterwards? Is it unique, or do others exist? Did you fear your family reading it? Did you meet other wild mages when you transformed? How did you learn to control this weird tome curse? Explain it to me, explain what its context is. And maybe I'll say that there's an ancient empire of magic whose spells are becoming unstable as they age and decay and that book is still a part of your inventory, in fact it's a cursed item that you can't seem to get rid of, and there's several known wild sorcerers who come from this empire's rotting magic and they all have strange cursed items that are a part of them and are seeking ways to remove the curse and master the wild sorcery as much as possible in the meantime. Mechanical connection (cursed tome). World connection (sorcerers linked to the dying magic of a fallen empire). If your PC learned their monastic tradition from a talking magpie, what's the story of that magpie? Is it some cursed monastic master who travels the world teaching children his nearly lost tradition? Is the martial arts you were schooled in similar to one of these other monasteries that exist, or is it something new? Are you the magpie's only student, or does its migratory route feature several stop-overs where it teaches young apprentices its spiritual ways? Did your family think you were mad when you, say, sat and meditated under a waterfall because a magpie told you to? Explain it to me, explain what its context is. And maybe I'll say there's a missing grand master of flowers from a distant monastery of the Open Fist who betrayed a witch and is training students to extract his vengeance. And when a strange-looking man from a distant land shows up at your garden with some bright orange pajamas for you to wear and insists that you come with him, your life of adventure began. Mechanical connection (Way of the Open Fist). World connection (other Way of the Open Fist monks).</blockquote>

Verification