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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6767027" data-attributes="member: 42582">As [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] posted, it can't be a lightsabre (eg it can't cut through metal as a lightsabre does), nor can it be a chainsaw (it isn't powered by fuel, it doesn't contain any moving parts, it can't easily cut through trees and logs, etc).Mechanically, a longsword is a martial weapon that deals slashing damage (and hence is bladed), and has a certain weight and (by implication of that weight, plus its versatile status) at least certain parameters on its length.As far as past versions of D&D are concerned it encompasses broadswords, bastard swords, falchions and some scimitars.It is distinguished from an axe by its weight (less) and its price (more).A paladin also has certain parameters established by the mechanics, such as having sworn an oath, having certain miraculous abilities in virtue of having sworn that oath, etc. But (just to pick one example, and in contrast with 1st ed AD&D) a paladin is not obliged to be a participant in a particular sort of social hierarchy. Whereas a 1st ed AD&D paladin is obliged to seek alliances with noble fighters and clerics, which - even before the rewrite of the class in UA - positions that paladin as being a knight, or holding (or at least aspiring to) similar status.Deciding, in 1st ed AD&D, that paladins need not be knights would be a house rule, requiring a deletion or rewrite of the relevant part of the class restrictions. In 5e, by contrast, a paladin could be a peasant revolutionary who hates the nobility.In AD&D, they then decided that part of the class mechanics was being a knight (and hence seeking alliances or service with noble fighters and clerics). In 5e, though, they didn't write that particular aspect of the archetype into the rules. Which means that someone who plays a resolutely commoner paladin in 5e is not changing or breaking any rule.It seems to me that a person can use the game systems without following along with all the mere flavour. A person who decides that, in his/her game, elves have green skin, need not change any of the game systems around elves. Because none of those systems depend upon the colour of elven skin. This is quite different from (say) the rules around longswords - which clearly do depend upon longswords being bladed weapons with no moving parts, rather than (as was mooted upthread) force wands or lightsabres or chainsaws.Deciding that monks typically lack self-discipline would be a system change - because it requires rewriting the meaning of the monk classes dependence upon WIS as a stat. But deciding that not all monks come from monasteries isn't making any sort of system change at all. If that's what you would call a case of "having the crunch without having the fluff", then it's perfectly possible to have it.To me this seems to be a statement of your personal preference for what monks and barbarians should be like in your D&D games. I don't see that you are giving any reason why someone should share your preference, though.The "flavour" of the monk class consists in the actual game systems that constitute that class (eg not wearing armour and instead relying on self-disciplined training for defence; supernatural martial arts; etc). Those systems - unlike in 1st ed AD&D - don't include anything about monasteries.Sure, you can houserule that stuff back in. But that doesn't mean that its there as part of the published game system. (Whereas, in 1st ed AD&D, it is there as part of the published game system.)There has been a general trend, over the past 35 years, to relax or eliminate those elements of AD&D class mechanics that mandated a particular social or campaign logic for particular classes: alignment restrictions have been relaxed, racial limitations have been relaxed, training/fight-to-level-up mechanics have been dropped, the idea of "name level" and automatic attraction of followers has been dropped, etc.These are real changes to the game systems. One consequence of them is that the social/background interpretation of many classes has been freed up, compared to what it was in early AD&D.</blockquote>

Verification