D&D 5E Fluff & Rule, Lore & Crunch. The Interplay of Class, System, and Color in D&D

[CleverNickName]

I mean Warlock is 'wizard with good caster design' and Sorcerer is 'wizard with passable caster design', and wizard is 'wizard with traditional insufferable caster design'.

I'd put it like this:
Warlock is 'mage for high-combat games.'
Sorcerer is 'mage for high-social games.'
Wizard is 'mage for high-exploration' games.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I'm pretty much the opposite. I want only 4 core classes: Warrior (a martial class), Mage (a full-caster class), Priest (a half-caster), and Sneak (skill class). And then I want everything else to be a subclass...dozens, maybe hundreds, of subclass options for everything from a Circle of Moon Druid to an Illusionist.

Think of the versatility and customization that such a system would create. A Warrior who takes the Circle of Moon subclass would be very different indeed from a Mage who took that same subclass, for example. Multiclassing would be smooth as butter, just select a second (or third, or fourth) subclass at certain levels. It would fix so many problems.

If you want a game in this direction (and I'll agree it sounds interesting) why have classes at all? It would be cool to just have modular "parts" you pick from to make exactly the character you want.

So a druid might be made from the following parts (made up names and numbers, not an actual design)....

Moderate Physical Build (6 pts)
Major Mental Build (9 pts)
Access to nature spell list (4 pts)
Access to healing spell list (7 pts)
No armor, Simple weapons (2 pts)
Animal Companion (6 pts)
5 trained skills (7 pts)

 

[CleverNickName]

If you want a game in this direction (and I'll agree it sounds interesting) why have classes at all? It would be cool to just have modular "parts" you pick from to make exactly the character you want.

So a druid might be made from the following parts (made up names and numbers, not an actual design)....

Moderate Physical Build (6 pts)
Major Mental Build (9 pts)
Access to nature spell list (4 pts)
Access to healing spell list (7 pts)
No armor, Simple weapons (2 pts)
Animal Companion (6 pts)
5 trained skills (7 pts)

You're right, perhaps "class" isn't the right word to use...but it's the word that veteran D&D players are going to be expecting to see. The intent is to start with a foundation, and then build your own character from that. "Class" is the word that 5E uses for this foundation, but it could just as easily be called something else.

"So you want to play a character that uses nature magic and has access to healing. Do you want a martial character? Here's the Hunter subclass. Oh, sorry, you wanted to play a caster. Here's the Circle of the Land subclass for ya, or the Cleric of Nature, if you want a full caster. If you prefer a half-caster, try out the Oath of Ancients subclass." (Or whatever; I'm just spitballing here)

I think this system would let you create some pretty wild combinations, without making things too complicated.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Any base class + any subclass would be wild to see, but like in a good way.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

You're right, perhaps "class" isn't the right word to use...but it's the word that veteran D&D players are going to be expecting to see. The intent is to start with a foundation, and then build your own character from that. "Class" is the word that 5E uses for this foundation, but it could just as easily be called something else.

"So you want to play a character that uses nature magic and has access to healing. Do you want a martial character? Here's the Hunter subclass. Oh, sorry, you wanted to play a caster. Here's the Circle of the Land subclass for ya, or the Cleric of Nature, if you want a full caster. If you prefer a half-caster, try out the Oath of Ancients subclass." (Or whatever; I'm just spitballing here)

I think this system would let you create some pretty wild combinations, without making things too complicated.

This kind of reminds me of initial character creation in Skyrim and Oblivion. You can super custom build your character picking and choosing between lots of different items or you can choose a premade class (say Assassin) which is a set of prepicked options that lead toward making that type of character (Assassin being sneaky, probably using smaller weapons, light armor, etc...)

I know this is very out of DnD bounds though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I do wish there were more options in the poll, as there is a best-fit option for me (#2) but it is only a partial fit.

See, the thing is, classes are designed with a default fluff. And that default fluff is usually something that informed how and why the class has the mechanics it has. That fluff is not absolutely inviolate though. Indeed, I would argue that there is and has always been a strong trend toward creative re-imagining of the fluff, just to varying degrees. Otherwise, you would not have all the different possible origin stories that Fighters can have, because they'd all have to be very similar in their descriptive elements.

But it's not as simple as "fluff can just be ignored" or "fluff is inherent." There's a complex, fluid relationship between thematics, mechanics, and actual play. Reskinning--by various names--has been with us since at the very least 2nd edition. And in very early D&D, where you could potentially recruit sapient opponents as new retainers (e.g. "convince the orc soldiers to fight for you instead of their awful boss who mistreats them"), as soon as those monsters became part of the party they would lose characteristics like darkvision or their knowledge of the dungeon's layout because that would be too much of an advantage. Meaning, neither fluff nor crunch could strictly determine how things would cash out in play, because higher considerations, things in some sense "above" the direct mechanics, would override.

So...I agree with both #1 and #2. I don't agree with the (implied) most strident version of #1, which is that fluff is just as important as rules and should only be changed in equally serious situations. I also don't agree with the most strident version of #2, where fluff is an unimportant side issue. Neither of those positions is correct. Both things are important, both can determine some things, both can yield to other considerations. #2 is the closest position as written for "all of these things matter yet none of them are absolute."

 

[Scott Christian]

A class's name has a built in connotation, as does their subclass name. This automatically means they carry some lore. A wizard can be many different things. We can picture Merlin or Gandalf. We can also picture Harry Potter or Dr. Strange. But, there are thematic pieces, ie. lore, that are universal. They get their power from knowledge. They wiggle their hands or speak magic. They run out of magic or it drains them. This is part of lore.

The same can be said for any class. The connotation is there. Just because you can picture two different types, doesn't mean it excludes lore.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A class's name has a built in connotation, as does their subclass name. This automatically means they carry some lore. A wizard can be many different things. We can picture Merlin or Gandalf. We can also picture Harry Potter or Dr. Strange. But, there are thematic pieces, ie. lore, that are universal. They get their power from knowledge. They wiggle their hands or speak magic. They run out of magic or it drains them. This is part of lore.

The same can be said for any class. The connotation is there. Just because you can picture two different types, doesn't mean it excludes lore.

And yet we can argue the reverse as well: so many distinct things are "wizards" or "fighters" or "barbarians" (that last one often by some other name) in fiction that it would be impossible to force a single archetype on any of them.

Harry Potter characters are called "wizards" (or "witches"), yet the closest gameplay equivalent would need an innate ability to use magic and spells which can be used repeatedly, which are mechanics associated with sorcerers and warlocks. They do need training and practice to perform magic, sure, but they do not "get their power from knowledge," in HP you are either born with magic power or you aren't, there's no middle ground. "Fighter" is often used for characters who have legit actual magic powers (Aragorn), while "hunters" or "rangers" cover an enormous spectrum from completely ordinary trackers with no magic whatsoever to borderline druids.

It's not just "two different types," it's whole spectrums or even polydimensional spaces of characters, all of which fit under a single umbrella and many of which work by radically different rules within their local context. Gandalf is a completely different kind of being from Harry Potter or Dr. Strange, who are mutually radically different from one another, and not even one of them works the way D&D Wizards work.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Put me down for "fluff" and "crunch" are separate things.

There's just no need for a given game mechanic to always be tied to one particular piece of fluff. It's inhibiting to character creation and adds nothing. Okay, maybe not nothing. It can be helpful for new gamers, can give them an idea of what can be done. But it becomes inhibiting when it becomes what must be done.

I like classless and level-less systems. Just spend your points (or whatever the meta currency is called) and build the character you want. The exact why's of your character's abilities are unique to your character. Fluff any way you want that makes sense for your character and the game world.

 

[Scott Christian]

And yet we can argue the reverse as well: so many distinct things are "wizards" or "fighters" or "barbarians" (that last one often by some other name) in fiction that it would be impossible to force a single archetype on any of them.

Harry Potter characters are called "wizards" (or "witches"), yet the closest gameplay equivalent would need an innate ability to use magic and spells which can be used repeatedly, which are mechanics associated with sorcerers and warlocks. They do need training and practice to perform magic, sure, but they do not "get their power from knowledge," in HP you are either born with magic power or you aren't, there's no middle ground. "Fighter" is often used for characters who have legit actual magic powers (Aragorn), while "hunters" or "rangers" cover an enormous spectrum from completely ordinary trackers with no magic whatsoever to borderline druids.

It's not just "two different types," it's whole spectrums or even polydimensional spaces of characters, all of which fit under a single umbrella and many of which work by radically different rules within their local context. Gandalf is a completely different kind of being from Harry Potter or Dr. Strange, who are mutually radically different from one another, and not even one of them works the way D&D Wizards work.

How about this. Run a simple test. Grab 20 people walking in a downtown area, and show them a picture of Conan, King Arthur, and Boromir. They don't even have to be labelled. Ask them which one is a barbarian? I bet you 20/20 get it right. Even if they have no idea who Conan is. Now ask them which one is a paladin. Provided they know the word's definition, I bet you 20/20 get it right, even if they do not know who King Arthur is. Now ask them which one is a fighter, and I bet 20/20 get it right. That is because words have connotation, and connotation is attached to tropes, and tropes are attached to lore. You could do the same thing with wizards and witches.

You are correct, Gandalf is different than Potter in a few instances. Most of the time they are the same.

Are you talking about characterization? If so, then I agree, you can have a spectrum. But that doesn't negate a class's connotated trope, which contains lore.