D&D 4E Fluff that plays bad (and how to fix it in 4e)

[FireLance]

While there has been a lot of discussion on possible rule changes and their potential effects on game play, there hasn't seemed to be much talk on how changing the flavor might make the game run more smoothly.

Is this is because a lot of problematic flavor has been removed over the editions, such as flavor that could result in intra-party conflict (dwarves and elves, or barbarians and spellcasters), or flavor that could make a character disposed to give up adventuring (hobbit-like halflings)? Disclaimer: I know that intra-party conflict can work with the right group, but in many groups, it's not a good idea to have PCs that are inclined to distrust each other by default. And while the reluctant adventurer is an interesting character concept, it's a lot of work for the DM if the player expects him to keep supplying reasons for the character to continue adventuring.

Is this because it is easier for us to ignore problematic flavor than it is for us to ignore problematic rules?

The one example of problematic flavor in 3e that I can think of offhand is that of the paladin's code. It's technically a rule, because there are mechanical implications if a paladin PC violates his code. However, even if paladins could not fall, it has the potential to create intra-party conflict. Of course, since paladins will not be limited to Lawful Good in 4e, it's likely that this will no longer be an issue.

Can you think of any other examples of problematic flavor? How would you fix them in 4e?

 

[Insight]

One of the big things that I'd like to see is the removal of all of the Asian flavored classes and put them in their own book. I'd say that the majority of the people that play D&D aren't familiar with Asian culture and thus have no interest in having these classes in the core rules.

This would include Monk, Ninja, Samurai, Wu Jen, and so forth.

While I am somewhat familiar with Asian culture, I do not design my fantasy campaign worlds to include these concepts on a regular basis, and I have a suspicion that I'm not alone.

Granted, you likely have Asian customers (and perhaps some non-Asian customers) who do want these things, and that's fine. I guess it comes down to what's most important to WOTC as a company, and what the majority of customers want.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Other than the monk, which has a long tradition now of being in the PH, all of these classes originated in Oriental Adventures anyway.

 

[bento]

Other than the monk, which has a long tradition now of being in the PH, all of these classes originated in Oriental Adventures anyway.

I guess Insight is kvetching that OA classes got their 3.5 updates in the Complete series. As someone who runs OA-style games from time to time, I too would much rather OA-classes had their own book so I don't have to buy all those western fantasy-oriented books.

You'd think with all thoes Euro-centric MMORPGs, movies, novels, different types of game systems that we wouldn't tire just a little of the same old thing.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

If those classes got taken out, how could the series be Complete?

 

[amethal]

The fluff (possibly only implied) that wizards spend years as apprentices annoys me.

Mechanically, anyone can multi-class into wizard and have a spell book "appear".

Also, I like the monk class and have no problem including it in any setting, "oriental" or otherwise. However, if it makes it into 4th edition I wish they'd change the name to something which doesn't annoy monk haters.

 

[Jer]

Is this because it is easier for us to ignore problematic flavor than it is for us to ignore problematic rules?

Absolutely. Changing rules can lead to game-breaking problems down the road, and so you have to be careful about how you do it. Altered flavor never has to be playtested to see if it breaks something else.

Can you think of any other examples of problematic flavor? How would you fix them in 4e?

I hate alignment restrictions on classes - ALL alignment restrictions on classes. The fact that I can't create a "Lawful barbarian" or a "Chaotic monk" by the book rankles me to no end - why can't my monk be devoted to personal freedom and refuse to give "proper" obedience to even "legitimate" authority? Why can't my rage-filled barbarian warrior be a "lawgiver" who wants to unite his people into a powerful nation? Coding alignment restrictions into the rules tells players "this is the only way to play this particular kind of character", and that irritates me to no end.

I also hate the "if you multiclass out of this class you can never gain levels in it again" flavor. Why? What if I want to have a monk/sorcerer whose martial arts revolve around connecting his "ki" to the greater magic of the world? Why should I have to spend a feat to do something that mechanically has no impact on the game?

There's also the Paladin thing - I don't like the idea that there's an entire class devoted to being a paragon of a single alignment (Lawful Good). Why not paragons of other alignments? What's so special about "Lawful Good" that it gets an entire class to itself in the core of the PHB? Why can't I have a Paladin of Chaotic Evil, or of Chaotic Good, or whatever? If it were a Prestige Class I'd have no issues with it - it would be amazingly focused for a Prestige Class, actually, but as a core class it bugs me and it always has.

All of those are pretty easily fixed, actually. I already let my players ignore alignment and multiclass restrictions in the game where I don't think there will be an issue. There are a few places where there could be rules issues, but I haven't had anyone ask to play a character like that yet (like a Monk/Barbarian or a Paladin/Barbarian) - and in 4e you'd have to make sure that there aren't any weird interactions between special abilities for those types of characters.

 

[Li Shenron]

One of the big things that I'd like to see is the removal of all of the Asian flavored classes and put them in their own book. I'd say that the majority of the people that play D&D aren't familiar with Asian culture and thus have no interest in having these classes in the core rules.

Absolutely! I have played Rokugan and loved it, and I'm sure I'd love a differently asian-flavored setting as well. But spreading asian characters in many books has two bad consequences:

1- Forces those who want to play an asian setting to buy lots of books (3.0 was fine with OA, but if you wanted it updated to 3.5...)

2- May force a setting to allocate space for asian classes (like FR) just because the Monk is in the PHB (although this might predate 3edition, I find Monks very out of place in Faerun)

 

[Rechan]

Everything Jer said, 100%.

I vehemently disagree with "It's oriental, get it out of my PHB". I agree that the flavor could be tweaked. Monks don't have to be ascetic monastic martial artists; they can be government/organization operatives, acrobats, body guards, assassins, professional mageslayers, etc. A simple straight up unarmed combatant with different talent trees so you could create the mystical quasi-magical ascetic, but it's not the default, would be best.

I never liked Bards being music focused. Yes, it can function "like" a rousing speech or poetry, but it's called Bardic Music. I hate every time I bring a Bard to the table, people assume I'm playing Sir Robin's minstrels. Thus I'm ecstatic about the Warlord.

I never liked Druids not being able to use any metal whatsoever - unless it's a scimitar or a sickle. And why can't they use bows? A bow can be made from a fallen tree branch and a deer's thews.

I despise the flavor for gnomes.

 

[lukelightning]

Regarding Asian classes, they should just be identical to standard classes, and hopefully the customization of abilities and revised multiclassing will enable you to emulate the archetype you are looking for.

Samurai= Fighter
Wu Jen = Wizard
Ninja = Rogue
Supernatural super ninja = rogue/warlock

etc.