"Your Class is Not Your Character": Is this a real problem?

[FrogReaver]

Show me where I said what it was in his setting? I told him it was crappy design. He can use crappy design in his game if he wants. I really don't care. I told him he was moving the goal posts. He was. Where did I say what it was in his game?

Here

The post I was responding to says order is now called command. That means order no longer exists.

 

[Maxperson]

Here

That wasn't his post. The post I was responding to, that he intruded on, was by @prabe.

 

[FrogReaver]

That wasn't his post. The post I was responding to, that he intruded on, was by @prabe.

Doesn't matter what his post was. You said that and it's meaning is clear.

 

[prabe]

No. How are order and command the same? They aren't. By changing the fluff, it changes how the domain works in the world. A god who would have the order domain, might not offer the command domain. It doesn't matter if the spells are the same.

The "order" in the Order Domain is about social order, not anything larger than that; one might say its about ordering people around (look at what it does). I changed the name to one that I thought better reflected the character of the domain as written (and replaced references to "Order" with "Command"). I do not see how I could be said to have changed how the domain works in-game, and I wouldn't call it anything but the lightest touch as homebrew.

 

[prabe]

You're moving the goal posts. The post I was responding to says order is now called command. That means order no longer exists. If you are now moving the goal posts and you have two different domains with identical spells, well, that really crappy design.

Look at the domains in 5e. How many are even close to one another, let alone identical? As a player and DM I would be really upset with WotC if they tried to pull something like that.

More accurately, the Order Domain has never existed in my setting. The Command Domain exists there.

 

[Maxperson]

Doesn't matter what his post was. You said that and it's meaning is clear.

Yep. You CLEARLY didn't get it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yep. You CLEARLY didn't get it.

Maybe if you would use the correct words it would have been clear to the rest of us instead of just yourself...

 

[trentonjoe]

These threads are fascinating to me. The game is so flexible that you can have people who have such wildly different attitudes on how the game should be played.

With that being said, I am currently playing a shaman of the Great Snow Leopard from a barbarian tribe. He’s a barbarian 1/bard 2/ sorcerer 1/ warlock 1. I have a 13 or 14 in every stat but intelligence. He’s super fun, and I reskin everything. Heck, I am a long tooth shifter mechanically but just say that I am human and all the racial abilities are a product of my connection to the snow leopard.

I suspect this character would be welcome and encouraged in some games but given a big fat NO in others. To each his/her own!

 

[Charlaquin]

I encountered this problem more in previous editions of D&D. Paladins tended to be the worst offenders, to the point where their dogmatic ideals and policing of other characters actions caused a lot of inter-group tension. Fortunately, 5E has diversified paladins a great deal via subclasses so that has not been an issue in any of my 5E games.

Of the 5E PHB subclasses, the warlock fiend pact seems like the one most likely to raise the "character is the class" problem. There are certainly reasons why a good-aligned character might be in a pact with a fiend and it could make for a rich (if difficult) role-playing experience. But that might not be obvious to less experienced players, who would assume you should be playing an evil character to make a pact with a fiend.

In my experience, most new players who are attracted to the warlock class are interested in playing an anti-hero, rather than an evil character. They want to emulate characters like Ghost Rider or Spawn who are stuck in a contract with some evil entity but attempt to put an evil power to the most good use they can.

 

[Coroc]

You think the Emerald Enclave HQ is being staffed solely by temp workers and interns?

Which classes to are vanilla and which aren't? Because the PHB draws no such distinction.

Well, vanilla classes are not quite defined. The basic four are part of it, with their subclasses as in the basic rules, at least i would say that. On top of that? Ask a Grognard and he would answer: why do you need more? Ask someone who grew int othe game with 3e + and he would say: each class and subclass in the PHB.

Still, vanilla is normally not defined so much by fluff. What is vanilla these days anywhere? 2e greyhawk is kind of vanilla, 2e FR eventually also. Dragonlance? It looks vanilla but i would say it is not, to much extra special rules.

Some classes require more backstory fluff than others:

Example:
a cleric can be basically played without church and does work perfectly without deities, purely following a principle (good/ light / evil etc.)

A druid normally requires druid circles, forests etc. etc. Still e.g. Darksun tied them to elemental specialities in the landscape e.g. a (water-) oasis.

A fighter is most universal (except EK).

A rogue comes second to it (except AT).

A mage reuires magic to exist in your game world.

A sorcerer? According to PHB there has to be either wild magic or dragons present in the campaign world.

Whereas as pointed out a cleric does need no "patron", a Warlock does need one.
Bang, you need some other planes or other mystic thing going on in your campaign so a lock does function.

Ok let us go on, Ranger, hm would basically work on its own.

Paladin hm eventually yes but it is tied to some ethics or codex so such things must be there. Would not make much sense in a very uncivilised setting.

Barbarian? That is also a cultural thing somehow, it requires some tribal or primal culture otherwise it is a lot of shoehorning. You do not believe me? Imagine a modern setting and try to define a meaningful barbarian.

Monk requires order, religious/philosophical organisation, so no except some hermit or so.

A bard? Cultural and best high culture required, at least plus it needs magic.

So, i hope i did not forget anything.