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

[The Crimson Binome]

This all seems ridiculous, but those are the details I've changed. A nobleman, with the title of knight, but still having the rage of a barbarian. Yet, you are telling me I am fundamentally changing how rage works, that rage cannot manifest in a nobleman. Why? Why must a barbarian be a tribal warrior who eschews civilization?

If it was possible for a nobleman without such an upbringing to manifest the extraordinary abilities which allow you to survive otherwise-lethal blows and deflect arrows with your rock-hard abs, then the class would have a different name.

We may not know the specific factor of that upbringing which allows these abilities to manifest, but we know that the whole picture is sufficient. As you navigate further and further from the archetype, you are taking a stand about what is not necessary for this to work. And as a player, that's not your call to make; that's a matter for the DM, or the setting designer.

Sure, only one type of ipad.

The ipad, the ipad II, 3, 4, 5, 6 ,7 surface, surface pro, pro, mini, air,

And those of course are completely unlike the Nook, The Kindle, Kindle Fire, Kindle Fire XL, and whatever tablet chrome has released.

Regardless of labels or specifications, they're all largely the same device, and they're constructed in largely the same way. Small differences in the process or components will lead to small differences in the end product, but you can't make any significant variations if you want to end up with something functional.

 

[abirdcall]

Crawford? I do not know this thing.

Jeremy Crawford is the lead rules designer for 5e.

I should point out that no-one (no-one on pages 1-2 or pages 16-18 anyway) is suggesting changing mechanics. A poster above (Sorry, too lazy to check who. But you know who you are and I think it's a great idea!) suggests that one can play a knight using barbarian mechanics. That's not changing mechanics. That's just saying "Lady Smashalot is known for the great rages that come over her." Assuming the setting has knights then one wouldn't even need to change any campaign background to accommodate that.

Same difference. I don't recognize the divide of 'fluff' and 'mechanics' in an RPG.

Regardless...

Conflating Barbarians and Fighters weakens both of their identities and is one step closer to creating a 'mush' of a game. It doesn't help that Fighter already has the weakest identity of the classes.

What do the rules mean? And at what point in this retheming and 'refluffing' will they lose all meaning besides being a poorly designed combat strategy game.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Same difference. I don't recognize the divide of 'fluff' and 'mechanics' in an RPG.

Well I don't think we're ever going to come to agreement on this. But hey, that's cool, it's been a good chat.

 

[Gruftzwerg]

The real question is, why do we have classes? Are they strick bound character and RP rules? I guess not. To me classes are there so that I can build the character in my mind. The things that he should be capable of to work with the DnD rules (or whatever system you are playing).

Only exception are classes with strick with a strict codex/organization and alignment rules. But even than there is room for flexibility to some degree. (like the paladin may work with evil characters if he knows that it is for the greater good)
And if you are fine with the consequences, do whatever you want.

Sure not everything is possible and it should be kept on a somewhat sane lvl. We are playing to have fun, and as long as everybody at the table can enjoy the play, I don't see any reason for RP restrictions.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If it was possible for a nobleman without such an upbringing to manifest the extraordinary abilities which allow you to survive otherwise-lethal blows and deflect arrows with your rock-hard abs, then the class would have a different name.

We may not know the specific factor of that upbringing which allows these abilities to manifest, but we know that the whole picture is sufficient. As you navigate further and further from the archetype, you are taking a stand about what is not necessary for this to work. And as a player, that's not your call to make; that's a matter for the DM, or the setting designer.

Okay. If your position is factually true, then you should be able to quote the PHB correct? The part where it says that Barbarians are disqualified from the Noble Background?

Here, I'll help you, since you might be away from your books at the moment. I'll put all the relevant text I can think of in spoilers.

Spoiler: Background base Rules

PHB 125

"Every story has a beginning. Your character’s background reveals where you came from, how you became an adventurer, and your place in the world. Your fighter might have been a courageous knight or a grizzled soldier. Your wizard could have been a sage or an artisan. Your rogue might have gotten by as a guild thief or commanded audiences as a jester.

Choosing a background provides you with important story cues about your character’s identity. The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring? Where did you get the money to purchase your starting gear, or, if you come from a wealthy background, why don’t you have more money? How did you learn the skills of your class? What sets you apart from ordinary people who share your background?

The sample background in this chapter provides both concrete benefits (features, proficiencies, and languages) and roleplaying suggestions."

I went ahead and bolded an interesting part for you. It is the one where it lists two different backgrounds for each of the Fighter, Wizard, and Rogue. Now, it doesn't state out right, but it would seem to imply that you can choose different options.

Still, maybe noble is more specific?

Spoiler: Noble Background

You understand wealth, power, and privilege. You carry a noble title, and your family owns land, collects taxes, and wields significant political influence. You might be a pampered aristocrat unfamiliar with work or discomfort, a former merchant just elevated to the nobility, or a disinherited scoundrel with a disproportionate sense of entitlement. Or you could be an honest, hard-working landowner who cares deeply about the people who live and work on your land, keenly aware of your responsibility to them.

Work with your DM to come up with an appropriate title and determine how much authority that title carries. A noble title doesn’t stand on its own — it’s connected to an entire family, and whatever title you hold, you will pass it down to your own children. Not only do you need to determine your noble title, but you should also work with the DM to describe your family and their influence on you.

Is your family old and established, or was your title only recently bestowed? How much influence do they wield, and over what area? What kind of reputation does your family have among the other aristocrats of the region? How do the common people regard them?

What’s your position in the family? Are you the heir to the head of the family? Have you already inherited the title? How do you feel about that responsibility? Or are you so far down the line of inheritance that no one cares what you do, as long as you don’t embarrass the family? How does the head of your family feel about your adventuring career? Are you in your family’s good graces, or shunned by the rest of your family?

Does your family have a coat of arms? An insignia you might wear on a signet ring? Particular colors you wear all the time? An animal you regard as a symbol of your line or even a spiritual member of the family?

These details help establish your family and your title as features of the world of the campaign.

Skill Proficiencies: History, Persuasion
Tool Proficiencies: One type of gaming set
Languages: One of your choice
Equipment: A set of fine clothes, a signet ring, a scroll of pedigree, and a purse containing 25 gp

Feature: Position of Privilege
Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.

Suggested Characteristics
Nobles are born and raised to a very different lifestyle than most people ever experience, and their personalities reflect that upbringing. A noble title comes with a plethora of bonds — responsibilities to family, to other nobles (including the sovereign), to the people entrusted to the family’s care, or even to the title itself. But this responsibility is often a good way to undermine a noble.

Hmm, don't see anything that says "Prerequisites" or "Mutually Exclusive with this Class"

But, I could very possibly be missing a section of the PHB. If you could quote me the exact page number where it tells you which backgrounds you are not allowed to take with which classes, because doing so would break the rules of the game, then I would be much obliged.

Because, if you can't, that would imply that despite your claims that "the class would be called something else if this was allowed" that, actually, it is allowed.

 

[Xetheral]

While that is true, it also greatly increases the complexity of the world, and it easily gets to a point where it threatens suspension of disbelief. We have enough of that with the dragons and the wizards, so there's no reason to add to that burden if we can easily avoid it.

If we imagine one sort of upbringing which leads to a character who can accurately be represented as a Devotion Paladin, then that's the minimum amount of lore complexity which is necessary to get those mechanics into the game. If we imagine an entirely different sort of upbringing, which nevertheless bring a character to the exact same mechanical representation, then that's... odd.

If you have a thousand different origin stories, and they somehow all funnel down to the same ten mechanical models, then something really weird is going on. You shouldn't be able to follow two different roads, and have them both end up in the same place.

Your suspension of disbelief apparently operates in entirely the opposite direction that mine does. It's the lack of nuance and complexity in a game world that can challenge my suspension of disbelief, not a surfeit.

From my standpoint, the real world is filled to the brim with nuance and complexity, so (in the abstract) the more complex the game world is the more verisimilitudinous it feels. For me, verisimilitude is the single most important element that facilitates my suspension of disbelief. Do you find less complex settings more verisimilitudinous than more complex ones? Or is verisimilitude not important to your suspension of disbelief?

And the ability to follow two different roads in-fiction, representing both with similar mechanics is, in my mind, one of the entire points of having a rules system at all. The complexity of the setting gets abstracted down to a more manageable level. An overhead sword swing and a low thrust are modelled identically in the 5e mechanics with an attack roll, despite being wildly different in-fiction. I only consider that a positive: the system would quickly become unusable if every unique type of attack were modelled separately. Similarly, I see it as a positive that (e.g.) a primitive primal warrior and a street urchin with anger-management issues can both be modelled by the Barbarian class.

I assume you agree that an attack roll can model multiple types of attacks? If so, why can't a class or subclass model multiple origin stories? What permits a many-to-one fluff-to-crunch ratio for attacks but requires a one-to-one fluff-to-crunch ratio for classes?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Jeremy Crawford is the lead rules designer for 5e.



Same difference. I don't recognize the divide of 'fluff' and 'mechanics' in an RPG.

Regardless...

Conflating Barbarians and Fighters weakens both of their identities and is one step closer to creating a 'mush' of a game. It doesn't help that Fighter already has the weakest identity of the classes.

What do the rules mean? And at what point in this retheming and 'refluffing' will they lose all meaning besides being a poorly designed combat strategy game.

Since it was my barbarian concept, I'll step up to the plate.

I am not conflating the barbarian class with the fighter class.

I am taking a noble, who is a barbarian. Just like I could take a barbarian who is a sage (did that one too, for an old orc shaman who was traveling the world to learn about the outsiders and help protect his tribe) or one who is a charlatan.

The Barbarian I actually did this with was a Knight, protected by the Spirits of his Ancestors (Ancestral Guardian Barbarian). The family had started as more "traditional" barbarians a few hundred years ago, but by helping a conquering king forge his kingdom, they earned land, titles, and became sworn protectors of the crown.

And they still fought like barbarians, I didn't refluff a single class feature. I simply applied them to a character who was not illiterate, ill-mannered, or naked. In fact, as a human, I made sure his first feat was shield master, which I used to great effect while raging.

I changed no rules. Nothing. Unless you can find something that says in the rules that Barbarians are not allowed to take the noble background, or take the feat shield master, or use their medium armor proficiency that the rules grant them.

So, despite the "rules" saying that barbarians must be savages from the wilderness who spit upon society, the rules also allow me to take a high society character, and use the barbarian class.

Just like I can make a wizard who is an entertainer
A bard who is a pirate
A rogue who is a priest
A Druid who is a soldier
A ranger who is a spy
A monk who is a charlatan
A paladin who is a criminal

The rules allow for this. Unless you can quote a section of the PHB that says different

 

[HomegrownHydra]

And as a player, that's not your call to make; that's a matter for the DM, or the setting designer.

You don't speak for all DMs. Lots of DMs not only allow their players to have a say in shaping the setting, they encourage it.

Earlier you asked me a serious of questions which I provided answers to. Were those answers satisfactory to you?

 

[Hussar]

If it was possible for a nobleman without such an upbringing to manifest the extraordinary abilities which allow you to survive otherwise-lethal blows and deflect arrows with your rock-hard abs, then the class would have a different name.

We may not know the specific factor of that upbringing which allows these abilities to manifest, but we know that the whole picture is sufficient. As you navigate further and further from the archetype, you are taking a stand about what is not necessary for this to work. And as a player, that's not your call to make; that's a matter for the DM, or the setting designer.

Regardless of labels or specifications, they're all largely the same device, and they're constructed in largely the same way. Small differences in the process or components will lead to small differences in the end product, but you can't make any significant variations if you want to end up with something functional.

So, now we've moved beyond actual text and into the realm of ... what... L-Space? A player very much could take the Noble Background with a Barbarian. That player is not doing anything against the rules whatsoever. But, apparently, according to Saelorn, it's not possible? This has gone beyond ridiculous. Now we're into Calvinball territory. I wonder what rules @Saelorn will make up next?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Conflating Barbarians and Fighters weakens both of their identities and is one step closer to creating a 'mush' of a game. It doesn't help that Fighter already has the weakest identity of the classes.

I disagree with your “mush” argument.

First, a game in which your Kung fu monk fights alongside an armored knight from the Middle Ages, a swashbuckler from the Renaissance, and a warlock empowered by Lovecraftian horrors (1920s), the game is already a mishmash of fantasy and horror tropes.

Second, if my bard obtained his magical powers by beating a devil in a fiddling contest instead of attending Bard College, how does that make a mush of the setting? Devils are already established in the setting, they are established to make deals and honour them, and that precise story is a staple of folklore in many cultures. I would argue that such a background strengthens both the setting and the DM’s game rather than weakens it.

Finally, as someone else mentioned, D&D 5e doesn’t really have a default setting, and the designers go out of their way in the PHB to refer to archetypes in broad terms, so it is a bit weird to argue that unorthodox takes on the classes are breaking the rules.