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

[FrozenNorth]

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?

We have been focussing on Backgrounds, but there is no reason to limit it to that.

Multiclass is an optional rule, but if your table plays with it, are certain multiclasses not permitted? Is a Barbarian barred from multiclassing into a Monk because he lacks the requisite level of serenity? Does a Paladin’s code forbid him from multiclassing Rogue?

What about Feats? Can Barbarians pick up the Skilled and Prodigy feats? Can a fiendlock pick up Magic Initiate (Cleric)?

 

[abirdcall]

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.

That is actually the opposite of what Crawford means by 'mush'.

Each of those things has its own identity. A strong one. A kung fu Monk is very different than the armoured knight.

A 'mush' means that there is little or no differentiation between identities and themes.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

And now you made me think of this....gonna show up in my campaign next week!

Dorothy: Human Bard
Tin Man: Warforged Fighter
Cowardly Lion: Tabaxi ?
Scarecrow: ?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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

There's no reason you can't be both a Noble and a Barbarian. It just means that you were a Barbarian who became a Noble, or vice versa. That doesn't mean your Background informs your Class abilities in any way.

Trying to interpret the Rage of a Barbarian as the Rage of a Noble would be extremely disingenuous. There's nothing about being a Noble which allows you to Rage. You can only Rage because you're a Barbarian.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There's no reason you can't be both a Noble and a Barbarian. It just means that you were a Barbarian who became a Noble, or vice versa. That doesn't mean your Background informs your Class abilities in any way.

Trying to interpret the Rage of a Barbarian as the Rage of a Noble would be extremely disingenuous. There's nothing about being a Noble which allows you to Rage. You can only Rage because you're a Barbarian.

Blink
Blink Blink

Then, if I may ask, what was this about?

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.

Or this part

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.

This was a bit further back on the same subject

Barbarian comes with quite a bit of baked-in lore, which goes to explain how and why they are able to rage. If you use your Knight background to replace that lore, rather than supplement it, then you are changing how the world works in regard to raging. You are saying that there is a new path within the world, which manifests in this way, where previously that path did not exist.

It seems in these previous posts that you opposed the idea of a Barbarian who was a knight, did you simply misunderstand what I have been saying this entire time, or are you changing your stance? Because, from my side of the screen this seems to be a 180 from your previous stance.


Edit: And to confirm, while I did not change any of the barbarian abilities, I did not play my character as a "rugged mountain man" or anything of the sort. He was a Nobleman and a Knight. Courtly love and the whole 9 yards

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It seems in these previous posts that you opposed the idea of a Barbarian who was a knight, did you simply misunderstand what I have been saying this entire time, or are you changing your stance? Because, from my side of the screen this seems to be a 180 from your previous stance.

It's possible that there was a misunderstanding. It seemed that there was a fairly unified camp behind the idea that fluff was freely mutable, and a smaller camp behind the idea that fluff is only as mutable as crunch is. I can see how someone might be unfairly lumped into one of those groups, if their position was more nuanced.

To reiterate my position, then:

Classes come with a lot of codified fluff, which is the in-game reality that the mechanics exist to reflect. (Some classes are more specific about this fluff than other classes are.) If you belong to the Barbarian class, then that necessarily means some things are true about your character, and those things explain how you're able to rage and whatnot.

A character isn't only their class, though. You can be a Barbarian, and also a Scholar or a Criminal or something. People can be complex and multi-faceted. However, being a Scholar doesn't change what it means to be a Barbarian. You aren't a Scholar who unlocked the knowledge of Rage through extensive research or anything. You're a Barbarian and a Scholar, and your Barbarian crunch is explained through the narrative of the Barbarian class, while your Scholar crunch is explained through the narrative of the Scholar background.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's possible that there was a misunderstanding. It seemed that there was a fairly unified camp behind the idea that fluff was freely mutable, and a smaller camp behind the idea that fluff is only as mutable as crunch is. I can see how someone might be unfairly lumped into one of those groups, if their position was more nuanced.

To reiterate my position, then:

Classes come with a lot of codified fluff, which is the in-game reality that the mechanics exist to reflect. (Some classes are more specific about this fluff than other classes are.) If you belong to the Barbarian class, then that necessarily means some things are true about your character, and those things explain how you're able to rage and whatnot.

A character isn't only their class, though. You can be a Barbarian, and also a Scholar or a Criminal or something. People can be complex and multi-faceted. However, being a Scholar doesn't change what it means to be a Barbarian. You aren't a Scholar who unlocked the knowledge of Rage through extensive research or anything. You're a Barbarian and a Scholar, and your Barbarian crunch is explained through the narrative of the Barbarian class, while your Scholar crunch is explained through the narrative of the Scholar background.

Ok, that is a much more nuanced position than you seemed to take before. And I can respect that, but I do want to press it a bit further.

What do you do when those two narratives clash?

You are saying a class has "codified fluff", things which must be true about the character. So, continuing the barbarian discussion, which parts of their "fluff" is codified and unchangeable? Because many of the details of what is listed in the barbarian class are exactly the types of things a background will change. So, when those two narratives conflict, what happens?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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?

Honestly, no, those answers are not relevant to the topic at hand. Both that post, and this one, seem much more concerned with your personal changes to make D&D more like a game that you would enjoy; rather than judging it for what it is, on its own merits.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Ok, that is a much more nuanced position than you seemed to take before. And I can respect that, but I do want to press it a bit further.

What do you do when those two narratives clash?

You are saying a class has "codified fluff", things which must be true about the character. So, continuing the barbarian discussion, which parts of their "fluff" is codified and unchangeable? Because many of the details of what is listed in the barbarian class are exactly the types of things a background will change. So, when those two narratives conflict, what happens?

In lieu of a comprehensive setting guide, that's a matter for you to work out with the DM, since the DM is also the one responsible for understanding how the world works (and for reconciling inconsistencies within the rules). They are the one who decides which specific aspect of Barbarian fluff is necessary to generate the relevant system mechanics.

Where a given class and background would be in direct conflict, I would honestly expect a reasonable DM to disallow that combination, in the same way that they might disallow certain race/class combinations.

 

[Chaosmancer]

In lieu of a comprehensive setting guide, that's a matter for you to work out with the DM, since the DM is also the one responsible for understanding how the world works (and for reconciling inconsistencies within the rules). They are the one who decides which specific aspect of Barbarian fluff is necessary to generate the relevant system mechanics.

Where a given class and background would be in direct conflict, I would honestly expect a reasonable DM to disallow that combination, in the same way that they might disallow certain race/class combinations.

I think that lies the difference in our stances. I would expect a reasonable DM to generally allow the combination.

But, considering we seem to agree that the "codified fluff" is actually in the realm of the DM instead of the PHB, we are talking a minor difference in preference and little more.