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

[Maxperson]

Example 1: A barbarian, mechanically, who is a rural peasant who flies into a rage and fights with exceptional vigor on behalf of the lower class, and harbors a hatred of the nobility. I'd call this a minor refluff.

Fighting on behalf of the lower class and harboring a hatred of nobility doesn't have anything to do with any specific class. It can fit them all, so the only thing you have there is a rural peasant who flies into a rage. That doesn't really tell me enough. Does he fit the general theme of the Primal Instinct portion of the barbarian description? If no, I'd put that at moderate. If yes, it isn't even a refluff.

Example 2: A bard, mechanically, who is flavored as a mage with no musical skills at all. They have a keen interest in magical theory and see themselves as an unconventional wizard sussing out the secrets of magic from many traditions. Basically a bard who is flavored like a more traditional caster. The two are fairly close mechanically to begin with, so I'd call this a moderate refluff.

A PC can call himself whatever he wishes. If you want to call yourself a mage, you can do so. As for having no musical skills, even though the spellcasting section says that they shape reality with wishes and music, their abilities mention music and words as how they use those abilities. I would rate that a minor refluff, since all you are really doing is allowing oration to be how you cast spells, rather than it being music.

Example 3: A druid, mechanically, who is played in the style of Radagast, complete with a bunny sled. Radagast is more of a wizard who is attuned to nature than a druid, so I'd call this a moderate to high refluff.

Radagast has very little known about him other than he is close to nature. Tolkien called them all wizards, but I see no reason why he couldn't have been a druid, and the character in the movie could also have been a druid. All your description really changes is that this character is calling himself a wizard. If he plays like Radagast, then regardless of a sled, he's acting like a druid. This isn't even a refluff as far as I'm concerned.

Example 4: A monk, mechanically, who is a hobbit farmer who brawls and hits people with his hoe and utilizes old family fighting traditions ("Aunt Winnifred's Crotch Punch" for stunning strike, as an example). This departs pretty drastically from the monk flavor, so I'd call this a heavy refluff.

Yes. This is absolutely a major departure from the fluff. I would allow it in my game, though. I don't mind homebrew or house rules.

Example 5: A paladin, mechanically, who is flavored to be a mechanical assassin who unleashes surges of energy through his weapons in the form of energy blasts on a hit (to replace smites), and who swears no oath. I'd call this an extreme reflavor.

This is basically the creation of a new class and based on the new fluff of "mechanical assassin," would require more alteration before I would allow it. It doesn't make sense to me that his assassin would be able to lay on hands, cure diseases, be immune to disease, give bonuses to saves to others, etc. I would work with the player to try and come up with something, though. If we could come up with new class abilities that seem to be in the same power level ballpark as the ones that don't make sense, I would allow this.

 

[Maxperson]

So, @Maxperson, how do you allow for dwarven barbarians in your games without home brewing or breaking the rules?

By using the rules of course. I'll let you find the rules on dwarven barbarians. It seems like you need practice in finding them, since you appear to have missed them.

 

[Maxperson]

To the point a poster made some time again then, do you allow Dwarven Barbarians?

Dwarves live underground, not in Tundras, Jungles or Grasslands. So they cannot be Barbarians correct? I'll add Goliaths. Goliaths live in the mountains, mountains are not Tundra, Jungles or Grasslands. So, no Goliath Barbarians, right?

How prescriptive do you get? How many Barbarian concepts are "homebrew" because they do not fit the "rule text" exactly?

Specific beats general. The rules specifically allow dwarven barbarians.

 

[Maxperson]

Otherwise Volo's, Mordenkainen's, Xanathars and every book released in the future are "homebrew" because they change the rules of the game. And that is not how people use those words, despite the fact that the rules change at the end of the process

They would not be homebrew, because they are general rules, not setting specific ones. Those rules apply broadly to all settings unless the DM removes them. "Homebrew" is specific to a setting.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Specific beats general. The rules specifically allow dwarven barbarians.

I'm sorry. How do you justify that? You yourself just finished saying that the text of the barbarian is prescriptive. That means that those rules must be followed, no matter what.

The text you quoted states

This is the portion talking about being civilized. Show me where "might," "often" and "can be" are parts of it.

"People of towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals, as if denying one’s own nature was a mark of superiority. To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign
of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature, keen instincts, primal physicality, and ferocious rage. Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. They thrive in the wilds o f their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt."

The dwarves do not live and hunt in Tundra, Jungle or Grasslands. They in fact live underground, per the "rules" of the dwarves.

So what specific rule overrides the prescriptive rules on barbarians that does not override them for playing them in a civilized manner?

 

[Chaosmancer]

They would not be homebrew, because they are general rules, not setting specific ones. Those rules apply broadly to all settings unless the DM removes them. "Homebrew" is specific to a setting.

You realize that reads as moving the Goalposts right?

Especially since the Eberron book includes general rules for races and classes.

"The rules are the rules, unless they are setting rules, then they are homebrew, even if they are published by the game company" is an incredibly convoluted viewpoint that seems entirely inconsistent

 

[Maxperson]

I'm sorry. How do you justify that? You yourself just finished saying that the text of the barbarian is prescriptive. That means that those rules must be followed, no matter what.

You do know that in 5e specific beats general, right?

So what specific rule overrides the prescriptive rules on barbarians that does not override them for playing them in a civilized manner?

From the PHB barbarian section...

"Frothing at the mouth, a dwarf slams his helmet into the face of his drow foe, then turns to drive his armored elbow into the gut of another."

Then there is the Battle Rager barbarian subclass that is dwarf only. While it is a Forgotten Realms subclass, the subclass has language for their use in other settings. Also, I run the Realms so it wouldn't be an issue in my game in any case.

 

[Maxperson]

You realize that reads as moving the Goalposts right?

It doesn't move any goalpost that I set.

 

[DwarfHammer]

This is the portion talking about being civilized. Show me where "might," "often" and "can be" are parts of it.

"People of towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals, as if denying one’s own nature was a mark of superiority. To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign
of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature, keen instincts, primal physicality, and ferocious rage. Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. They thrive in the wilds o f their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt."

It says, "...civilization is no virtue..." and "Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds." Those are prescriptive sentences that the game gives, not me. Barbarians as a class are those things. HOW that comes about is up to the players and the fluff is mutable.

Nah. Barbarians see themselves as self sufficient and able to survive off the land. They don’t see themselves as animals. Animals are their prey or domesticated work animals. They respect animals as part of the natural world. But they don’t see themselves as animals. But you are correct on how they see civilization. Imho. To each his own.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You do know that in 5e specific beats general, right?


From the PHB barbarian section...

"Frothing at the mouth, a dwarf slams his helmet into the face of his drow foe, then turns to drive his armored elbow into the gut of another."

Then there is the Battle Rager barbarian subclass that is dwarf only. While it is a Forgotten Realms subclass, the subclass has language for their use in other settings. Also, I run the Realms so it wouldn't be an issue in my game in any case.

So, you are going to defend with what you consider homebrew and a story section?

Okay, sure, I'll drink the kool-aid and take this trip.

Dwarf Barbarians are allowed because the writer used a dwarf example in a story section, and since we all know that every single thing written in the book is an iron-clad rule, that counts. Great, wonderful. I assume Goliath Barbarians are still banned? That text doesn't mention them. Well, wait, should probably check Xanathars. Okay, nope, Goliaths aren't specifically mentioned by name there.

It doesn't move any goalpost that I set.

Well, good luck redefining the word that people use. I'm sure I will cause no confusion what so ever if I go to another thread and talk about how every aspect of Eberron, Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Planescape, ect is homebrew, because it changes the setting rules of DnD.

Because, that is still not what people mean. And you know people don't mean it that way, because no one in any discussion I have ever had, has used it that way before tonight.

But, sure, maybe I'll go to the WoTC Errata page and send a report that they mislabeled it, it is Homebrew materials, because they are changing the rules presented in the PHB