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

[DwarfHammer]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

We aren’t playing lord of the rings. We are playing d&d. There is a difference.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

People keep saying that they can define something as 'fluff' and then therefore it is not a rule.

Firstly, how do we define something as fluff in the first place? Where in the rules does it say how we determine that?

I think that fluff, as most people in this thread are using it is using the definition:
Fluff: The setting and ambiance of a game, as distinct from the rules/mechanics, particularly in reference to written descriptive material.

No, you are being contrary. Homebrew, literally broken into "brewing at home" is used to talk about rule changes done by fans at home. Rule changes done by the company are variants, errata, or new releases.

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

Well, given there are things in Xanathars that change the rules as prescribed in the PHB, such as the Conquest Paladin, perhaps it does.

In fact some some the "rules" in the PHB would appear to contradict other "rules" in the PHB.

 

[Maxperson]

We aren’t playing lord of the rings. We are playing d&d. There is a difference.

Okay.

 

[Azzy]

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 do not get to redefine terms.

 

[Aldarc]

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

The beginning of the entire class section (p. 45) indicates that the flavor text is not set in stone. Again, you are treating the flavor text as being prescriptive rather than a descriptive starting point.

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.

They are descriptive starting points, Max, meant to largely assist new players. Your approach to the fluff as prescriptive, rather than descriptive, again supports the fact that you are seeking to impose a hardline normative view of the game that is detached from its intent.

But since you seem to require a dogmatic reading of the text to be persuaded, then how about XGtE?

It can be tempting to play a barbarian character that is a straightforward application of the classic archetype— a brute, and usually a dimwitted one at that, who rushes in where others fear to tread. But not all the barbarians in the world are cut from that cloth, so you can certainly put your own spin on things. Either way, consider adding some flourishes to make your barbarian stand out from all others; see the following sections for some ideas.

So right here we have an admittance that the barbarian character does not have to conform to the "classic archetype," and that players are empowered to put their own spin on the fluff. The following sections are merely suggestions for ways that they can. Do not interpret these sections as being a limited means by which barbarian players can further expand how they play their barbarian class.

It doesn't move any goalpost that I set.

It's difficult not to get that impression from you that you are, Max. Would you mind showing how that it doesn't move the goalposts? Either you are moving the goalposts or you are have a liberal definition of setting goalposts that gives you authority to fudge where the goalposts are. Maybe you think that we are playing Battleship and we have to guess where your goalposts are if we are to hit them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Either you are moving the goalposts or you are have a liberal definition of setting goalposts that gives you authority to fudge where the goalposts are.

And the irony is, the DM has complete authority to decide anyway. They don't need to justify their rulings with selective PHB quotes.

At this stage, it is simply an exercise in trying to bash how other people play.

 

[DwarfHammer]

I will say with regards to the original post. That with respect to a paladin I have told a player that they are playing their class wrong by not following their oath and have taken away theirs abilities until they atoned. I felt that was pretty fair. Those are pretty broad oaths. But burning down a peasants house with them in it to get to the Dark wanderers seemed like a violation of the devotion oath to me.

 

[DwarfHammer]

Okay.

That came across as snarky I apologize. I should have elaborated on that alot. I will be more explanative when I have time.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I will say with regards to the original post. That with respect to a paladin I have told a player that they are playing their class wrong by not following their oath and have taken away theirs abilities until they atoned. I felt that was pretty fair. Those are pretty broad oaths. But burning down a peasants house with them in it to get to the Dark wanderers seemed like a violation of the devotion oath to me.

You know, I think that is fair.

Paladins are tricky beasts, and I've been avoiding talking about them for some time on this thread because I think the mechanics and lore are not only tightly entwined, but held over from previous assumptions from previous editions, and that makes them hard to talk about.

I might yet again be told how wrong I am, but I did play a paladin character for a while, and I took a mildly different route with him.

He was a Paladin of Helm in the city of Neverwinter (The DM specifically told us to make characters connected to Neverwinter and wanted to have most of our adventures in the city), and I wanted to play him as an Ancient's Paladin, because Helm is quite an old god and I know the party I was playing with. I needed the most elastic oath I could get. But, I added to the oath as well. He was a half-elf and had lived through the Cataclysm, in fact due to the timelines, he grew up during that time, where the city had erected a slap-dash wall and was constantly fighting off abominations that were boiling up into a ruined part of the city. He loved his city, he had fought for his city for years, and so I added to his oath parts about protecting Neverwinter and her citizens, because as part of the City Watch, that was important.

That being said, even playing loose with the oath and the attitude, I still had to let things pass, because the party was not going to accept me stopping them from doing certain things. So, I didn't raise a fuss about some of their actions, even though I saw that my character would.

So, to summarize the point I am trying to make because I realize this example is twisting in on itself. Oaths can be very subjective to the players, the dm, and the person whose character it is, but I think in your example, that shows a clear violation. But I've seen other examples of paladins "breaking their oaths" that I would say did not actually violate their oath. It requires finesse and understanding generally to thread that needle

 

[abirdcall]

I think that fluff, as most people in this thread are using it is using the definition:
Fluff: The setting and ambiance of a game, as distinct from the rules/mechanics, particularly in reference to written descriptive material.

Right, but which rules are fluff and which aren't?

People define fluff as not rules then argue endlessly about what is fluff.

Is 'Druids won't wear metal armour' fluff and thus not a rule according to some?

How much of races are fluff? Is everything that doesn't have a 'balance' impact fluff? Can I pick the elf mechanics but use the human 'fluff' since those aren't rules?

Fluff are rules, it's just people tend to be more lax about changing them. Everyone has a line past which they say, wait, no, you can't actually do that.