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

[Maxperson]

Probably the "all rules are examples" and "all houserules are people just changing the example" parts were what hinted at it.

Nope. Those don't hint at that in any way whatsoever. It's like me saying that all dogs are alive and someone saying, "So are you really equating a Chihuahua with a Pitbull?"

 

[Chaosmancer]

Show me one rule that you have to follow and you will be wrong. In D&D not one rule is set in stone such that the DM cannot change it if he wants. All of them are examples. ALL of them.



Correct.



I've consistently supported the right to homebrew and house rule in this and every other thread where I've spoken about it. Your inability to understand others is not my responsibility.

That is great and wonderful.

It also has no bearing on the conversation.

Great, everyone can choose to homebrew anything. No one disputed that. Ever in this entire thread.

The dispute has been "is this following the rules" and your answer has consistently been no. Because the flavor text is also the rules.

Except, when I point out other flavor text, and ask if those are also rules, you say those are homebrew and don't count.

Or that those are just general examples, and you don't have to follow them exactly.

And everytime I put forth "this is your position, this set of logic would follow this position" you deflect by telling me something different, and saying that you have been consistent this entire thread.

But you haven't. You keep changing from hard-lined stances, to soft-line stances on what particular text is a rule and what is a theme, and what is an example. And saying that DMs are free to change anything does not change that. DMs changing the rules does not matter, if you can't even tell me which rules there are, and be consistent in your application of the definition of those rules.

 

[Xetheral]

I am not equating them, no. There was nothing in my post even hinting at some sort of equality between those two things.

Then I'm glad I asked for clarification. Unfortunately, if that's not what you meant then I don't understand what you were trying to say. Could you please re-explain?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Show me one rule that you have to follow and you will be wrong. In D&D not one rule is set in stone such that the DM cannot change it if he wants. All of them are examples. ALL of them.

I want to refocus on this for a second.

Because this entire line of conversation about my barbarian character started because of exactly that. I posted a character I had played, and enjoyed, as an example that your class is not the entirety of your character. That in fact, it is perfectly reasonable and in fact can be an good character, to play something that is not the stereotype of the class.

And I was told I was wrong.

You have told me I was wrong.

You have told me, that I broke the rules, because my barbarian could not be civilized. That being civilized broke the rules of the barbarian, and here was the text to prove it. In fact, I think you were the poster who said that if I was so desperate to change the rules of the class to play a knight, I should have just changed the name as well, and called it "The Angry Knight"

Now, here you are, less than a week later, telling me that if I showed you a rule that I have to follow, that I would be wrong. That all of the rules are mutable. That all of the rules are changeable. That, I am perfectly within the realms of the game, to change anything I want in whatever way I want.

So, is that the big point you want to make? "You broke the rules, but it is fine because the rules don't even matter anyways?" Is that where we end this conversation at?

Because, the more I dug down into "if these are the rules then it is more than my concept that doesn't fit, all of these more standardized concepts don't fit. If these rules are so hard lined, then why is there even a choice because these concepts don't fit either" the more you seemed to backpedal. This one is an exception, that one is just a theme, these are just examples.

The rules don't matter.


Well, if the rules don't matter, then why did you use them to tell me my concept was wrong? That I was not playing a barbarian at all, I was playing "The Angry Knight"? If you don't think there are any rules, why did you use them to put down my concept and say that it was against these rules?

 

[Maxperson]

Then I'm glad I asked for clarification. Unfortunately, if that's not what you meant then I don't understand what you were trying to say. Could you please re-explain?

Sure. @ad_hoc said that fluff = rules and people have a lower bar for changing those rules than mechanical rules. @Hussar said that he could accept that, but that he viewed fluff rules as guidelines. When I responded to that post, I was just pointing out that all rules are just guidelines. I wasn't making a comparison between or equating any two guidelines.

 

[Maxperson]

Because this entire line of conversation about my barbarian character started because of exactly that. I posted a character I had played, and enjoyed, as an example that your class is not the entirety of your character. That in fact, it is perfectly reasonable and in fact can be an good character, to play something that is not the stereotype of the class.

And I was told I was wrong.

Not by me you weren't. I said you weren't playing a barbarian. You changed the fluff to the point where it no longer matched the barbarian class. You took the mechanics only and refit them to meet your character, which is fine as a homebrew class. I never said you were wrong for playing the PC that way, though.

You have told me I was wrong.

And this is why I don't take anything you say seriously. You don't get anything right. At this point I no longer believe that this is accidental. You are deliberately misstating my positions every chance you get and it really reflects negatively on you.

 

[Coroc]

What stunt did I pull?

This is what is constantly confounding me. I picked Human, Barbarian, Noble (Knight). I acted like a Knight. I used the combat abilities of a Barbarian in combat. In what way have I offended you? Would you be appeased if I stripped him naked and slathered him in oil? If I grunted instead of spoke?

I know I'm getting a little heated about this, but the best anyone has been able to do to tell me why this character is wrong is to say "all barbarians are uncivilized brutes, it says so right in the rules/fluff"

Although I can think in English, I am no native speaker, so sorry I did not note the meaning of "pulling a stunt" would be regarded mostly negative. This wasn't my intention sorry for the misunderstanding, on the opposite, it was rather meant in "to do something unconventional with kudos for the idea" like you would applaud someone jumping some cars with a motorcycle sideways.
I do think your barbarian/knight concept is unusual (not in a negative way) and totally within 5e rule system, I also think that if doing unconventional concepts you should invest in a good background-story (not the background mechanic but a good explanation why it all went this way) which ideally should fit within a given game world.
My own game worlds are not designed to handle these things in such a wide frame because I like to limit fluff to make things more "intense", if a player in session zero would approach me for a concept like yours I could make it happen for him, but if someone turned up mid adventure arc, things would get harder to fit in.
But my style is old school and what is fun for me might be uncool for others and vice versa.

 

[Coroc]

Not for me. That breaks the fiction hard. What do the powers and abilities even mean then? And why does that 'class' have them? etc. That's a hard no, makes it worse.

Also on classes, I like that there are only 12 (13). There could even be a couple less and it would be okay. I want the classes to represent strong broad archetypes.

Yes if the campaign world is more or less official athas or even FR with a bit of homebrew then a "hobbit humpty dumpty" class would also break fiction and immersion for me.

And if e.g. I would advertise in a forum that I DM such a campaign and players which i do not know send me their character concepts I would expect them to be within the range of what you call rules.
At least if I did not communicate anything else upfront.
Still if someone has a game running where said hobbit humpty dumpty with monk mechanic is a thing, it would be absolutely within the mechanical frameset of 5e and does not break anything with balance, but it might sound ridiculous to most (See I now use frameset not rules, just to avoid further confusion).

And this is fluff. Different names for a class based on the frameset. Has nothing to do with lore star wars or middle earth, it is pure fiction.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I want the classes to represent strong broad archetypes.

Question: Why?

Don't you get bored when every player character is a walking cliché that you have seen dozens of times before?

 

[Chaosmancer]

And this is why I don't take anything you say seriously. You don't get anything right. At this point I no longer believe that this is accidental. You are deliberately misstating my positions every chance you get and it really reflects negatively on you.

You know, I'm starting to think the exact same thing about you. Because I can't believe you can say this with a straight face after posting the sentence below.

Not by me you weren't. I said you weren't playing a barbarian. You changed the fluff to the point where it no longer matched the barbarian class. You took the mechanics only and refit them to meet your character, which is fine as a homebrew class. I never said you were wrong for playing the PC that way, though.

So, I don't get anything you say right, I misstate your position at every turn. You never told me I played my Barbarian wrong.

Except, RIGHT HERE, where you just stated that I was actually not playing a barbarian. That I had changed far too much fluff to be considered a barbarian.

Oh sure, it is fine as a homebrew, but you want me to acknowledge that I was playing the Barbarian class wrong, that I was actually playing some other class that entire time.

Are you just not aware of how you sound? Do you not understand that it sounds like you are going backwards and just straight up lying?

"I played this class"
"No you didn't, you played something else"
"Um, why are you saying I was wrong and didn't play that class?"
"I never said that you were wrong, I said you weren't playing that class"

But, I'm sure yet again you will laugh and move on, confident that I don't understand anything you actually mean, because you never said I didn't play a barbarian, you just I played a homebrew barbarian that wasn't a true barbarian.