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

[Maxperson]

Yeah, you're right. I should know better. But, sometimes, just once in a while, playing whack a mole and spanking someone really thoroughly, is just so ... therapeutic.

You mean you like to troll me. This isn't the first time you have done so and it won't be the last.

 

[Maxperson]

Here's the thing about class abilities - they aren't really something the character practices, they're an abstract rule meant to represent a lot of different things about the character. The actions in D&D, things like Dash, Disengage, etc, are also abstracts, they aren't skills in the way that you want them to be.

Not me. The game itself. I quoted the section that said they are learned.

Some of them come closer to that than others of course. But a Rogue isn't 'practicing' cunning action, that's an abstract rule meant to represent some combination of speed, fast hands and quick thinking and the class gets it no matter which actions they use, what the character concept is, and regardless of practice of any kind.

No, of course he isn't practicing Cunning Action. He IS practicing hiding and running, though, which becomes Cunning Action at the appropriate time.

Practice can't be the answer anyway, for reasons already brought up - if it was just about practice then any character who practiced those things, say a fast DEX-based fighter, would also get the ability, but they don't. Why not?

Because they get other things for their practice. Even with something as simple as running, there are different ways to practice it and different applications for even the same kind of practice. The rogue learns X tricks and gets Cunning Action, the fighter learns Y tricks and gets Action Surge, the Barbarian learns Z tricks and can move faster and the wizard just gets tired as he's not interested in learning from his practice and just wants to learn more spells.

 

[Maxperson]

It really is very simple, Max is just always right, no matter if it contradicts what he said before, because that was also right and he didn't say what you think he said. I should know, I've been responding to him for nearly three days and I seem to have gotten every single position he has taken wrong at multiple turns.

And yet multiple others, @Xetheral and @Fenris-77 as two examples, are having nice conversations with me. They aren't getting things wrong or using fallacious reasoning the way you and @Hussar do. The fault lies with you two deliberately twisting what I say like you do in this post(there have been no contradictions in this thread) and then piling on(trolling me). You two should be ashamed of yourselves, but I know that you won't be.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And all the rest of their lives in which they hid and ran around.



That is not what you said. This is what you said, "So, we must assume that the rogue is practicing hiding, disengaging from hostile forces, and running extra fast. And if the rogue is, say, planning on being an inquisitve investigator who doesn't do those things? "

Those things. All three. Not just hide. You were forced to come up with a white room, corner case PC who walks everywhere and has never even jogged for his entire life, has never hidden(and even investigators have to hide sometimes), and who has never run and will never run away. The guy would have to stroll away from a dragon trying to eat him.

Having to come up with an absurd white room character like that is pretty much auto fail.



Yes. Someone absurd like that who has never and will never hide, move faster than a walk or run away from even the deadliest encounter should not have that ability and you should work with your DM to fix the broken PC.



This is a blatant Strawman. I've never claimed that all fluff are rules and should be obeyed and you know it.

ROFLOL

Oh my god, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad that you are serious.

You want to extend it to every time they hide even as a child? Every time they have ever run?

That makes it so so so much worse for you.

You realize that for basic military fitness, heck for basic fitness, you run a mile a day? Every day.

A fighter with the soldier background has likely run a mile a day for years. A ranger with the outlander background probably has run cross-country even more than that.

Neither class can dash as a bonus action.

A warlock hiding in libraries every week doesn't get to hide as a bonus action. Even though they might have been sneaking around for months to get the tomes they desire.

If you want to absurdum my argument to think I meant they have never run or hid in their life then you open the door to cunning action being open to any person with basic fitness.

Because they get other things for their practice. Even with something as simple as running, there are different ways to practice it and different applications for even the same kind of practice. The rogue learns X tricks and gets Cunning Action, the fighter learns Y tricks and gets Action Surge, the Barbarian learns Z tricks and can move faster and the wizard just gets tired as he's not interested in learning from his practice and just wants to learn more spells.

Ah. Different people learn different tricks from the same practice? So the rogue and fighter who run a mile everyday, exact same training program, one will learn how to once an hour get a boost of attacks, the other will be able to quickly hide in the shadows every six seconds with no limits.

It is an often observed phenomena that people going through the exact same training program come away with vastly different skills.

And yet multiple others, @Xetheral and @Fenris-77 as two examples, are having nice conversations with me. They aren't getting things wrong or using fallacious reasoning the way you and @Hussar do. The fault lies with you two deliberately twisting what I say like you do in this post(there have been no contradictions in this thread) and then piling on(trolling me). You two should be ashamed of yourselves, but I know that you won't be.

Maybe I should be ashamed, you've gotten me quite upset, but I still come back and try and reason with you.

But again, I'm not twisting anything. You are saying everything I'm repeating.

You have said that a specific sentence in a paragraph had to be followed, or it was a homebrew class.

You then said that the very next sentence in that paragraph is only a set of suggestions, not a prescription you have to follow or homebrew the class to change it.

You said abilities must be learned.

Then you have a problem with the implications of that.

Now you are taking more extreme versions of that position to try and make sense of the situations you are proposing

 

[Umbran]

You mean you like to troll me. This isn't the first time you have done so and it won't be the last.

Mod note:
Then perhaps you should make use of the ignore list? Because repeatedly being nasty is obviously not working for you.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, you're right. I should know better.

Mod note:
Yes, you should. I mean, really. You just publicly admitted intent to not treat people in a civil manner. Not bright.

How about you take a break from this discussion, and find one in which you don't feel this urge to treat people poorly...

 

[Fenris-77]

Not me. The game itself. I quoted the section that said they are learned.

I went into some detail about the various levels you can apply 'learned' at. My point was that the characters aren't learning class abilities - those are abstract functions of the rules. They are learning a host of in-game skills that those abilities are supposed to represent though. In the second case, the abstraction shows through because not every specific instance of a class actually uses or practices those skills in-game, but gets the ability anyway.

No, of course he isn't practicing Cunning Action. He IS practicing hiding and running, though, which becomes Cunning Action at the appropriate time.

Rangers practice running and hiding, and they don't get cunning action. Why? Because the abilities are abstractions and the Ranger class has different abstracted abilities. It's not about the character practicing running and hiding though, it can't be, or at least it's not just about that.

Because they get other things for their practice. Even with something as simple as running, there are different ways to practice it and different applications for even the same kind of practice. The rogue learns X tricks and gets Cunning Action, the fighter learns Y tricks and gets Action Surge, the Barbarian learns Z tricks and can move faster and the wizard just gets tired as he's not interested in learning from his practice and just wants to learn more spells.

This feels like a bit of a reach to me. The argument has already fallen apart when it comes to basic stuff like disengage and cunning action. It only comes back together when take the level of abstraction into account. A very similar level of abstraction is why there are so many arguments about skills and stats. The connection between stealth and dexterity only, for example, isn't a product of the game world, it's a product of the rules. Interestingly, the abstraction I'm talking about is clearly indexed in the part of your post above. Maybe we aren't as far apart on this as it seems.

 

[Arilyn]

I never said that. Someone else said that they are all rules. I've maintained from the start that the specifics can be changed, but if you change all of or the vast majority of the fluff, it becomes a new homebrew class.

I will agree that the character may not be a particular class, as written. Chaosmancer's barbarian, for example, is more knight than barbarian. But, since the knight is using all the barbarian features, mechanically he's a barbarian. For example:

CM: Hey, I have a homebrewed class for your campaign. Is that okay?

GM: Let me look at it first. This is just a barbarian. Do you have later ability changes in mind?

CM: Nope, happy with the official barbarian. Just thought, since he's not a tribal warrior, you might not approve, or want me to change the name of his class.

GM: So, you are actually looking for background approval. It's good. But please write barbarian under class, so there is no confusion.

Homebrew is changing actual rules and mechanics, or adding new feats and races. It's not just narrative fluff to explain your campaign world, which is just D&D "out of the box." The flavour text provides interest, colour and examples. It's to also help put us in the mood, just like the art does. It's not there as rules. So if a player wants a city druid, focusing on rats, pigeons, domestic animals and maybe oozes, that's cool. That's a nice change from the standard druid. And unless, some actual abilities are altered to make the class more urban, it's not homebrew. It's not a new class, it's just background. And background fluff is assumed to be highly mutable, and full of creativity. RPGers are an imaginative bunch, even when not changing mechanics.

 

[ad_hoc]

I will agree that the character may not be a particular class, as written. Chaosmancer's barbarian, for example, is more knight than barbarian. But, since the knight is using all the barbarian features, mechanically he's a barbarian. For example:

CM: Hey, I have a homebrewed class for your campaign. Is that okay?

GM: Let me look at it first. This is just a barbarian. Do you have later ability changes in mind?

CM: Nope, happy with the official barbarian. Just thought, since he's not a tribal warrior, you might not approve, or want me to change the name of his class.

GM: So, you are actually looking for background approval. It's good. But please write barbarian under class, so there is no confusion.

Homebrew is changing actual rules and mechanics, or adding new feats and races. It's not just narrative fluff to explain your campaign world, which is just D&D "out of the box." The flavour text provides interest, colour and examples. It's to also help put us in the mood, just like the art does. It's not there as rules. So if a player wants a city druid, focusing on rats, pigeons, domestic animals and maybe oozes, that's cool. That's a nice change from the standard druid. And unless, some actual abilities are altered to make the class more urban, it's not homebrew. It's not a new class, it's just background. And background fluff is assumed to be highly mutable, and full of creativity. RPGers are an imaginative bunch, even when not changing mechanics.

I agree that if you want to play a character with the Barbarian class which does not fit that class that you should bring it up to the table to get their buy in.

The line will differ by table. For you a city Druid who focuses on the wildlife in a city is fine. But what if the player wants to play a character with the Druid class who does not care about wildlife or nature in general?

You previously said my example of a non-religious Cleric was extreme and not what we were talking about. I would wager that a lot of people would find such a character to be just fine.

How would you feel if someone brought a character (whatever that may be) to your game which you felt was not fitting for it?

My stance is that the PHB is a base line. Add in any additional setting rules, books, and supplements being used and players know what is considered acceptable.

My stance is that changing things is also fine. However, some changes are not fine. This goes for both 'fluff' and 'mechanics' though I do not recognize that RPGs have true 'fluff' the way other games do. I also don't think 'mechanics' in RPGs are written in stone as written in the books. They should be changed as seen fit by each table as anything else.

People in this thread apparently think my stance is extreme. I just don't get it. This is the way I've been playing RPGs my whole life and it's also the way all the players at my table play. As always the internet puts us in contact with people who have entirely different experiences and views so there is that.

 

[Aldarc]

I've maintained from the start that the specifics can be changed, but if you change all of or the vast majority of the fluff, it becomes a new homebrew class.

Would you say that my comparison between the flavor text to a line-of-best-fit is apt?