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

[PsyzhranV2]

That's fair. All members of a given class would act alike, except for those areas which are not covered by class (such as race or background), and subject to any changes that your subclass may inflict upon your class.

But as for the part of a character which is a reflection of that class, that part is the same for all members of that class.

... All I can say is "what".

Why would two people act alike because they both know how to pick locks, or turn into animals, or turn their weapons into vibroblades by channeling radiant energy? Especially since they could have learned those abilities from different sources through different experiences.

The character classes do not prescribe or enforce personality traits on your character. That is the purview of their background and their traits-ideals-bonds-flaws.

 

[prabe]

I encountered this problem more in previous editions of D&D. Paladins tended to be the worst offenders, to the point where their dogmatic ideals and policing of other characters actions caused a lot of inter-group tension. Fortunately, 5E has diversified paladins a great deal via subclasses so that has not been an issue in any of my 5E games.

Of the 5E PHB subclasses, the warlock fiend pact seems like the one most likely to raise the "character is the class" problem. There are certainly reasons why a good-aligned character might be in a pact with a fiend and it could make for a rich (if difficult) role-playing experience. But that might not be obvious to less experienced players, who would assume you should be playing an evil character to make a pact with a fiend.

I find that paladins in prior editions were made more palatable by treating alignment as more descriptive than proscriptive, but it still had potential to be a real problem.

In the setting I've homebrewed for my 5E games, the world spent some time being ravaged by armies of demons and devils, and fiendlocks can be taken over by their patrons at any time, fiendlocks therefore are usually killed quickly upon discovery and are not available as a PC class. I agree that even without all-a-that, they do have a tendency to reflect class-as-character more than just about anything else in the PHB.

 

[Wiseblood]

i don’t think it’s a thing. I played a Bard that was from a barbarian culture so Bardbarian. ( Awesome BTW old pro wrestling is your friend) For me, that emerged after playing to class for years. My thirteen year old daughter seems to have been born without my limitations. Her Barbarian is a near genius sage and works for a wizard.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

For those who haven't read the comic, Colin (the writer) is referencing this post when talking about how characters shouldn't be solely defined by their class: What's In A Name? How Your Character's Class is Limiting Your Creativity

It's a fair take.

 

[Panda-s1]

No gaming is better than bad gaming.

yo what?!

If I'm going to play a game then I'm going to play that game and not try to warp it into something else because I don't like it but feel forced to play it.

trying to something new and original hardly counts as "warping it into something else". also if I'm not the dm there a huge limits to the "warping" I can get away with.

If I don't like a game that my friends are playing I will find something else to do with them at some other time. I won't join the game I don't like and then dump that baggage on them while they're trying to enjoy something.

a lot of people don't have the luxury of finding something else to do with them some other time. also not sure how playing a character I want is dumping baggage on them.

also this only makes sense if there was literally one way to play an RPG. d&d isn't a board game (no, not even 4e), it can be changed and played a myriad of different ways. if it weren't then why are there so many different official campaign settings? Forgotten Realms is vastly different from Dark Sun and yet both are played with the same set of rules.

let me ask you this: how can someone play fighter wrong? keep in mind fighters have proficiency with every weapon in the book, every kind of armor as well, and even get the option to use magic at 3rd level.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Because the mechanics of the game reflect the reality of the game world. That's why we're using one set of mechanics, instead of some other set of mechanics.

If it was possible for a Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen to be accurately represented with multiple different classes, then that indicates a severe mis-match between the reality and its reflection. We shouldn't be using these classes to represent a reality where they don't hold. The consistent approach would be to define Warrior-nun of the Raven Queen as its own class.

So your answer is to homebrew up an entirely new class?

What if I homebrewed it up by taking an existing class and simply changing all the names of the features without changing how those features actually worked?

 

[ClaytonCross]

Maybe we don't want fourteen million classes, though, and maybe there are several kinds of Warrior-nuns of the Raven Queen. So long as the player and the GM are on the same page, it's almost certainly fine (though I have to admit I'd look very carefully at a character whose player wanted to bring lore into my setting that allowed him to multiclass paladin and warlock).

uh...

Oath of Ancients Paladin + Archfey warlock you have a cooperate boss and a branch manager
Oath Breaker Paladin + any warlock - your just changing directions.
Oath of Conquest Paladin + any warlock patron who supports your conquest
Oath of Devotion Paladin + Hexblade or Undying Warlock - serving the Raven Queen
Any Warlock + Oath of Redemption - you made a bad choice and your trying to fix it.
Any Warlcok + Oath of Vengeance - your patron turned on you so your turning the tables, or someone betrayed your patron and you want to get them back.
Any Warlock + Oath of the Crown - you just changed jobs under the same management become and inforcer of their rules.

This took longer to type than to think up. Really, it doesn't take much thought for Paladin/Warlock to work... it does however require SOME thought. Instead of halving a default "No x/x multi-class" I find it generally better so say, "Before you multi-class let me know so we can iron out the lore and reasoning before you bring it to the table and you have to role-play out what we agree on." meaning with any multi-class (even fighter / ranger etc) you take the mechanical you take an agreed lore BUT we build the lore on a mutual understanding. This is not the GM dictating to the player how they will play a class or multi-class or a player just abandoning all lore and thought magically picking up mulit-classes that don't make since and have 0 context. "Your ranger picked up fighter while alone in the woods? Who taught him? You never mentioned any attempt to learn or train those skills before showing up with this multi-class."

 

[prabe]

uh...

[snip]

Really, it doesn't take much thought for Paladin/Warlock to work... it does however require SOME thought. Instead of halving a default "No x/x multi-class" I find it generally better so say, "Before you multi-class let me know so we can iron out the lore and reasoning before you bring it to the table and you have to role-play out what we agree on." meaning with any multi-class (even fighter / ranger etc) you take the mechanical you take an agreed lore BUT we build the lore on a mutual understanding. This is not the GM dictating to the player how they will play a class or multi-class or a player just abandoning all lore and thought magically picking up mulit-classes that don't make since and have 0 context. "Your ranger picked up fighter while alone in the woods? Who taught him? You never mentioned any attempt to learn or train those skills before showing up with this multi-class."

I don't think we disagree as much as maybe you think we do. I'm pretty relaxed about multiclassing in my campaigns. My main reasons for wanting to look carefully at someone wanting to combine the two classes are A) They can heterodyne extraordinarily well and B) I want to make sure it fits (or can be made to fit) into the setting I'm running in. Coming to a mutual understanding with the player about the character is part of this, too.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Backgrounds, subclasses, and races exist as a way to reflect slightly different realities; but the rules still definitely reflect those specific realities.

Re-fluffing died with 4E. The expectation of 5E is that, if you have some new thing which isn't already covered by the rules, you should use the content creation guidelines in the DMG to make those things. But in every case, the only reason to use any given set of mechanics is because it's an accurate reflection of the thing you're trying to represent.

Style of play did not die.

Exmple:
Druid 1: "I love nature, you should never hurt anything even plants unless it has free will and tires to hurt you first... WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOUR GOING TO CUT DOWN SOME FIRE WOOD!! I must protect the trees!" <I cast Ice Knife at level 9 at my fellow party member to teach him not to hurt precious trees>

Druid 2: "So he's cutting down a tree … who cares? There is a dragon burning down the forest and killing villagers.... eh... what ever. Wait, does the dragon have gold? Okay then lets kill us some dragon, I am gona be rich!.. life sacred ? The rules of nature are survival of the fittest, might makes right, and your predictor or your pray. If we can kill the dragon his gold is rightfully ours if he can kill us then he has earned the right to keep it. Lets go."

There is no rule in any 5e book saying you can't multi-class with any other class.
There is no rule in any 5e book saying you have to have one alignment or another for a specific class.

These are character playstyle choices, based on opinions. Everyone at the table is entitled to their opinion. For the sake of a better gaming experience you can avoid opposing opinion when you can't work them out but its pretty much impossible to argue that someone's personal preference based on opinion is wrong.

 

[Umbran]

What is a paladin?

Um...

Spoiler

Clad in plate armor that gleams in the sunlight despite the dust and grime of long travel, a human lays down her sword and shield and places her hands on a mortally wounded man. Divine radiance shines from her hands, the man’s wounds knit closed, and his eyes open wide with amazement.

A dwarf crouches behind an outcrop, his black cloak making him nearly invisible in the night, and watches an orc war band celebrating its recent victory. Silently, he stalks into their midst and whispers an oath, and two orcs are dead before they even realize he is there.

Silver hair shining in a shaft of light that seems to illuminate only him, an elf laughs with exultation. His spear flashes like his eyes as he jabs again and again at a twisted giant, until at last his light overcomes its hideous darkness.

Whatever their origin and their mission, paladins are united by their oaths to stand against the forces of evil. Whether sworn before a god’s altar and the witness of a priest, in a sacred glade before nature spirits and fey beings, or in a moment of desperation and grief with the dead as the only witness, a paladin’s oath is a powerful bond. It is a source of power that turns a devout warrior into a blessed champion.

The Cause of Righteousness
A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness, and to hunt the forces of evil wherever they lurk. Different paladins focus on various aspects of the cause of righteousness, but all are bound by the oaths that grant them power to do their sacred work. Although many paladins are devoted to gods of good, a paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god.

Paladins train for years to learn the skills of combat, mastering a variety of weapons and armor. Even so, their martial skills are secondary to the magical power they wield: power to heal the sick and injured, to smite the wicked and the undead, and to protect the innocent and those who join them in the fight for justice.

Beyond the Mundane Life
Almost by definition, the life of a paladin is an adventuring life. Unless a lasting injury has taken him or her away from adventuring for a time, every paladin lives on the front lines of the cosmic struggle against evil. Fighters are rare enough among the ranks of the militias and armies of the world, but even fewer people can claim the true calling of a paladin. When they do receive the call, these warriors turn from their former occupations and take up arms to fight evil. Sometimes their oaths lead them into the service of the crown as leaders of elite groups of knights, but even then their loyalty is first to the cause of righteousness, not to crown and country.

Adventuring paladins take their work seriously. A delve into an ancient ruin or dusty crypt can be a quest driven by a higher purpose than the acquisition of treasure. Evil lurks in dungeons and primeval forests, and even the smallest victory against it can tilt the cosmic balance away from oblivion.