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

[Hussar]

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.

But, even that doesn't really apply. A Vengeance or a Conquest Paladin certainly don't give a rat's petoot about standing with good things. Yes, what they list is A paladin, but, hardly ALL paladins, even the ones that are actually in the PHB.

Strange. It tells me that the person is playing a holy warrior that is most likely dedicated to a god and has tenets that are strictly followed.

What are those tenets? How am I different from a cleric? Never minding that paladins in no way need to be connected to any deity whatsoever, and in fact, two out of the three core paladins have no connections to a deity. Oath of Ancients paladins are specifically tied to fey and Oath of Vengeance paladins barely even mention deities and only as a single example of many.

So, no. You are outright wrong.

Reflavoring is home brew and confuses things. And even if that priest of Kord was a rogue, he wasn't a cleric of Kord. Clerics of Kord have clerical spells.

Reflavoring only confuses you. Everyone else has no problems.

 

[prabe]

I think the point is that no matter what race, trait, bond, etc. the PC cleric has, he's still going to have clerical spell casting, a holy symbol, channel divinity, etc., which will all play into how the cleric is played. Those will be a part of the PC regardless of whether he calls himself a cleric, holy servant or Batbane.

Oh, sure. I think the problem is when there is a disconnect about the extent to which class features must correlate to personality. I think it's possible for different clerics--even of the same deity/domain--to have different personalities, to use your example above. Yes, it's plausible that some classes would tend to draw some personalities, but the correlation likely isn't 100%, and if a player has an idea that's not (stereo)typical my own inclination would be to let the player run the character that way, provided there's not a violation of, e.g., a paladin's oath happening.

I also think it's a reasonable position that a character with a nonstandard approach to a given class might not describe themselves as a member of that class. The player, however, should be clear what class the character is, and what the mechanics are representing; so should the GM.

 

[prabe]

I think I said everything significant I have to say in earlier posts but I am long winded. So I am going to say it again as concise as I can.

[snip]

Not really shorter hu? Fail.

Concision is hard.

 

[prabe]

The rules are specifically concerned with how the fluff and crunch relate to each other. The rules say that a given bit of fluff is represented by its respective bit of crunch.

If you change either the fluff or the crunch, then you've changed the rule which connects them.

So fluff is the same as rules? Even if nothing changes about how something plays, mechanically? That sounds as though you believe I'm radically altering, e.g., the Order domain by calling it the Command domain instead, because I think that's a better reflection of what it does. If that's your position, it seems awfully extreme from here.

 

[prabe]

Strange. It tells me that the person is playing a holy warrior that is most likely dedicated to a god and has tenets that are strictly followed.

In 5E, the only one of those things that's specifically mandated is the tenets (Oath). You could easily have an Oath of Vengeance paladin who didn't care for the gods (and might in fact have sworn vengeance against one or more of them), or an Oath of Ancients paladin who worshiped with druids (who themselves might not serve gods, depending on the setting).

Reflavoring is home brew and confuses things. And even if that priest of Kord was a rogue, he wasn't a cleric of Kord. Clerics of Kord have clerical spells.

I think there is dispute over whether changing a description without changing the rules is really homebrew, and I think that dispute is causing lots of confusion. Yes, it's possible that priest of Kord is a thief (in the sense that he steals, not in a class sense); it's possible he's multiclass with rogue (in which case he's both a rogue and a cleric); it's possible he's a homebrew rogue subclass roughly equivalent to a clerical Arcane Trickster (I've seen such a thing, and while it's not in the subclasses I specifically allow in my campagns I'm not deeply opposed to it, either). One of those is homebrew, and another is using technically optional rules, but the first one seems strictly RAW (which, I don't care much for appeals to authority, but here we are).

 

[Coroc]

....
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.

I disagree. Refluffing works well in 5e, so well that you got a believable FS concept (divine caster) using a sorc (arcane caster). Perfect refluff, in as good as you can do this by refluffing. As far as I can tell you could do similar stunts with 4e.

But:
You can refluff an elven eldritch knight and simply call it the Elf class of ODD. And although I do not know much about 4e I bet you cannot do this with 4e. Not at all.

I even dare to say that 5e with its backgrounds and feats for emulating multiclass without multiclass took refluff to the next level, a mechanical option you never had in any of the prior editions.

You could recreate Elf class of ODD with 3.x e, but it would be hard. You could use a fighter/mage for 1e or 2e but it is not the same thing. But with 5e it perfectly works. And since mechanically it is 100% an Elven Eldritch Knight you just gave it a different name and made a class out of a class / subclass this is the perfect example for a refluff.

 

[Coroc]

So fluff is the same as rules? Even if nothing changes about how something plays, mechanically? That sounds as though you believe I'm radically altering, e.g., the Order domain by calling it the Command domain instead, because I think that's a better reflection of what it does. If that's your position, it seems awfully extreme from here.

Fluff is not rules. Fluff is classes races items spells deities religions, but not mechanics. Rules is game mechanics.

You can create a Flumpf Berserker by re "fluffing" a human barbarian. Fluff is names. Prosa.

Rules is mathematics.

In so far @Saelorn I 100% agree with @prabe ´s opinion here.

 

[Maxperson]

In 5E, the only one of those things that's specifically mandated is the tenets (Oath). You could easily have an Oath of Vengeance paladin who didn't care for the gods (and might in fact have sworn vengeance against one or more of them), or an Oath of Ancients paladin who worshiped with druids (who themselves might not serve gods, depending on the setting).

And you'd know he had divine smite, paladin spellcasting, etc., which affect how he is roleplayed.

I think there is dispute over whether changing a description without changing the rules is really homebrew, and I think that dispute is causing lots of confusion. Yes, it's possible that priest of Kord is a thief (in the sense that he steals, not in a class sense); it's possible he's multiclass with rogue (in which case he's both a rogue and a cleric); it's possible he's a homebrew rogue subclass roughly equivalent to a clerical Arcane Trickster (I've seen such a thing, and while it's not in the subclasses I specifically allow in my campagns I'm not deeply opposed to it, either). One of those is homebrew, and another is using technically optional rules, but the first one seems strictly RAW (which, I don't care much for appeals to authority, but here we are).

Rules are not an Appeal to Authority. It isn't a claim that it's right because it was said by an authority without further evidence. The rules themselves are evidence that things are done that way. Now, if I had said that clerics are played a certain way, because Gary Gygax said so, that would be an Appeal to Authority.

 

[Stoutstien]

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.

Not only is refluffing legit in 5e it's RAW. even in the most extreme modes of play like AL there are written rules that allow players to change races and such to better fulfill their personal goals as long as they follow the mechanical rules. In the DMG it talks about Reskining options before making new ones so you don't have to worry about balance. And that apply to races weapons spells classes subclasses NPC stat blocks and just about every other aspect of the game
In reality we don't have to look past the PHB. Every class has a built-in vagueness that is covered in the individual class sections that requires the players to create the class and how it interacts with each individual setting/campaign.
not to mention you can't have default classes because the default setting for fifth edition is the multiverse or in simple terms it's setting neutral.

Even the paladin's oath is open. Even taking the text for what it is so vague an open-ended they practically don't exist other to help define the individual player/dm interpretation of them.

The real challenge in this edition is to set a default option. ask a hundred people what a default Barbarian is and you'll get a hundred different answers.

 

[Maxperson]

I play clerics and call myself a paladin. I'm even thinking of playing an artificer and calling it a paladin!

Sure. You can also call yourself Kool Aid, but it won't make it true. Your artificer and cleric call themselves paladins, but they are not paladins.

Only paladins are paladins, unless you home brew otherwise. If you home brew that classes aren't really classes, but rather just unattached sets of mechanics, then you can apply any name to anything