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

[abirdcall]

It's not a matter of trust. You made a claim about what someone said and now you can't source it, and a source actually presented here seems to state the opposite. It's possible he contradicted himself, but I'd want to see the evidence.

It's not the opposite.

(His arguments actually helped solidify my feelings on the matter and allowed me to put them into words. Believe he said it or not, that's fine.)

That's actually a really good summation of my opinion.

It's not actually what everyone has argued.

It's also not what I have argued against.

You seem to be agreeing with me so I have nothing more to say.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

At a lot of tables this would violate the social contract. Many tables want PCs to make sense within the game.

OK. So you're insinuating that this particular concept would not make sense within the game, thus violating the social contract?
OK. Why does it not make sense within the game?

Is it that you see no distinction between having levels in the Barbarian class and being a tribesman with a beard for example?
That a knight cannot be prone to great wrath in the throes of combat?
That honouring your ancestors, and them appearing to aid and protect you and your companions cannot be the behaviour of someone of noble birth?

Yes. The example which has been repeated is a character who is a Noble only and the character's class, Barbarian, has no effect on who the character is. It's just there because they needed a class.

On the contrary, their class informs and shapes a lot of the character. It provides not just pure mechanics like the proficiencies to represent that character's knightly training, but also both theme and mechanics. Like the character's penchant for going comprehensively nuts in a fight, and the presence of the ancestor spirits that the character honours.

Nobles don't adventure. Guild Artisans don't adventure. Hermits aren't adventurers. They need something after.

A character still has those skills they gained during their background. A noble still has a title and a guild artisan might still have their guild membership. But that isn't what they DO anymore.

The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?

So: "I was a knight, questing for glory for myself, gold for my family, and honour to my ancestors.
"Then I started adventuring."

You stop doing your background. You don't spend your days crafting. You don't spend your days alone in a hut. You don't spend your days managing your estate.

You might cease to perform some of the activities from your background, but you don't cease to become it. You don't stop being a Folk Hero when you swear your Oath of Devotion. You don't get kicked out of your guild when you start looking for more avenues of commerce in the wider world. You don't lose your taste for fine art or courtly manners the first time you go on a bunch of gnolls.

You are primarily an adventurer now of a class and that class has meaning and identity.

You don't cease to become your background, with all its manners, bonds, flaws and habits however either. A character can combine both.
A Knight Barbarian might only lounge around the estate and attend parties in downtime (unless plot permits).
But even if you're trying to claim that they stop doing knightly things when they become an adventurer, are you also saying that they have to stop being and behaving like a knight?

Depends on whether you want to follow the rules as written.

OK. Now we're getting somewhere. You're insinuating that the suggested character concepts are not following the rules as written?
That is something you can actually prove that you're correct on.

Which rules are they not following? A quote would be ideal, but simply showing where in the PHB we should be looking would be fine.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I think @ad_hoc either cannot understand the points you are making (and that we have been making for 15 pages now) or is just trolling. They believe that the fluff and the rules are all just rule, and that changing anything written is the same as "ignoring the rules of the game" and ruins the game as designed. No amount of examples of non-traditional characters in pop culture will sway them to see it any different. At some point they just stopped responding to anything I wrote so I am assuming I may have collected my first ignore.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

But what do those 'mechanical' rules mean if they don't represent anything?

The mechanical rules represent exactly what they actually say. No more no less.

I said it's fine to change rules - you're the one who's creating a strawman here. I have never said that rules cannot be changed.

I have never said that rules cannot be changed.

I have never said that rules cannot be changed.

Its OK.
No one is suggesting that rules cannot be changed. No one is claiming that you're saying that rules cannot be changed.
No one in this current discussion is talking about changing any rules at all as far as I can tell.
Apart from your claim that some of these example characters, built in accordance with the rules, are somehow against the rules and thus would require homebrew to allow.

In practicality, it is likely a moot point, since I don't think I've ever met a group retentive enough to say no to a concept like that. The question of whether homebrew is required and they're fine with it, or homebrew to allow it just isn't needed in the first place is quite irrelevant.

However characters are often thought of with fondness by their players and so its hardly unexpected that when you start making claims that one "is against the rules", people are going to ask you to back up your allegations with facts.

 

[FrozenNorth]

This is something that gets said over and over again. The implication here is that it is more imaginative to play a weird character or one with a gimmick or what have you than one of a strong classic archetype.

Make a memorable Wood Elf Ranger. That takes imagination and skill.

The rules interpretation adopted by myself and others on the thread allow for both memorable Wood Elf Rangers and for memorable Warlock Swashbucklers, Spider themed Druids and Barbarian Knights.

The rules interpretation you are arguing in favour of allows for only one of those things.

Pretty much the only argument you have given in favour of your interpretation is that our interpretation is "mush", which is clearly not the experience of the majority of the posters on this thread.

Putting Noble and Barbarian together is not a flex of someone's imagination. That doesn't take much creativity. Picking Barbarian because they want the Rage mechanic isn't a player being creative.

Playing a Kenku or a Thri-Kreen or an anthropomorphic rhinoceros is not more imaginative than playing an Elf or a Human even if they aren't seen as often.

Chaosmancer explained the background for his Noble Barbarian. I explained the background for my Anansi Druid. Jayounger explained the background for his Celestial Warlock.

I am not arrogant enough to claim my character is super creative. However, I can say, definitively, that Chaosmancer and Jayounger's characters are very creative, and would probably be interesting additions to my campaign. I cannot say the same for any characters you have proposed, because you have not proposed any characters.

I've seen it all before. It's not clever.

Make a memorable character not just a gimmick.

Claiming to "have seen it all before" is a failure of imagination. Thinking that the only reason a player wants an unorthodox character is because they really want the Barbarian's Rage mechanic is a failure of imagination. And thinking that any character that doesn't hew to 40-year old fantasy cliches is "a gimmick" is a failure of imagination.

But back to the 'mush'. No, it isn't good game design. If the rules represent everything then they represent nothing.

Are you aware of how extreme this sounds? Any change to any rule in the book leads to anarchy? I make a tiefling fiendish warlock but I refluff it into a cambion because there aren't any rules for cambions and I'm somehow a wild-eyed anarchist?

 

[abirdcall]

Chaosmancer explained the background for his Noble Barbarian.

Yes, a character that I would not play with. If they brought that to my table we'd give them a funny look and suggesting they work on the Barbarian part.

If they responded like they've done in this thread then we'd show them the door.

Be aware when you're joining a new group that they might not want to play your way. If you're going to change things you need buy in from the table.

Are you aware of how extreme this sounds? Any change to any rule in the book leads to anarchy? I make a tiefling fiendish warlock but I refluff it into a cambion because there aren't any rules for cambions and I'm somehow a wild-eyed anarchist?

Everyone keeps saying that I'm advocating against changing rules.

I don't know what else to do. I just need to stop engaging I guess.

 

[Maxperson]

The fluff in the rule books is a starting point, not an end point.

Start or end, the fluff is a guide to the class and can't be discarded without discarding the class itself. Class is not mechanics. Class is the mechanics plus the class fluff. If you completely re-write the fluff, you have a brand new class, even if the mechanics are the same as a barbarian.

 

[Maxperson]

As I alluded to in my previous post, fluff is useful to beginning players who might be overwhelmed with choice otherwise. It serves a function and I wouldn’t want it eliminated.

However, if you are claiming that WOTC’s intention in 5e was that the fluff serve as anything other than a guideline, than you are going to have to provide some evidence in support of that claim.

It is a guideline. Here is some barbarian fluff.

"People o f towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals, as if denying one’s own nature was a mark of superiority. To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign
of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature keen instincts, primal physicality, and ferocious rage.
Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. They thrive in the wilds o f their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt."

That serves as one of the guidelines for what a barbarian is. Whether you are a dwarven battle rager, an orc, a tribesman, or something else along those lines is up to the player to decide. However you decide, though, the guideline is that barbarians are uncivilized.

If you want to have a cultured knight and flower of civilization who gets really angry and rages in battle, you are not playing a barbarian. You have completely thrown out the guidelines and what makes the class a barbarian and have created a new class.

 

[Maxperson]

Why bother to include backgrounds in the game? At that point, just say "All Barbarians take Outlander, All Wizards take Sage, All Fighters take soldier, All Clerics take Acolyte, All Rogues take Urchin" ect

Hey, why not take it a step further. All Fighters are gruff men with beards who have seen too much war. All Wizards are old men with long beards seeking power for powers sake. All clerics are beautiful and kind women who act as the mother of the party.

I mean, if you are going to require people to play a trope, go all the way. All wizards are named Gandalf. All Fighters named Bob.

ROFL Wow! Watch out that you don't fall and hurt yourself on that Slippery Slope there.

I even pointed out ways that you could do noble and barbarian. Nothing you say here is in any way a valid response to what I said. Was there a point to that response?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yes, a character that I would not play with. If they brought that to my table we'd give them a funny look and suggesting they work on the Barbarian part.

If they responded like they've done in this thread then we'd show them the door.

You have my heartfelt condolences.

Everyone keeps saying that I'm advocating against changing rules.

As far as most of the other people in this thread are concerned, they are not. They're just talking about changing the fluff: the flavour.
I think that the reason that you're getting the impression that you are, is that you're viewing some of that flavour text as part of the crunch: the rules mechanics.

Hence the discrepancy.

It is a guideline. Here is some barbarian fluff.

"People o f towns and cities take pride in how their civilized ways set them apart from animals, as if denying one’s own nature was a mark of superiority. To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign
of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature keen instincts, primal physicality, and ferocious rage.
Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. They thrive in the wilds o f their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt."

That serves as one of the guidelines for what a barbarian is. Whether you are a dwarven battle rager, an orc, a tribesman, or something else along those lines is up to the player to decide. However you decide, though, the guideline is that barbarians are uncivilized.

If you want to have a cultured knight and flower of civilization who gets really angry and rages in battle, you are not playing a barbarian. You have completely thrown out the guidelines and what makes the class a barbarian and have created a new class.

Its following all the rules of a barbarian: the only thing that has changed is the fluff, or flavour text.

Note also that that flavour text is from the PHB while the character in question is an Ancestral Guardians barbarian, which has its own accompanying fluff.