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

[abirdcall]

Perhaps if you gave me any evidence that you were open-minded to counter arguments, but I know better than to waste my time with providing well-written counter arguments when you have no interest in actually listening or changing your position.

Furthermore, it is not my place to say why you are wrong; it is yours to say why your positive assertion is correct. And you have not made a compelling argument for your case. If you had, you would have been able to convince a single person of your point, but you haven’t. Have a pleasant day.

I agree with them and I assume so would others who have left the thread as well as countless more who aren't reading it.

Whether a position is popular or not has no impact on whether it is correct.

The book lays out what a class is. Not adhering to what the class is means it is no longer that class. There is no need for an argument, it's just what the words mean.

The disconnect, as far as I can parse it, is that some people feel an RPG can work if there are no narrative or thematic rules. Even moreso, that they don't actually exist. That's true of chess. It's not true of an RPG. Further, 5e itself is specifically designed narrative first. What the rules represent is important, that's why so much space in the books are devoted to explaining what the rules mean.

If the races and classes were just numbered sets of abilities and powers with no names related to narrative I wouldn't play the game. Even in such a game with rules devoid of narrative and theme the game itself wouldn't work as players would have no idea how to resolve the limitless situations that will come up during the course of a game that are not explicitly outlined in the rules. Unless, I guess, if it is played solely as a white room combat strategy game I guess. But then, just play a better game at that point.

 

[Aldarc]

I agree with them and I assume so would others who have left the thread as well as countless more who aren't reading it.

That's awfully convenient for your argument, isn't it?

Whether a position is popular or not has no impact on whether it is correct.

Mercy, what a sweet platitude this is.

The book lays out what a class is. Not adhering to what the class is means it is no longer that class.

The book says that a class broadly defines a character's vocation, not that it prescribes the character, how they should act, or be roleplayed. In fact, it does not say that the class is the primary definition of a character's narrative; it says that it is the primary definition of what your character can do (i.e., mechanics), p. 45. The language of the book intentionally avoids prescribing how class defines your character, by using language such as "your character of X class might...".

There is no need for an argument, it's just what the words mean.

Are you familiar with any linguistics and/or linguistic theory because I don't think that this has been the prevailing linguistic sentiment for about a century.

The disconnect, as far as I can parse it, is that some people feel an RPG can work if there are no narrative or thematic rules. Even moreso, that they don't actually exist. That's true of chess. It's not true of an RPG. Further, 5e itself is specifically designed narrative first. What the rules represent is important, that's why so much space in the books are devoted to explaining what the rules mean.

Except you have not been able to cite any actual rule in the PHB or DMG in support of your argument. Your "best" source that you have repeatedly appealed to has been a Tweet from Jeremy Crawford that is contradicted by a Tweet from Jeremy Crawford.

 

[Azzy]

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.

In your opinion.

 

[Coroc]

Absolute rubbish.

also @Maxperson and others:

I think we got several missunderstandings in the thread because we use different baselines:

Mechanics: e.g. Barbarians mechanics are a rule to make the fluff of the barbarian work in a balanced way.

Refluffed: If i "refluff" (refluff is the wrong word here! It has to be reassign because it refers to a game mechanic!) the barbarians mechanics for a homemade hulk class and add some fluff to it e.g. i use the rage mechanics to describe the fluff that hulk transforms into a monster then i used a mechanical rule with different fluff.

Background: some additional fluff. It could be noble, pariah or whatever. If the player who plays Conan the barbarian has the slave background then he gets some skills or whatever from that.
If Conan later becomes king then it does not change his background to noble!

Ok now the other thing: Prince Krull started was born a noble (his background) (Fluff 1 attached) He started out as a fighter class (mechanic 1 attached) (Fluff 2 attached) Later he is captured by a primitive tribe and adopts their fighting habits which impresses them so much that he is released (He takes a level in barbarian (mechanic 2 attached, Fluff 3 attached).
Still Prince Krull keeps up his habits of a noble as soon as he is able to (back in civilised areas) Nowhere the background needs to be reassigned


Lets take this further:
Prince Krull starts out as a noble with al lthe knightly behaviour (no class yet) and is kidnapped by the primitive tribe as a child. He grows up as one of them adopting their fighting style = barbarian. He regains freedom and resumes his first lifestyle but still fights as a barbarian.




So if your DM is fine with all the classes and backgrounds in his campaign world no rule is broken here.
The game world should also feature soem noble house with the titel prince and some primitive tribe to make everything consistant and smooth.

The reason not to accept this player concept could be if there arre no primitive tribes in this world and barbarian is therefore not a class the DM wants in his campaign since all is civilised.
If then the player comes along and says, let us work it out, my player is something like tarzan, but in reality he is a prince (so noble background) who got lost in the jungle as a baby and grew up fighting like wild apes who raised him, then i as a DM would oppose and eventually say, yeah so you want to be the only barbarian in the game world, i am fine with that, but there is no way that your charcter gets the noble background because he grew up amongst animals in the jungle, take orphan instead, you are prince by name only.

 

[Maxperson]

In your opinion.

And the opinion of 5e.

"Every adventurer is a member of a class. Class broadly describes a character’s vocation, what special talents he or she possesses, and the tactics he or she is most likely to employ when exploring a dungeon, fighting monsters, or engaging in a tense negotiation. The character classes are described in chapter 3."

The special talents(mechanics) are listed separately from the description of vocation(fluff), both of which are what comprises that class. You can tweak it a bit, but if you completely upend either the mechanics or the fluff, you are changing the class into something else.

 

[abirdcall]

The reason not to accept this player concept could be if there arre no primitive tribes in this world and barbarian is therefore not a class the DM wants in his campaign since all is civilised.
If then the player comes along and says, let us work it out, my player is something like tarzan, but in reality he is a prince (so noble background) who got lost in the jungle as a baby and grew up fighting like wild apes who raised him, then i as a DM would oppose and eventually say, yeah so you want to be the only barbarian in the game world, i am fine with that, but there is no way that your charcter gets the noble background because he grew up amongst animals in the jungle, take orphan instead, you are prince by name only.

That's the thing though.

This character concept doesn't involve anything from the Barbarian class except their abilities.

There is nothing about being uncivilized in the character concept or any of the other things that are listed in the Barbarian section.

The character in question (as has been presented in this thread) is a high society noble who espouses the traits of a stereotypical noble knight such as being honour bound, having a decorum fitting someone of stature, etc.

The argument is that this is in no way a change to the rules set out in the book concerning what a Barbarian is.

The implication of this argument, as the topic of the thread, is that class has no bearing on who the character is as it is freely mutable.

Strangely enough, the posters who have replied seem to be in agreement that being a Jedi is against the rules, rules that they express don't exist. I'm still puzzled by that.

 

[Coroc]

That's the thing though.

This character concept doesn't involve anything from the Barbarian class except their abilities.

There is nothing about being uncivilized in the character concept or any of the other things that are listed in the Barbarian section.

The character in question (as has been presented in this thread) is a high society noble who espouses the traits of a stereotypical noble knight such as being honour bound, having a decorum fitting someone of stature, etc.

The argument is that this is in no way a change to the rules set out in the book concerning what a Barbarian is.

The implication of this argument, as the topic of the thread, is that class has no bearing on who the character is as it is freely mutable.

Strangely enough, the posters who have replied seem to be in agreement that being a Jedi is against the rules, rules that they express don't exist. I'm still puzzled by that.

Might be, but it is still only a matter of apropriate fluff (fitting i na given campaign) attached to this character concept, the like i gave examples for above, and it contradicts no rules.

So all it needs is a bit of in game explanation.

See, that is one of the reasons i limit everything in my own campaigns like a good grognard

Situations like that do not occur, maybe if you got players who like to explore unusual character concepts you should start session zero-1 with asking them about that and later scetch out the world to make it fit somehow?

 

[abirdcall]

Might be, but it is still only a matter of apropriate fluff (fitting i na given campaign) attached to this character concept, the like i gave examples for above, and it contradicts no rules.

So all it needs is a bit of in game explanation.

See, that is one of the reasons i limit everything in my own campaigns like a good grognard

Situations like that do not occur, maybe if you got players who like to explore unusual character concepts you should start session zero-1 with asking them about that and later scetch out the world to make it fit somehow?

Except for all the rules it directly contradicts.

 

[Aldarc]

And the opinion of 5e.

"Every adventurer is a member of a class. Class broadly describes a character’s vocation, what special talents he or she possesses, and the tactics he or she is most likely to employ when exploring a dungeon, fighting monsters, or engaging in a tense negotiation. The character classes are described in chapter 3."

The special talents(mechanics) are listed separately from the description of vocation(fluff), both of which are what comprises that class. You can tweak it a bit, but if you completely upend either the mechanics or the fluff, you are changing the class into something else.

Yes, and notice what you emboldened: "broadly describes" and NOT narrowly prescribes, as per your treatment of the words. Also notice that it does not say or suggest in any sort of legalese that these fluffs are indicative of rules.

Furthermore, the DMG has a section dedicated to modifying classes. It does not say that if the DM modifies a class that is ceases to be the prior class. It says that how a class is understood can vary from table to table or campaign setting to campaign setting and that the DM/table can modify the features or flavor of the class as appropriate to their needs or tastes. It even says that paladins in a hypothetical campaign setting may not swear oaths to ideals but powerful sorcerers. Nowhere does the DMG say, much less suggest, that this means that they cease being the paladin class.

So maybe it's time for you to admit that your opinion is not necessarily as attached to the given rules and guidelines of 5e as you believe it to be, and, in fact, dare I say, you may be actually more further detached from the rules than the people who are arguing that the class fluff can be changed without invalidating its existence as said class.

 

[Coroc]

Except for all the rules it directly contradicts.

Rule = mechanics.

No mechanics here is hurt, just fluff.

Fluff= classes, races, items, spells, deities, backgrounds, items, spells etc.,

Rules is what makes the game work in a balanced way independant of the fluff attached to them.

You are right that good fluff is contradicted, but no game mechanics are exploited in the original example as far as i can see it.

It is not my preferred game style, i like to create worlds where such stunts are hard to fit in, but it is legitimate and might even be fun if underlayed with good fluff.