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

[Azzy]

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.

Broadly describes. Like I said, it's a starting point, not an end point. There is nothing that says that you cannot sttray from this fluff. Nothing. Heck, even the lead designer, Jeremy Crawford, encourages reskinning. So, no, your hardline view is just your opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I've been saying generally(which means broadly) describes the entire time, but nice try at forcing words into my mouth.

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.

That section is entirely devoted to changing some of the mechanics of the class, not the fluff, and I think everyone understands that if you change the entirety of class mechanics, it ceases to be that class. You can call a potato a paladin, but it's not going to be a paladin.

 

[ad_hoc]

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.

Thought experiment:

Throw out everything that people define as 'fluff' in an RPG.

The game no longer works. There is a bunch of disconnected math in service of nothing.

There is no separating 'fluff' from rules in an RPG. It's all rules.

Broadly describes. Like I said, it's a starting point, not an end point. There is nothing that says that you cannot sttray from this fluff. Nothing. Heck, even the lead designer, Jeremy Crawford, encourages reskinning. So, no, your hardline view is just your opinion.

Who has said that things cannot be changed?

 

[Maxperson]

Broadly describes. Like I said, it's a starting point, not an end point. There is nothing that says that you cannot sttray from this fluff.

Broadly describes indicates what I've been saying. It describes the general nature of the class fluff. Barbarians are uncivilized(the general fluff). The specific way that your barbarian is uncivilized is up to you.

Nothing. Heck, even the lead designer, Jeremy Crawford, encourages reskinning.

His statement is irrelevant to my position. I am totally for house rules and home brew and support your ability to reskin in that manner. His support of re-skinning does not in any way mean that the default assumption is that the barbarian class is the general fluff plus mechanics. It just means that he is supportive of changing the game to suit your needs. As am I.

So, no, your hardline view is just your opinion.

I have no hardline view.

 

[Aldarc]

That section is entirely devoted to changing some of the mechanics of the class, not the fluff, and I think everyone understands that if you change the entirety of class mechanics, it ceases to be that class.

Yes, but please actually read the text, and not just the words but the actual discourse that is transpiring. The author is acutely aware of the fact that the fluff varies between tables and games, even for paladins. The modification of spell lists, for example, does not say that a paladin that does not swear an oath to ideals, but, rather, to powerful sorcerers is not a paladin. It says that a DM may desire to reflect such a paladin in the mechanics by changing the spell list, not that they must, such that a paladin who swears their oaths to powerful sorcerers is still hypothetically valid without modifying the class. Still a paladin. Replace 'paladin' with any given class here, such as the noble barbarian, and this point in the DMG would still hold true. It's just fluff, and it varies from table to table, game to game, campaign to campaign, and changed fluff does not not inherently invalidate the class as the class.

 

[Maxperson]

Rule = mechanics.

That's untrue. A rule that you have to roll dice in front of the players is a rule without mechanics. There can be lots of rules that don't have associated mechanics. An example from 5e is the rule that the players describe what they want their PC to do and the DM narrates the results. Those are both explicit 5e rules with no mechanics. Other mechanics may or may not play a part in-between the declaration and narration, but those mechanics are not a part of those two rules.

 

[Azzy]

From Eberrron: Rising from the Last War:

"As a barbarian you could have been a simple peasant caught in the Mourning. Everyone else in your community was killed, but their spirits were bound to you. Your barbarian rage represents you channeling these vengeful ghosts. Is there a way to lay these spirits to rest? Do they have unfinished business they want you to resolve?"

 

[Maxperson]

From Eberrron: Rising from the Last War:

"As a barbarian you could have been a simple peasant caught in the Mourning. Everyone else in your community was killed, but their spirits were bound to you. Your barbarian rage represents you channeling these vengeful ghosts. Is there a way to lay these spirits to rest? Do they have unfinished business they want you to resolve?"

How does setting specific homebrew affect things here?

 

[Azzy]

How does setting specific homebrew affect things here?

It isn't homebrew.

 

[Coroc]

Thought experiment:

Throw out everything that people define as 'fluff' in an RPG.

The game no longer works. There is a bunch of disconnected math in service of nothing.

There is no separating 'fluff' from rules in an RPG. It's all rules.



Who has said that things cannot be changed?

Challenge accepted.

I take a class named A (mechanically the barbarians class) A background Y based on the criminal background.

Now i do the mechanics (Translation in paranthesis):

Player1 character X is a level 1 A with a dexterity of 16 and the Y background allowing him to apply skill U with +6
(means e.g. he could use his background to pick locks with +3prof+3dex=+6 skill based o nhis background)

DM: X you approach a Z. you can apply skill U DC 12. Player 1 rolls 15 +6= 21. DM you resolved Z
(Player 1 your character finds a lock, you can try and pick it. Player rolls more than 12 and picks the lock)

I removed all fluff, the mechanic is still working, no matter what names you give to the things.

Barbarian is not a rule, it is one example of fluff attached to the "barbarians mechanic"
As stated above i could do a homebrew class of a Hulk based on the barbarian mechanic and it woudl work fine without the word barbarian ever coming up in the game.