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

[Hussar]

There are several posters on the board for whom semantic precision is as important, if not more so, than normative statements on play style.

Basically, it's not about playing right or wrong, it's making sure you're using the words correctly.

For a pretty broad value of "correctly".

 

[Maxperson]

Since I appear to be having a hard time understanding your posts, I'd like to ask a clarifying question on this one too.

Are you saying that @Chaosmancer is not wrong for playing his civilized PC with the Barbarian class, but is wrong for saying that this character had the Barbarian class?

The barbarian is the crunch and the general accompanying fluff. If you completely change the fluff into something that isn't a barbarian, then the class is no longer a barbarian. He isn't wrong for playing a knight PC with barbarian mechanics. And calling him wrong for calling it a barbarian is excessive. He's mistaken, since being barbarian is more than just the PHB mechanics.

If a player came to me with the concept of an angry knight that's so pissed off he rages, I'd have worked with the player and done it a different way. The barbarian mechanics poorly model a pissed off knight. The abilities of Unarmored Defense, Fast Movement, Danger Sense, etc. don't make sense for a knight with anger issues. I would have worked with the player to remove those abilities and replace them with abilities that make more sense. Or alternatively, he could have played a fighter which more accurately portrays a knight, and then I would have removed an ability or abilities that equal rage and just given him rage.

Out of curiosity, what is your purpose in making the statement "[y]ou weren't playing a barbarian as the game defines them" if you're not trying to suggest that there is anything wrong in doing so?

It was just part of the discussion about whether the lore is part of the class or not. He brought up that example. Lore is a part of the class in general terms, even if the specifics that meet the lore theme can change.

 

[Maxperson]

You are arguing semantics at this point. Whether it was "wrong" as in not correct or "not as the game defines them" as in "not the correct definition" is splitting hairs so fine I'm afraid you'll go cross-eyed.

But, if it makes it so you can sleep at night, sure, just keep changing things to keep your hands clean.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with homebrewing a knight that uses barbarian mechanics and little/none of the lore. And stop falsely accusing me of changing things. I've not changed my position a single time in this thread.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with homebrewing a knight that uses barbarian mechanics and little/none of the lore. And stop falsely accusing me of changing things. I've not changed my position a single time in this thread.

Funny, in your response to Xetheral I went from not "playing a barbarian as the game defines them " to "being mistaken"

But, I'm honestly getting sick and tired of this.

My "mistake" was playing a character whose personality did not match with your expectations, because my "Definition" of what that class means is not as set in stone as yours.

But, I do so love the idea that if I had brought a character to your table, you would have "helped" me by removing features I wanted because in your mind they do not fit with what I wanted. Because, to you, by playing the class as written, with the background as written, is not RAW and therefore I would need to change something for it to be acceptable to you.

But that doesn't seem to apply to changes in where they would have lived, what race lore matches with the "General themes" only the background and personality of the character. And, if I was only willing to admit that my character, built by RAW, wasn't RAW, then all would be well, because I can homebrew and change anything I like. It's fine to homebrew, everyone does it.

But the character cannot be RAW, despite no rules limiting a character race, class and background from being combined, no prequisites or mutually exclusive options involved, no rules limiting a players decision on their characters personality, values, beliefs, dreams, desires, fears, ect. They cannot be RAW, because the general theme involved in an example says that Barbarians can only fit into a single, tightly designed space. They must be uncivilized savages that are not comfortable in polite society.

It is a rule, a theme, an example, whichever word you would best like to use this time, the point it is, it is immutable. I cannot change it, because to change it, I would have to change every aspect of the class. You've said so, I would have to homebrew a knight who rages, lose abilities you don't think are appropriate and gain different ones you thought were.

You cannot play a Barbarian Knight, because you must change the Barbarian into something else first. And that's fine, you can change it, it is perfectly fine with you to allow me to change it and call it something else and admit that I am altering the rules to allow me to pick two RAW options and write them on my character sheet together.

Maybe this time I'll finally accept my "mistake" in this thread.

Edit: I thought DnD was a game about choice. I guess it is actually a game about changing the rules so that the players are allowed to have choice.

 

[Maxperson]

My "mistake" was playing a character whose personality did not match with your expectations, because my "Definition" of what that class means is not as set in stone as yours.

Completely false.

But, I do so love the idea that if I had brought a character to your table, you would have "helped" me by removing features I wanted because in your mind they do not fit with what I wanted. Because, to you, by playing the class as written, with the background as written, is not RAW and therefore I would need to change something for it to be acceptable to you.

I don't force people into anything. Nobody is required to accept my help. These are just more of your false accusations. When I say "work with" the player. I meant it.

It seems you have some deep seated need to have revenge on me for your misperceived slight. I don't see any other reason for you to deliberately change what I'm saying so much.

 

[Fenris-77]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with homebrewing a knight that uses barbarian mechanics and little/none of the lore. And stop falsely accusing me of changing things. I've not changed my position a single time in this thread.

And your position has been, um, lets say idiosyncratic the entire time. The fluff is not the class. It's not a rule. It's a suggestion. That's it, that's all, end of argument. You don't get to impose things like your idea of 'lore' on other people, unless its by mutual consent at the gaming table. Wielding opinion as if if were fact isn't a good look for anyone on a public forum.

 

[Hussar]

@Maxperson - can I play a Gnome Barbarian according to your interpretation of the rules? After all, there is no "specific" in this case. Gnomes do not live anywhere that you find barbarians, so, is a Gnome Barbarian home brewing or not?

 

[Maxperson]

And your position has been, um, lets say idiosyncratic the entire time. The fluff is not the class.

Neither are the mechanices.

 

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson - can I play a Gnome Barbarian according to your interpretation of the rules? After all, there is no "specific" in this case. Gnomes do not live anywhere that you find barbarians, so, is a Gnome Barbarian home brewing or not?

Yes you can, as I've said more than once here.

 

[Xetheral]

The barbarian is the crunch and the general accompanying fluff. If you completely change the fluff into something that isn't a barbarian, then the class is no longer a barbarian. He isn't wrong for playing a knight PC with barbarian mechanics. And calling him wrong for calling it a barbarian is excessive. He's mistaken, since being barbarian is more than just the PHB mechanics.

If a player came to me with the concept of an angry knight that's so pissed off he rages, I'd have worked with the player and done it a different way. The barbarian mechanics poorly model a pissed off knight. The abilities of Unarmored Defense, Fast Movement, Danger Sense, etc. don't make sense for a knight with anger issues. I would have worked with the player to remove those abilities and replace them with abilities that make more sense. Or alternatively, he could have played a fighter which more accurately portrays a knight, and then I would have removed an ability or abilities that equal rage and just given him rage.


It was just part of the discussion about whether the lore is part of the class or not. He brought up that example. Lore is a part of the class in general terms, even if the specifics that meet the lore theme can change.

Thank you for taking the time to elaborate, I greatly appreciate it. I don't agree with your interpretation of class lore, and I'm not sure I see a practical difference between calling someone wrong and calling them mistaken. But you've helped me to better understand your position. Thanks!