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

[abirdcall]

Really good point about the Barbarian having more specifics in the fluff. We refluff a lot at our table, and Barbarian is the class that gets the most fluff treatment. In fact, refluffed Barbarians are more common than the default, because of the issue you raised.

Treating fluff as mechanics that must be followed puts unnecessary constraints on the players. I totally agree there is nothing even remotely in the books that makes this a likely conclusion. I am sure the game designers are more than happy to see players put their own spin on the classes.

At what point do you disallow changing the fluff? Everyone has a line.

I disagree about the Barbarian having the most specifics, it might be true that people are the most lenient about changing the Barbarian fluff.

Would you be okay with a non-religious Cleric? How about someone taking Cleric and refluffing all the spells to be commands so they can play a 'Warlord'? Is that okay?

How about a Paladin without an oath? What about a character fluffed to be an Eldritch Knight but taking the Paladin class? If that is okay wouldn't it make more sense in the game to just change their casting ability to Intelligence and their smite from Radiant to Force? I think if you're okay with changing the rules of who the character is and what they represent, changing how that is expressed in mechanics goes hand in hand.

There are countless other examples. Somewhere we're going to find a line which a person won't allow. So how do we determine why that is and what guidelines can we use? What is our starting point?

 

[abirdcall]

Sure is, and I'm stating it. not inferring it - no inference is necessary. Also, feel free to just answer the question without the rhetorical set up post. We can all see where you're going.

Is your position that the mechanics aren't a mandatory part of the class class? More importantly, is your position that the colour text is also somehow a 'mechanic' or in some other way a mandatory part of the class? No offense, but I'd love to see you offer a shred of evidence that that is the case.

I'm glad the D&D cops haven't shown up at my door yet.

I asked in earnest, I didn't want to put words in your mouth.

You have now taken the most hard line approach of anyone in this thread. I'd be shocked if anyone else agreed with your position.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

You have now taken the most hard line approach of anyone in this thread. I'd be shocked if anyone else agreed with your position.

On the contrary, this isn't a hard line at all. I believe that most D&D players would take the same view: A change to the actual mechanics of a class requires a houserule, whereas most fluff changes are the player's prerogative as long as they fit into the world.

 

[Aldarc]

At what point do you disallow changing the fluff? Everyone has a line.

Sure, everyone has a line. That has been a fairly well-tread point in this thread. But I don't see how creating a false dilemma that sets up a false binary between the idea that one should either closely follow the fluff as if it were commandments inscribed on tablets by WotC in a cloud upon a mountain or you are a heretic who is somehow not playing D&D is particularly helpful or insightful. Why are you arguing as if the vague existence of a subjectively placed line in the fluff somehow mandates then that we must follow the fluff as if it were a rule?

Would you be okay with a non-religious Cleric? How about someone taking Cleric and refluffing all the spells to be commands so they can play a 'Warlord'? Is that okay?

How about a Paladin without an oath? What about a character fluffed to be an Eldritch Knight but taking the Paladin class? If that is okay wouldn't it make more sense in the game to just change their casting ability to Intelligence and their smite from Radiant to Force? I think if you're okay with changing the rules of who the character is and what they represent, changing how that is expressed in mechanics goes hand in hand.

The DMG is pretty upfront with how this is kosher.

There are countless other examples. Somewhere we're going to find a line which a person won't allow. So how do we determine why that is and what guidelines can we use? What is our starting point?

And? So what?

 

[Fenris-77]

At what point do you disallow changing the fluff? Everyone has a line.

I disagree about the Barbarian having the most specifics, it might be true that people are the most lenient about changing the Barbarian fluff.

Would you be okay with a non-religious Cleric? How about someone taking Cleric and refluffing all the spells to be commands so they can play a 'Warlord'? Is that okay?

Abilities have names right? And they're rules. Changing the names might be confusing, and it sounds like an enormous amount of work for the player. I'm guessing this isn't a serious example, but if a player of mine really wanted to I'd consider it, sure. Changing the names of rules isn't the same as changing descriptive fluff though, so there's a part of this example that's very apples and oranges. Renaming every spell on the cleric list really isn't same thing as ignoring four lines of Barbarian fluff in a whole bunch of ways.

How about a Paladin without an oath? What about a character fluffed to be an Eldritch Knight but taking the Paladin class? If that is okay wouldn't it make more sense in the game to just change their casting ability to Intelligence and their smite from Radiant to Force? I think if you're okay with changing the rules of who the character is and what they represent, changing how that is expressed in mechanics goes hand in hand.

The oath is the subclass, you can't play without one. If you mean the description of the oath then no, I don't really care as long as the player has a cool alternative. And no, it doesn't make more sense to change a bunch of rules.

There are no rules of 'who the character is' by the way, just what they can do. The player decides who the character is.

There are countless other examples. Somewhere we're going to find a line which a person won't allow. So how do we determine why that is and what guidelines can we use? What is our starting point?

There are countless examples you can make that are very different either in scale or in kind? I bet there are. Not a single example in your post was a reasonable comparison to the Barbarian fluff though. In fact, all of them were about rules, not fluff. So there's that.

When it comes to where to draw the line, everyone is different. Personally, I don't care about fluff, it's not a rule so it won't affect game balance and it's important that a player end up with a character they are excited to play. I mostly avoid changing rules without serious consideration and maybe some play testing. I treat rules and fluff differently because they aren't the same thing.

I think you'll find that upon consideration my approach is actually very lenient, rather than hard core. I want players to have as much freedom as possible to build a character they are excited about. Getting bent out of shape about changing color text, on the other hand, sounds pretty hard core to me.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

At what point do you disallow changing the fluff? Everyone has a line.

I think that a lot of people have the line somewhere around "If it makes sense, sounds cool, and fits in the world, go for it!"

Would you be okay with a non-religious Cleric? How about someone taking Cleric and refluffing all the spells to be commands so they can play a 'Warlord'? Is that okay?

Without houseruling, those spells would still obey all of the rules associated with them. So they'd still be magical, able to be counterspelled, require the caster to present a holy symbol or whatever.
That may well not fit into what a warlord means in the world or to the player.

How about a Paladin without an oath? What about a character fluffed to be an Eldritch Knight but taking the Paladin class? If that is okay wouldn't it make more sense in the game to just change their casting ability to Intelligence and their smite from Radiant to Force? I think if you're okay with changing the rules of who the character is and what they represent, changing how that is expressed in mechanics goes hand in hand.

I would regard the oath as a part of the Paladin subclass' rules, not its fluff.
Changing the actual rules mechanics, such as which ability spellcasting keys off, or the damage type of an ability, requires houseruling rather than just refluffing.

 

[Arilyn]

At what point do you disallow changing the fluff? Everyone has a line.

I disagree about the Barbarian having the most specifics, it might be true that people are the most lenient about changing the Barbarian fluff.

Would you be okay with a non-religious Cleric? How about someone taking Cleric and refluffing all the spells to be commands so they can play a 'Warlord'? Is that okay?

How about a Paladin without an oath? What about a character fluffed to be an Eldritch Knight but taking the Paladin class? If that is okay wouldn't it make more sense in the game to just change their casting ability to Intelligence and their smite from Radiant to Force? I think if you're okay with changing the rules of who the character is and what they represent, changing how that is expressed in mechanics goes hand in hand.

There are countless other examples. Somewhere we're going to find a line which a person won't allow. So how do we determine why that is and what guidelines can we use? What is our starting point?

It's fluff. It's just supposed to explain and be the story behind the mechanics. It's easy to change the fluff, use the mechanics as written and still have a wealth of viable characters. No, there isn't a line, as long as the concept makes sense and fits into the campaign setting.

I think Chaosmancer's barbarian/knight is cool, and if Chaosmancer is happy with the barbarian mechanics for his knight, why change the class name? Sounds confusing if the character is following all the rules for barbarian. I might even steal the concept. Take the guardian spirit sub class, and have knightly ancestors appear, or totem barbarian because there is a shamanistic tradition running through the family from ages past, or maybe lycanthropy. This whole mix has got me going.

This opposition to refluffing classes has me baffled. We do it a lot, and some of our more memorable characters don't even remotely come close to the default, but the mechanics work great, especially when paired with an appropriate background and/or feats.

Using absurd examples to prove your points are not strengthening your argument at all. The majority of players who refluff are going to have interesting and sensible background explanations.

 

[abirdcall]

It's fluff. It's just supposed to explain and be the story behind the mechanics. It's easy to change the fluff, use the mechanics as written and still have a wealth of viable characters.

The thing is, 'fluff' is integral to an RPG.

This isn't like Magic: the Gathering's flavour text. Changing the italicized text on the cards doesn't change the game.

In an RPG the 'fluff' is the game. 'Fluff' and 'mechanics' are intertwined in an RPG. Just the 1 or the other yields something that isn't a game.

No, there isn't a line, as long as the concept makes sense and fits into the campaign setting.

You said there is no line and then immediately described where your line would be.

The next step is deciding what makes sense and fits into the campaign setting. Everyone will have a different answer to that question.

 

[Azzy]

In an RPG the 'fluff' is the game. 'Fluff' and 'mechanics' are intertwined in an RPG. Just the 1 or the other yields something that isn't a game.

This is patently untrue. See HERO System, GURPS, etc.

 

[Maestrino]

The thing is, 'fluff' is integral to an RPG.

This isn't like Magic: the Gathering's flavour text. Changing the italicized text on the cards doesn't change the game.

In an RPG the 'fluff' is the game. 'Fluff' and 'mechanics' are intertwined in an RPG. Just the 1 or the other yields something that isn't a game.

That seems to be missing the point that you can completely change the "fluff" to adapt the mechanics to a different vision of a character with no impact to how the game is played. Every interaction outside of combat is a DM judgment call to best represent what's going on in-game.

Take the Sharpshooter feat, for example. The "fluff" says "You have mastered ranged weapons and can make shots that others find impossible. "

You could rewrite that to say "You have been cybernetically enhanced, giving you extraordinary vision and fine motor control." And then leave the benefits of the feat unchanged. Totally different fluff, different characters. The mechanical benefits are identical.