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

[Maxperson]

I'm sorry, no where in the fluff or the mechanics does it talk about "learning" the ability. It just says you can do this because you think and act faster than everyone else.

Page 15 of the PHB:

"In the first tier (levels 1-4), characters are effectively apprentice adventurers. They are learning the features that define them as members of particular classes, including the major choices that flavor their class features as they advance (such as a wizard’s Arcane Tradition or a fighter’s Martial Archetype)."

 

[TwoSix]

Similar/related, because everything on ENWorld is cyclical:

D&D 5E - Do Classes Have Concrete Meaning In Your Game?

To clarify, do class names have a concrete meaning in your game world? Do they exist as understood professions with associated abilities? If someone introduces themselves as a "Fighter" is it automatically understood and assumed that they would have the class abilities of the Fighter class, as...

www.enworld.org

 

[Maxperson]

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.

This was true in 4e, but it's not true in 5e. If players want to change something, they need to get DM approval. I would expect minor fluff changes to be rubber stamped. Larger changes would sometimes be denied.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Fluff, though, doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has to not only match the mechanics you are dealing with, but you have to be careful what your new fluff says, because it can also imply OTHER mechanics which if they don't exist, can cause disconnects.

Take Chaosmancer's hesitation re-write of Cunning Action. Because he uses hesitation as the reason he doesn't have cunning action and the loss of that hesitation as the reason it just appears out of nowhere, he creates a mechanical problem with my PC. My PC has the same Int and Dex as his PC, so either I am forced by Chaosmancer to have a perpetual case of hesitation, which is no bueno, or my PC who doesn't hesitate should automatically get Cunning Action, despite not being a rogue.

The same goes for the cyborg with extraordinary fine motor control and extraordinary vision. Such a PC would also have bonuses to perception where vision is concerned, as well as seeing oncoming enemies before they can see you, giving the PCs an advantage when out in the open.

Those two pieces of fluff are poorly written and cause disconnects when applied logically to the PC and the rest of the world, since the other implied mechanics will not be present.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Page 15 of the PHB:

"In the first tier (levels 1-4), characters are effectively apprentice adventurers. They are learning the features that define them as members of particular classes, including the major choices that flavor their class features as they advance (such as a wizard’s Arcane Tradition or a fighter’s Martial Archetype)."

I see so the Sorcerer's magic, metamagic, sorcery points, and first bloodline ability are learned?

And if the sorcerer's abilities aren't learned, is it not reasonable that other abilities might not be learned? After all a warlock and cleric are granted powers as well, are they not? Rage is a learned ability?

But, you will likely call those exceptions while the example of cunning action isn't an exception, because of reasons you will likely try and make abundantly obscure.

Fluff, though, doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has to not only match the mechanics you are dealing with, but you have to be careful what your new fluff says, because it can also imply OTHER mechanics which if they don't exist, can cause disconnects.

Take Chaosmancer's hesitation re-write of Cunning Action. Because he uses hesitation as the reason he doesn't have cunning action and the loss of that hesitation as the reason it just appears out of nowhere, he creates a mechanical problem with my PC. My PC has the same Int and Dex as his PC, so either I am forced by Chaosmancer to have a perpetual case of hesitation, which is no bueno, or my PC who doesn't hesitate should automatically get Cunning Action, despite not being a rogue.

The same goes for the cyborg with extraordinary fine motor control and extraordinary vision. Such a PC would also have bonuses to perception where vision is concerned, as well as seeing oncoming enemies before they can see you, giving the PCs an advantage when out in the open.

Those two pieces of fluff are poorly written and cause disconnects when applied logically to the PC and the rest of the world, since the other implied mechanics will not be present.

But your character doesn't have the same background as mine, the training, the reason for his hesitance and the core of his identity in the fiction we have created, which sets up the fiction for him to actually be more highly skilled than he would present himself as.

My fluff seems "poorly written" only in the fact that I did not feel like posting the entire backstory and concept to be eviscerated as breaking something or other that you have deemed important.

After all, it isn't even a bit of fluff that the rest of the party is likely aware of. I didn't tell them this after all, because no one asked me "why do you suddenly have cunning action as a level 2 Rogue?" but I wanted an explanation that made sense for my character, so I created one.

And, if the implied mechanics are that anyone can learn any class ability from level 1 to 4, then why can't an 10th level wizard decide to learn cunning action? Seems your fluff also has implied mechanics which will not be present

 

[Fenris-77]

Hmm, I think trying to suggest that every class ability is a learned skill is kinda silly. They just aren't all that kind of thing.

As for character fluff, it's not supposed to be relateable between characters. Why should it be? It's one player building narrative and fiction for their character. We're talking about people playing a TTRPG, not a bunch of best selling authors. Trying to harp too much on the 'quality' of their fluff seems a little high handed to me. Some people have weird ideas though, and I do agree that there is some kind of minimum level of 'fits the game world and campaign' that needs to be there, and I generally work with my players when their ideas fall short of that in one way or another.

To say that the way one player chooses to describe their character needs to have some kind of impact on other character with similar stats is just silly though. I'd be glad the player is taking enough of an interest in their character to weave some fiction around their class abilities, something that generally indexes better role playing.

 

[Maxperson]

I see so the Sorcerer's magic, metamagic, sorcery points, and first bloodline ability are learned?

Unless it specifically says otherwise, in which case it beats that general rule I quoted. Oh, wait. It does specifically say otherwise.

C'mon dude. You aren't even trying to come up with a counter argument that works.

And if the sorcerer's abilities aren't learned, is it not reasonable that other abilities might not be learned?

Yes, it's reasonable to think that if other abilities specifically say that they aren't learned, that they aren't learned.

Rage is a learned ability?

Yes it is. It takes effort and skill to channel anger that way. If it didn't, the barbarian would have no control over when he rages or when it stops.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Unless it specifically says otherwise, in which case it beats that general rule I quoted. Oh, wait. It does specifically say otherwise.

C'mon dude. You aren't even trying to come up with a counter argument that works.

Yes, it's reasonable to think that if other abilities specifically say that they aren't learned, that they aren't learned.

Yes it is. It takes effort and skill to channel anger that way. If it didn't, the barbarian would have no control over when he rages or when it stops.

So, how do you learn to think quickly?

 

[Maxperson]

Hmm, I think trying to suggest that every class ability is a learned skill is kinda silly. They just aren't all that kind of thing.

Every ability, no. The vast majority of these abilities are learned, though. That's part of what experience is. When you gain a level, your experiences, what you learned, gives you new abilities. Even for a sorcerer, using X and Y innate abilities can allow them to learn Z ability when they level. They just aren't book learning things like wizards.

 

[Maxperson]

So, how do you learn to think quickly?

Practice. The brain is something that can be exercised. You can also be born with high intelligence. It's not the thinking quickly that the ability being learned, though. It's the Cunning Action which takes advantage of being able to think quickly and your speed.