Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 7926966" data-attributes="member: 6993955">Part of the difficulty with the Barbarian class is that it's the only one that offers such specific cultural and location information in the 'fluff'. You don't see anything in the fighter or rogue fluff that suggests a particular place and culture for example, and this lack is true of all the other classes, although the Ranger and 'not urban' comes close to causing the same sort of argument. That said, D&amp;D generally leaves the description and background of the character to the player -&nbsp; the player decides where they're from, what kind of person they are, what they look like and all the rest. Even the Barbarian fluff is mostly about the idea of rage more than it is about being from a tribal culture. Regardless, none of the color text in a class is a rule, it is not mandatory, and players can use whatever part of it they like. The mechanics describe how the class actually works and how it allows the player to interact with the game world. The mechanics are what is 'balanced' and the mechanics are what the rules of D&amp;D uses to tell players how they can exert agency on the diagetic frame of the game world. Exerting force on the fluff, which is to say deciding that it is prescriptive rather than suggestive, is a choice. There's nothing wrong with saying &quot;at my table Barbarians are from tribes X, Y, and Z&quot;. But the limits of that authority end at your table. There is no evidence or proof you can provide that show the colour text to be a mandatory part of the class - it just isn't so.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fenris-77, post: 7926966, member: 6993955"] Part of the difficulty with the Barbarian class is that it's the only one that offers such specific cultural and location information in the 'fluff'. You don't see anything in the fighter or rogue fluff that suggests a particular place and culture for example, and this lack is true of all the other classes, although the Ranger and 'not urban' comes close to causing the same sort of argument. That said, D&D generally leaves the description and background of the character to the player - the player decides where they're from, what kind of person they are, what they look like and all the rest. Even the Barbarian fluff is mostly about the idea of rage more than it is about being from a tribal culture. Regardless, none of the color text in a class is a rule, it is not mandatory, and players can use whatever part of it they like. The mechanics describe how the class actually works and how it allows the player to interact with the game world. The mechanics are what is 'balanced' and the mechanics are what the rules of D&D uses to tell players how they can exert agency on the diagetic frame of the game world. Exerting force on the fluff, which is to say deciding that it is prescriptive rather than suggestive, is a choice. There's nothing wrong with saying "at my table Barbarians are from tribes X, Y, and Z". But the limits of that authority end at your table. There is no evidence or proof you can provide that show the colour text to be a mandatory part of the class - it just isn't so. [/QUOTE]

Verification