Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arilyn" data-source="post: 7927352" data-attributes="member: 6816042">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. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😊" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60a.png" title="Smiling face with smiling eyes&nbsp; &nbsp; :blush:" data-shortname=":blush:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arilyn, post: 7927352, member: 6816042"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification