Class need not be a lifestyle: Discuss

[Mr. Zolrane]

I'm pretty new to DnD so maybe I'm just talking out of my ass here: My current character is a Chaotic Good Human Barbarian. Thing is, he's polite, sophisticated and loathes unnecessary violence: in other words, one of the least barbaric individuals one could ever come across.

What about the rest of you, fellow Playgroundigans? Ever played a character against type? Anyone agree that class need not be a lifestyle?

[Quirken]

What about the rest of you, fellow Playgroundigans? Ever played a character against type? Anyone agree that class need not be a lifestyle?

My very first pen-and-paper character, in 3.5e D&D, was a Half-Orc Paladin. He had high charisma and strength, but terrible intelligence.

Oh, and his name was "Obesus Rex"

[Serpentine]

I haven't really done it (I mean, I've refluffed my Warforged Ranger's spells to be more "states of mind" or techniques, but that's about it), but I do agree. A class is one's skill set, but any skill set can be applied to a variety of careers.

[Mr. Zolrane]

My very first pen-and-paper character, in 3.5e D&D, was a Half-Orc Paladin. He had high charisma and strength, but terrible intelligence.

Oh, and his name was "Obesus Rex"

So, a big, dopey, incredibly nice guy?

Also, awesome name :smalltongue:

[Dienekes]

Fluff is mutable and all that.

Personally, as the GM I'm rather bored with creating characters that act exactly like their classes. I don't often completely do a reversal, but I tend to make a strong character first, and then stat him up. Much more fun that way in my opinion.

Though, I did enjoy Dorgar, the highly intelligent Barbarian warchief, very cunning in battle, always a step ahead of any competition. And eternally ashamed that he never learned to read and went to great lengths so that his underlings and opponents never knew.

[Mastikator]

I would say that class = archetype(s), which is itself something very fluid, but not completely "whatever you want".
A rogue can be James Bond, it can also be some assassin (not the class, the occupation), a pick pocket, a thug, a spy, a mercenary, etc. There's plenty of any class can be, but every class can't be everything.
A barbarian is the class with martial weapon proficiency, with rage and illiteracy, this gives strong hints and making a intelligent bookworm barbarian would just seem inconsistent and weird to me.

[Trekkin]

Yes, with the caveat that in most campaigns, the player characters already have a lifestyle: they're adventurers of whatever stripe, so it's normal for whatever oddities are suggested by their class to be downplayed in favor of making a character who can at least function.

Then again, I've played solipsist, Chaotic shapers ("the world is a dream, and I a lucid dreamer") in fairly direct contravention of psion fluff, so i suppose it would be more accurate to say that a character's backstory is a bridge between the assumptions of his class and the realities of his lifestyle; the farther apart they are, the longer you need to spend putting the bridge together and the more fragile it will be, so it'd be wise to match concept to class as closely as is reasonably possible if one is unsure of oneself.

[The-Mage-King]

I typically play all my characters in the same general form- fight happy loonies. Even the squishier sort.


Hey, it works.

[Dimers]

In most cases, especially for physical classes, it's not hard to play "against type" while making use of class abilities. Divine classes have harder restrictions based on how actively the gods inspect their servitors' actions. Psi-powered classes are wiiiiiide open.

A fine example of lifestyle not meeting class expectations: Byron the Berserker (http://guildedage.net/cast/). Good comic, there. :smallsmile:

[Serpentine]

I would say that class = archetype(s), which is itself something very fluid, but not completely "whatever you want".
A rogue can be James Bond, it can also be some assassin (not the class, the occupation), a pick pocket, a thug, a spy, a mercenary, etc. There's plenty of any class can be, but every class can't be everything.
A barbarian is the class with martial weapon proficiency, with rage and illiteracy, this gives strong hints and making a intelligent bookworm barbarian would just seem inconsistent and weird to me.I disagree, more or less. Some jobs/whatever-class combinations would be harder to do than others, but I think there's few that are really impossible. To take your own examples, a Rogue could also be a king or a circus performer, a magician, a baker, a farmer, a soldier, a warrior for righteousness, a scholar, an animal-lover or just about anything else.
And an intelligent bookworm Barbarian would be both doable and interesting to me. There are several different ways of fluffing Rage - it could be a beserker state, a short temper, a tightly controlled state of mind, demon blood seeping through, and so on. Any of these would work for this character type, but perhaps the tightly controlled state of mind would be best, especially if her "bookworm"ness is directed at knowledge of psychology and physiology, understanding her own body and how best to control it.
A Barbarian is able to spend some skill points in order to be able to read. If the player doesn't want to get rid of that bit of fluff, though, then it would be pretty neat for the character to have some small magical item that reads text out for it, basically converting them all into audiobooks. Or maybe she has to rope friends or hirelings into reading to her. Or maybe she's more of a hands-on researcher, performing experiments of her own and seeking out experienced people to learn from directly.
So yeah. An intelligent bookworm Barbarian, especially say a naturalist or anatomist, would be very doable, not inconsistent, and interesting rather than weird (not that there's anything wrong with weird :smallwink:).

[Erom]

I forget where it was - maybe the 2e PHB? But one of the printed book examples of a barbarian was a haughty noble that was a good swordsman but had a lethal temper in battle. Obviously that character spent the skill points to be literate, and used his social stature as a key ingredient of his intimidate checks.

So yeah, the "civilized barbarian" is actually a pretty common character archtype, imo. I've certainly had it played in my groups a number of times.

[Mr. Zolrane]

Serps mentioned something about fluffing the rage:

I did something along those lines: without going into self-indulgent detail, my barbarian (his name is Sephus Vayne btw) is psychically linked with a homebrew creature called The Dread which can only be described as an anti-demon: a Lawful Evil psychic entity with a fierce protective instinct toward Sephus. It is its own creature and I RP for the both of them (though they are "converging" but that's a rabbit trail). When Sephus rages the creature assumes control of his body, and their personalities merge: Sephus' loyalty to his friends combines with The Dread's vindictiveness: the result: mess with Sephus' friends and The Dread will hunt you to the ends of the earth and kill you slowly. Stuff like that.

[DaragosKitsune]

Well, it really is a matter of opinion but one of my players ended up playing a paladin who ended up leaving the party due to the unnecessary slaughter of a (evil aligned, I might add) Goblin village.

[HunterOfJello]

There was a long thread about this not too long ago. Many of the classes (especially the core ones) are based around different power sources or perspectives.

For instance, a person is born a Sorcerer and called to become a Paladin. Druid have lifestyle restrictions that they adhere to and Paladins have a strict code. Wizards, Clerics and Druids all spend time in the morning preparing spells of their own kind and bare similarities to other members of their classes in this way.

So, does a member of a class need to possess a particular lifestyle? In a few cases, yes, but usually no. However, are the classes set up for particular lifestyles? Definitely. This leads to rogues being expected to act like outlaws, Barbarians expected to act like dumb brutes and Wizards expected to walk around in robes all day long.

[Shadowleaf]

There was a long thread about this not too long ago. Many of the classes (especially the core ones) are based around different power sources or perspectives.

For instance, a person is born a Sorcerer and called to become a Paladin. Druid have lifestyle restrictions that they adhere to and Paladins have a strict code. Wizards, Clerics and Druids all spend time in the morning preparing spells of their own kind and bare similarities to other members of their classes in this way.

So, does a member of a class need to possess a particular lifestyle? In a few cases, yes, but usually no. However, are the classes set up for particular lifestyles? Definitely. This leads to rogues being expected to act like outlaws, Barbarians expected to act like dumb brutes and Wizards expected to walk around in robes all day long.
Fluff is mutable. A Sorcerer might have been born a Sorcerer.. Or he might have drunk demonic blood as a child, or he might have lived in a Wild Magic Zone, and so forth. But this says nothing about his lifestyle - he could be a con man, a street magician, a priest, an apostle of terror, and so forth.

Classes are only a lifestyle if you want it to be, barring the extreme example of the PHB Paladin. Heck, even Wizards have ACF's to get rid of the iconic Spellbook.

Edit: I played a Human Sorcerer once. At level 8 or 9, he was still going into melee with his longsword. He had a Strength of 14 and a Con of 18. His spells was just something he did from time to time - it was not his focus.
I even picked up Able Learner for Tumble, I think.

[Rixx]

I'm still of the belief that "classes as archetypes" is the core assumption of the game. Re-fluffing isn't terrible as long as it doesn't go too far outside the theme of the class - a barbarian as a berserker who is otherwise civilized is still reasonable.

This is one of the reasons I prefer Pathfinder - the archetypes allow the base classes to represent lots of different fantasy heroes.

[Pink]

It depends a bit on the class.

In general, I'm fairly willing to say that classes are tools to give your characters the abilities that you want them too. However, unless it's something that's agreed with between player and DM, the actual powers themselves and their source, are what's defined in the class. This leads to some classes being able to switch fluff a bit better than others.

For example, a monk, you can easily flavour many different ways, there's no inherent prerequisite to their ability. You could play it with the flavour of a standard fighter character, who was so adept with a sword he thought it was beneath him to use it on opponents, and took a vow to fight with his bare hands alone or something.

But a cleric or a bard? Bard music abilities all come from a perform skill that you need to have max ranks to keep up with your latest abilities. Hence, bard's need to be a performer of some sort, there's no escaping it. Likewise, a cleric needs a deity to grant spells, and they should likewise be a character that acts in a degree of servitude to that power in order to be deserving of being granted those powers.

That being said, again, if a player and DM come to an agreement, change things up to whatever. Really, even apart from flavour, but crunch, I wish sometimes my own players would play a character and not just a class. If a fighter actually wants to improve themselves and uses spare time to study spells from a book without an intention to multiclass, wouldn't it be amazing to suddenly pop out a magic missile in combat or something? Likewise, maybe that bard character, when the orcs had attacked and killed a group of druids doing a balancing ceremony, after the party fought off the orcs, what if that bard used bardic knowledge to try and complete the ceremony, and gained the ability to cast goodberry or fire seed or something.

[Naeo]

The Rogue i'm playing now, follows a strict code on theft, he refuses to steal from anyone he does not kill, and he wont kill someone, unless there's no other choice.

This made me weep the other day, when i found a wand in a wizard's room at the keep we were at. I so badly wanted to swipe it, but my character wouldn't do it, against his code.


I do agree though that class does not dictate how the character acts. It's more a guideline, as long as the character doesn't do something that will make him become an Ex-class, it's interesting to see how they players play them.

[Loki Eremes]

I would say that class = archetype(s), which is itself something very fluid, but not completely "whatever you want".
A rogue can be James Bond, it can also be some assassin (not the class, the occupation), a pick pocket, a thug, a spy, a mercenary, etc. There's plenty of any class can be, but every class can't be everything.
A barbarian is the class with martial weapon proficiency, with rage and illiteracy, this gives strong hints and making a intelligent bookworm barbarian would just seem inconsistent and weird to me.


I agree with this 100%.
Think that your first PC class is what define you the most along your life.
if you choose to be a barbarian, you character will simply not act like a bookworm, politeness is not acceptable too.
I base my opinion in that you choose a way of life.

someone without table manners, iliterate, violent, aggresive, that loves fighting would rather be a barbarian, a fighter, MAYBE a rogue.
but a wizard? wtf.

My first PC was a roguish chaotic elf. How could i act like a lawfull good paladin if i stole all my life and never cared about legal things?
Multiclassing is another story, you learn things along your journey. YES they change you. But i think your first class is that archtype that will define you the most.


I typically play all my characters in the same general form- fight happy loonies. Even the squishier sort.

Hey, it works.

Sry mage, but that way of playing is good and bad at the same time.
I, as a DM myself, would get bored over time and never give you XP point for Roleplaying.
Playing a class that suits you is always fun, easy and looks natural.
But the point of Roleplaying is that you could adapt to every character you play.

EX:
"heroicladysaverswashbuckler": im here to save you ladies! (wink)
"werewolfhumanthatkilledhiswifeduehisillness": im here to save you ladies! (smirk)

it doesnt seems right to me xD

[Temotei]

...his name is Sephus Vayne...

Sounds like a Final Fantasy reference to me. It's probably not, though.


But the point of Roleplaying is that you could adapt to every character you play.

The point of roleplaying is to have fun and play what you want to play as. There's no right or wrong way to roleplay.


"werewolfhumanthatkilledhiswifeduehisillness": im here to save you ladies! (smirk)

This would work perfectly fine. The character could feel guilty, his feelings pushing him toward helping women in order to make up for his mistake, even if only a little. The character could simply be a chivalric person--just because he accidentally killed his wife doesn't mean he's a bad person (unless you strictly adhere to the "all werewolves are evil" school of thought).

[Shadowleaf]

someone without table manners, iliterate, violent, aggresive, that loves fighting would rather be a barbarian, a fighter, MAYBE a rogue.
but a wizard? wtf.Why not? You can ACF away your spellbook dependancy. The only thing you'd miss by being illiterate is copying scrolls into your spellbook (which I'll admit is a pretty solid hit - but you're already playing a Wizard).

I really don't see how a no-table-manner, illiterate, violent, aggresive, fight-loving guy could not cast spells like a Wizard and have a pet snake.

[ffone]

I'm pretty new to DnD so maybe I'm just talking out of my ass here: My current character is a Chaotic Good Human Barbarian. Thing is, he's polite, sophisticated and loathes unnecessary violence: in other words, one of the least barbaric individuals one could ever come across.

What about the rest of you, fellow Playgroundigans? Ever played a character against type? Anyone agree that class need not be a lifestyle?

Sure.

IMO one of the most underused concepts with PCs is LYING! Lots of people - most people? - in RL project a public face which is very different from the real thing.

That said, I find people who go 'anti-stereotype' just for the sake of going 'anti-stereotype', and then think they're oh so clever, more annoying than those who just bask in the stereotype. (Renegade Drow etc)

[Curmudgeon]

As Trekkin already noted, adventuring is a lifestyle; being a Rogue or Cleric is just a set of skills that determines how you go about adventuring.

[Loki Eremes]

The point of roleplaying is to have fun and play what you want to play as. There's no right or wrong way to roleplay.

Yes, all RPG are about fun, but theres no fun without a challenge to yourself.
at least this is what i think.






This would work perfectly fine. The character could feel guilty, his feelings pushing him toward helping women in order to make up for his mistake, even if only a little. The character could simply be a chivalric person--just because he accidentally killed his wife doesn't mean he's a bad person (unless you strictly adhere to the "all werewolves are evil" school of thought).

not when youre just starting.
Are you telling me that if you killed your beloved about about 1 or 2 months ago, and when on full moon or when you loose your temper youre losing your conciouness and when you regain it you killed several people.....you will continue acting cheerfull? maybe if youre an evil character.

As i said, along your journey you change a lot if you lived strong experiences.
But at the begining is difficult to think that you are happy and act cheerfull knowing you are a unconcius killer machine. Unless youre evil or mad.

[Saph]

Depends on the class. Something like Druid or Paladin is a lifestyle to a much greater degree than something like Rogue or Fighter.

(Yes, yes, you can change fluff. You can also change anything else about a class that you feel like, so saying 'fluff is mutable' is a bit of a non sequiter.)

[Temotei]

not when youre just starting.
Are you telling me that if you killed your beloved about about 1 or 2 months ago, and when on full moon or when you loose your temper youre losing your conciouness and when you regain it you killed several people.....you will continue acting cheerfull? maybe if youre an evil character.

As i said, along your journey you change a lot if you lived strong experiences.
But at the begining is difficult to think that you are happy and act cheerfull knowing you are a unconcius killer machine. Unless youre evil or mad.

I don't recall saying anything about happiness.

[Loki Eremes]

I don't recall saying anything about happiness.

dont evade the point or the discussion: your first class is what define your way of acting and behave the most. Or lets beter say, YOUR CHARACTER IS WHAT DEFINE YOUR FIRST CLASS THE MOST.

and Temotei:
EX:
"heroicladysaverswashbuckler": im here to save you ladies! (wink)
"werewolfhumanthatkilledhiswifeduehisillness": im here to save you ladies! (smirk)

i think you misunderstood that.
I used it right next to the swashbukler for making the image of they both having the same way of acting (highlight WINK and SMIRK), leave the "ladies" apart, i did not think of any better stereotypical phrase xDDD

[Serpentine]

if you choose to be a barbarian, you character will simply not act like a bookworm, politeness is not acceptable too.If I want to play a polite bookworm Barbarian, why not? Aside from the example I already went into detail with, there's plenty of other ways to do it: perhaps he was raised to be a rough, angry Barbarian, but then one day he discovered Civilisation and became Cultured. He doesn't suddenly forget everything he was taught, and perhaps in battle he behaves exactly the same as ever, but out of battle he is a very different person, obsessed with improving his mind. Or maybe she is a bit unhinged, and tends to lose it at the sight of blood. This lack of control is something she feels guilty or embarrassed about, so she tends to over-compensate by excessively good manners and researching a lot about psychology in search for a cure.
That's three examples of a bookworm Barbarian. There's a million more, I'm sure.

someone without table manners, iliterate, violent, aggresive, that loves fighting would rather be a barbarian, a fighter, MAYBE a rogue.
but a wizard? wtf.I think that'd be a totally fine character. The illiteracy for a Wizard would be tricky, but I'm sure I could work it out. The rest, easy-peasy. Isn't it stressed here all the time that the Wizard can do anything anyone else can do, but better? You would just have a Wizard who focusses on spells that get her into the heat of battle. The "table manners... violent, aggressive" stuff is purely roleplaying fluff that ANYONE could have. Who are you to dictate that a Wizard has to be polite, cultured, and sophisticated?

My first PC was a roguish chaotic elf. How could i act like a lawfull good paladin if i stole all my life and never cared about legal things?You couldn't, you'd be playing a different character. Noone's talking about alignment, so I'll ignore that - debates over what exactly alignments mean and so forth aside, you can't play a Chaotic character as a Lawful character without becoming Lawful. But, a Roguish elf like a noble champion for justice and goodness? Absolutely. You just steal from evildoers. Simple.
Finally, we're not (at least, I'm not) particularly talking about playing a class as another class - i.e. I wouldn't say "You can play a Rogue like a Paladin". Those are classes, not lifestyles. What you CAN do is play both a Rogue and a Paladin as a champion for righteousness. The alignment and so on restrictions of the Paladin make it trickier to play one as a "Rogue" archetype such as a dastardly cad or a mischevious prankster, but I don't think it's impossible.

Saph re. changing fluff: While that is always an option, it's not necessary in the sorts of things I'm talking about.

[Temotei]

dont evade the point or the discussion...

I just don't like having words shoved into my mouth.


i think you misunderstood that.
I used it right next to the swashbukler for making the image of they both having the same way of acting (highlight WINK and SMIRK), leave the "ladies" apart, i did not think of any better stereotypical phrase xDDD

I noticed that they acted in the same manner. I'm just saying that both characters can have that same thought pattern; it's not a matter of what they are, but who they are.

[Serpentine]

not when youre just starting.
Are you telling me that if you killed your beloved about about 1 or 2 months ago, and when on full moon or when you loose your temper youre losing your conciouness and when you regain it you killed several people.....you will continue acting cheerfull? maybe if youre an evil character.

As i said, along your journey you change a lot if you lived strong experiences.
But at the begining is difficult to think that you are happy and act cheerfull knowing you are a unconcius killer machine. Unless youre evil or mad.He hides his fear and trauma under a veneer of bravado and humour, especially if his allies don't know about his history in which case he does everything he can to keep up the facade of normality and chipperness.
CF: Marco from Animorphs, various others.

Problem solved :smallsmile:

[LordBlades]

IMHO, classes(and skills, feats and spells for that matter) are just the building blocks that make your character come to life from a mechanical perspective. That's one of my favourite aspects of 3.5: multiclassing lets you build almost any character concept you can imagine.

If I have a character concept in mind, I usually try to find a build that has the mechanical abilities I want, and then refluff as needed to fit the character.

Most of the fluff is entirely mutable because it has no conncection to the mechanical aspect. There's nothing stopping me for example to refluff rage as entering a state of deep combat focus, and play a barbarian as a very introspective and well-trained (rather than primal and wild) warrior.

There are some of course cases when fluff is tied to crunch (such as the bard example a few posts ago, or the clerics drawing powers from gods) that's more problematic to change since it would also require a change in the mechanic, but for the most part, you can do anything with the system.

[Coidzor]

So yeah. An intelligent bookworm Barbarian, especially say a naturalist or anatomist, would be very doable, not inconsistent, and interesting rather than weird (not that there's anything wrong with weird :smallwink:).

Considering that one way of fluffing Rage would be entering a weird... :smallamused:

[Serpentine]

Not so much for Clerics, as they can draw power from a concept or an ideal. Paladins and to lesser extent Druids are tougher. These - particularly the first - are, more than most, both a Skill-set and a Job. The Bard has this problem, too, except the range of careers covered by that "job" is much more broad.

[DaragosKitsune]

I remember an old issue of Dragon that had a list of 50 paladin concepts that differed from the norm. It had a grizzled veteran in blood-red spiked armour, and an unarmoured acrobatic fop type "defender of the innocent". Neat article, wish I remembered the issue #.

[Loki Eremes]

dont evade the point or the discussion: your first class is what define your way of acting and behave the most. Or lets beter say, YOUR CHARACTER IS WHAT DEFINE YOUR FIRST CLASS THE MOST


Let me ask you something...
if you like to fight, to show yourself, to build your body...
would you WILLINGLY choose to be a doctor rather than a WWE pro wrestler? xDDD

"MMMmmm, i need to channel my anger...doing neurosurgery..."


You could always make an special PC thats not your common (insert stereotype class here), but that would ever be an excuse to turn your character personality similar to your own or one you feel free playing.
Its NOT BAD but as i stated before.... substracts some of the challange from the roleplay and makes yourself predictable.


Being violent and agressive (rage) will generate interest in violent and agressive things rather passive ones (lets say...studing healing spells)
your personality, your nature, and way of acting are what most helps you define what you choose to be or do in life.



Quoting a phrase from Lord of War: "never go to war, especially with yourself"

[Temotei]

Let me ask you something...
if you like to fight, to show yourself, to build your body...
would you WILLINGLY choose to be a doctor rather than a WWE pro wrestler? xDDD

Possibly. It's possible to like more than just one thing. What if someone likes fighting and dealing with health issues?


"MMMmmm, i need to channel my anger...doing neurosurgery..."

This made me laugh, and then I thought about it.

Anesthesia + rage + neurosurgery = victory.

[Serpentine]

My stepfather was a career hospital CEO.
He went in triathlons on a regular basis.

So... yes. It is perfectly reasonable that someone who likes to fight, show themselves and to build their body would choose to become a doctor rather than a WWF wrestler. Especially since, in D&D, such a character would easily fit into the Cleric class :smallconfused:

I like animals, biology, science, medicine, zoology, and so on. Does that mean I should become a doctor or vetinarian? Hell no, my mum's a doctor, so I know how much it'd suck, and being a vet would be hard :smallyuk:
Is the aforementioned interest still a part of my personality and, indeed, my skill set? Sure, and I've got the degree to prove it.

[Lord Loss]

My current character, a Wilden Rogue, fits the bill quite well. He's part of a Wilden society that lives in the fungal forests of the Underdark along with the Bandarians (Badger-folk) and their society is based around honor. It is (to the Wilde, not the Bandarians) an act of famillial shame to steal from someone and lying is nearly as ill an action.

[Loki Eremes]

----------


Let me ask you something...
if you like to fight, to show yourself, to build your body...
would you WILLINGLY choose to be a doctor rather than a WWE pro wrestler? xDDD




Possibly. It's possible to like more than just one thing. What if someone likes fighting and dealing with health issues?



"NAAAAACHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"


sorry...just smelled Jack Black Movie

[Serpentine]

What? :smallconfused:
Look, just because you can't conceive of it working, doesn't mean that it can't and doesn't work for other people.

[Loki Eremes]

What? :smallconfused:
Look, just because you can't conceive of it working, doesn't mean that it can't and doesn't work for other people.


Its called a joke.

[The-Mage-King]

Sry mage, but that way of playing is good and bad at the same time.
I, as a DM myself, would get bored over time and never give you XP point for Roleplaying.
Playing a class that suits you is always fun, easy and looks natural.
But the point of Roleplaying is that you could adapt to every character you play.

EX:
"heroicladysaverswashbuckler": im here to save you ladies! (wink)
"werewolfhumanthatkilledhiswifeduehisillness": im here to save you ladies! (smirk)

it doesnt seems right to me xD

Oh, they're different, but they almost all have the "I'm here to fight you!, Prepare to die!" mode that appears.

How to put it... They have one trait in common, but most others vary greatly. For instance, I was playing a Battle Sorcerer/Sandshaper who, despite being fight happy, wasn't a carbon copy of my blood knight Warblade. It's nothing but a single trait that I've noticed in characters I play, and it manifests differently in each.

[Dienekes]

Let me ask you something...
if you like to fight, to show yourself, to build your body...
would you WILLINGLY choose to be a doctor rather than a WWE pro wrestler? xDDD

Why not? I did, not doctor per se but the idea is the same.


You could always make an special PC thats not your common (insert stereotype class here), but that would ever be an excuse to turn your character personality similar to your own or one you feel free playing.
Its NOT BAD but as i stated before.... substracts some of the challange from the roleplay and makes yourself predictable.

Being violent and agressive (rage) will generate interest in violent and agressive things rather passive ones (lets say...studing healing spells)
your personality, your nature, and way of acting are what most helps you define what you choose to be or do in life.

Quoting a phrase from Lord of War: "never go to war, especially with yourself"

So, in your views there's no place for a combat medic with a small bit of an anger management problem (played as one)
An intelligent man who has a real berserk button, but othertimes is rather civil to anyone (GMed for one)
A highly intelligent wizard, whose magical prowess has caused them to be an insufferable prat who likes to have everything go his way and lashes out physically when they do not (fun NPC)

[Kaeso]

Why not? You can ACF away your spellbook dependancy.

:smallconfused: How?


Let me ask you something...
if you like to fight, to show yourself, to build your body...
would you WILLINGLY choose to be a doctor rather than a WWE pro wrestler? xDDD

"MMMmmm, i need to channel my anger...doing neurosurgery..."

Well... it happens. I have a professor (in Roman Law) who used to box when he was younger, so a civilized barbarian, if roleplayed right, could be plausible.

I think the best pop culture example would be Beast from X-men: a learned, sophisticated, intelligent creature with enough brute force to rip your face off.

Another way to pull it off is the Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde approach, where the Barbarian's 'rage' is just his other personality.

[Coidzor]

:smallconfused: How?

I think there's a way to have all of one's spells as tattoos on one's body. Can't recall specifics though...

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I think there's a way to have all of one's spells as tattoos on one's body. Can't recall specifics though...

That, and the other variants in Complete Arcane such as carved bones, sheets of runes, and so forth are simple refluffing and don't require and ACF. Eidetic Spellcaster, from Dragon, lets you use special incense to record spells in your mind instead of in a spellbook.

On the issue of bards being less flexible: There's always Perform (Oratory). You can be a politician, a Braveheart-esque inspiring-speeches commander type, or other things with little difficulty.

[The-Mage-King]

There's also a Dragon Magazine ACF... I can't recall which one right now, though...

[Kaeso]

On the issue of bards being less flexible: There's always Perform (Oratory). You can be a politician, a Braveheart-esque inspiring-speeches commander type, or other things with little difficulty.

I fully agree with this. My last bard was actually a quite sophisticated prince who used preform (oratory) to inspire his allies.

[The Big Dice]

IMHO, classes(and skills, feats and spells for that matter) are just the building blocks that make your character come to life from a mechanical perspective. That's one of my favourite aspects of 3.5: multiclassing lets you build almost any character concept you can imagine.

If I have a character concept in mind, I usually try to find a build that has the mechanical abilities I want, and then refluff as needed to fit the character.This is exactly what I hate about D&D. I want to make a noble warrior, eloquent, cultured and deadly. But I can't do it at 1st level. I have to go through a whole load of stuff I don't want to get to what I do want. And even then, I suck at it because the Bard does social stuff better than me and the Druid's dog can fight better than me.

My problem with classes is, they force you to think about the what rather than the who of your character. Trying to find a build then having to refluff isn't making a who.

That's my take on things. Classes are a pair of handcuffs, they restrict my choices rather than giving me real options and the freedom to make the character I want to play.

[Mr. Zolrane]

I see I sparked a nice discussion here. A couple dumb newb questions: so I can understand what's being discussed: What are the specific definitions of "fluff" and "crunch" and what is ACF? Sorry, I've been playing for less than six months in a campaign with only the most basic books.


He hides his fear and trauma under a veneer of bravado and humour, especially if his allies don't know about his history in which case he does everything he can to keep up the facade of normality and chipperness.
CF: Marco from Animorphs, various others.

Problem solved :smallsmile:

Serpentine wins everything forever for the Animorphs reference ^_^


Sounds like a Final Fantasy reference to me. It's probably not, though.

It wasn't meant to be, though I became aware of the FFXII character after the fact. I hate when that happens. :smallannoyed:

[The Big Dice]

I see I sparked a nice discussion here. A couple dumb newb questions: so I can understand what's being discussed: What are the specific definitions of "fluff" and "crunch" and what is ACF? Sorry, I've been playing for less than six months in a campaign with only the most basic books.
Fluff is flavour text. Stuff that makes things cool without actually affecting numbers or dice rolls. A wizard throwing blazing green skulls that explode when they hit might be casting Fireball, but with fluff added to make it cool.

Crunch is rules. Mechanics, abilities, feats and so on are crunch. Anything that affects numbers or dice rolls. That wizard with the burningskulls also has SpellFocus: Evocation. That makes your save a bit harder and is crunch.

ACF is an acronym for Alternate Class Feature. Some books let characters trade in certain abilities for other abilities. Lke rangers without spells, or sorcerors without familliars and so on.

[woodenbandman]

Just because I am a soldier does not mean I have levels in fighter.

I could be a druid who happens to be employed as a soldier for some reason.

And reflavoring classes is only as stupid as you think it is. Stop getting hung up on the idea of "professor who has barbarian rage" and think of it instead as "this guy has an ability that gives him great strength a few times a day."

[pilvento]

EX:
"heroicladysaverswashbuckler": im here to save you ladies! (wink)
"werewolfhumanthatkilledhiswifeduehisillness": im here to save you ladies! (smirk)

it doesnt seems right to me xD

Thats completely logical (wink)

[The Big Dice]

I could be a druid who happens to be employed as a soldier for some reason.

And reflavoring classes is only as stupid as you think it is. Stop getting hung up on the idea of "professor who has barbarian rage" and think of it instead as "this guy has an ability that gives him great strength a few times a day."
Do you have the skills needed to do your job as class skills? Because if you don't, you're not going to be very good at it.

That's my take on things. Not everyone is going to feel the same way. But why do I have to jump through hoops, and suck at things, if I want to play an outdoorsy type of character who doesn't use a bow and doesn't want to use two weapons?

[Mr. Zolrane]

I think what Big Dice is getting at, is that certain skillsets, as they exist in their more basic don't mesh well with certain lifestyles. On the other hand, I think what some of the others are saying, BD, is that when properly tricked out, pretty much anything can work within reason.

Also, thanks for bringing me up to speed on some of the terminology: I'm still learning after all.

[Oracle_Hunter]

2nd/4th Edition D&D treat Classes as lifestyles. You can't be a Barbarian without being a "savage man" (AD&D Kit) or drawing power from the Primal Forces (4th Edition). Heck, in AD&D you can't even progress in level as a Druid beyond a certain point without finding a space in the Worldwide Druidic Order for yourself.

3.X D&D does this less. While the class restrictions for some classes makes them seem like lifestyles (e.g. Paladin, Monk) for most it is nonsensical to speak as if they were. If any LV 1 Character with INT 11 can pick up a level of Wizard at LV 2 then it's hard to argue that wizarding is a lifestyle. Only by adding house-ruled restrictions on multiclassing can this fiction be preserved.

As to whether Class should be a lifestyle... well, that's a matter of taste. Me, I've always liked "strong class" systems because it fits with the Tolkienesque world of Hobbit Burglars and Aragon the Ranger. Plus, it allows for wizarding guilds, sorcerous bloodlines and the like. Handy :smallbiggrin:

Others prefer the 3.X "weak class" system because it allows them to make the sorts of Builds they like.

[boomwolf]

A barbarian is the class with martial weapon proficiency, with rage and illiteracy, this gives strong hints and making a intelligent bookworm barbarian would just seem inconsistent and weird to me.


You need to play more fallout.

Nerd rage for the win!


Anyways, as for out-of-order characters I've made I got:

A methodical to levels of obsessed with fine details warlock
A happy-go-lucky paladin
A barbarian book collector (cant read, likes the artistic style.)
A rouge who never steals, cheats or does anything more rouge then spying on people and backstabbing people who deserve it.
Emo druid. (eventually turned blighter, but that was predictable.)
and probably some more I forgot.

[Flickerdart]

Class doesn't mean very much in 3.5 because most people will never go straight 20 levels of any class. The PrCs that a character will enter will determine his "lifestyle" more (as they usually have a lot of fluff, and prerequisites that imply a certain way of going about things).

Sure, you can refluff your Sorcerer as a guy who runs around with swords and shoots off spells once in a blue moon, but then why did you pick the Sorcerer class and not, say, Bard or even Ranger? If your Monk spends most of his day using magic items, why not roll an Artificer?

The Big Dice: So, you want to play a character that's better than a Bard at talking and at the same time better than a warrior at fighting? That's...not really a fair expectation. Something like Human Paladin or Knight with Nymph's Kiss gives you enough skill points to take Diplomacy, Ride, Sense Motive and Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) making you as good a noble as any. 1st level. I don't see the problem.

[The Big Dice]

The Big Dice: So, you want to play a character that's better than a Bard at talking and at the same time better than a warrior at fighting? That's...not really a fair expectation. Something like Human Paladin or Knight with Nymph's Kiss gives you enough skill points to take Diplomacy, Ride, Sense Motive and Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) making you as good a noble as any. 1st level. I don't see the problem.
I want to be able to play Robin Hood on the day he got declared outlaw. I want to be able to play a knight who actually feel like a knight but doesn't have that stupid "come and kill me" ability. I want to be able to play a character who, while not a fully fledged hero right out of the box, is at least competent without the world having to scale with him.

And that's why I don't play D&D any more.

I prefer a game like L5R, where my starting bushi can do stuff effectively, and even after a year of play a guy with a knife still has the cance to kill my character with one hit.

[Daremonai]

To all those of you who insist that a character must adhere strictly to their class's fluff: I am so very glad that we game at different tables.

It's true that with their small HD and low BAB, an X level sorceror is not likely to be as effective a swordsman as a Warblade. Does that mean that the guy who rolled a sorceror should be told he can't step in with a blade? Of course not, provided he's prepared to face the likely consequences of doing so. The illiterate, rude, uncivilised wizard? I still don't see a problem, so long as he doesn't plan on reading scrolls any time soon (though presumably Read Magic can bypass this issue anyway) - the Eidectic ACF, or whatever it's called gets rid of the spellbook rather handily. The same goes for the rogue-paladin, the barbarian-sophisticate and all the rest of them. Classes are just mechanics - apply them as you see fit.

If I were part of a group that demanded all its players be optimised to the hilt, then it's true that sticking to the established fluff would be more effective. But if I were part of a group that demanded all its players be optimised to the hilt, I'd probably go look elsewhere instead - that playstyle just isn't fun for me.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.

[Trekkin]

I want to be able to play Robin Hood on the day he got declared outlaw. I want to be able to play a knight who actually feel like a knight but doesn't have that stupid "come and kill me" ability. I want to be able to play a character who, while not a fully fledged hero right out of the box, is at least competent without the world having to scale with him.

And that's why I don't play D&D any more.

I prefer a game like L5R, where my starting bushi can do stuff effectively, and even after a year of play a guy with a knife still has the cance to kill my character with one hit.

You like L5R for the same reason I like Shadowrun.
Class cannot be a lifestyle if there are no classes, and SR4 has a rich enough lifestyle generator that Lifestyle can become a lifestyle for you.

[Flickerdart]

To all those of you who insist that a character must adhere strictly to their class's fluff: I am so very glad that we game at different tables.

It's true that with their small HD and low BAB, an X level sorceror is not likely to be as effective a swordsman as a Warblade. Does that mean that the guy who rolled a sorceror should be told he can't step in with a blade? Of course not, provided he's prepared to face the likely consequences of doing so. The illiterate, rude, uncivilised wizard? I still don't see a problem, so long as he doesn't plan on reading scrolls any time soon (though presumably Read Magic can bypass this issue anyway) - the Eidectic ACF, or whatever it's called gets rid of the spellbook rather handily. The same goes for the rogue-paladin, the barbarian-sophisticate and all the rest of them. Classes are just mechanics - apply them as you see fit.

If I were part of a group that demanded all its players be optimised to the hilt, then it's true that sticking to the established fluff would be more effective. But if I were part of a group that demanded all its players be optimised to the hilt, I'd probably go look elsewhere instead - that playstyle just isn't fun for me.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.
All that is fine. The problem comes when the sword-wielding Sorcerer sucks and dies instead of contributing to the group, possibly going as far as to expect the others to waste effort covering him while he does this. D&D is a cooperative game, and if you're not contributing to the party then the amount of fun being had by other people is reduced. If you plan to use a sword, then take a class suitable for that. There are perfectly good spellsword classes that won't jeopardize any possible character fluff you might have that requires you to have spellcasting ability, and going sorcerer without any reason is all sorts of weird.

[Jarrick]

I agree with everything Serpentine has said so far.

One of the finest examples of class not defining lifestyle is the Dread Necromancer. Necromancers in general are supposed to be moody, brooding, quiet, or even repulsive, yet here's a class that requires a high Charisma to play, basically encouraging you to play against type. One of my best ones was a Karrnathi ex-captain, who served in the Last War, commanding an undead legion against Karrnath's enemies. His Rebuking was basically karrnathi war commanding techniques used to control the undead soldiers (Think retired drill sergeant of the undead).

Refluffing classes is a favorite tactic of mine to revive classes that other people in my group sometimes overlook. Playing a rogue as a Noble Diplomat, whose experience in politics taught him to be wary and capable of escaping from bad situations with his life, for example. Or a bard who is a pirate captain, using inspiring speeches and captainy presence to inspire his sailors.

[Endarire]

Classes have suggested flavor and recommended playstyles, but you can use the mechanics however you wish.

A class's ability to fill archetypes varies. A Paladin is very rigid in its archetype. A Fighter or a Wizard is loose: A Fighter seemingly represents any physical combatant and a Wizard seemingly represents every fantasy mage who doesn't rely on a divine entity for power.

[Temotei]

It wasn't meant to be, though I became aware of the FFXII character after the fact. I hate when that happens. :smallannoyed:

That, and when you fight Vayne in his second form, Vayne Novus, he has swords circling the battlefield called "Sephira" swords.

I didn't think it was a reference, but it made me laugh a little, simply because my brother is currently obsessed with Final Fantasy XII.