Class as Chasis or Occupation

[MukkTB]

Often we use classes as a chassis for getting a selection of skills and abilities. We ignore the fluff. On the other hand some people see classes as inherently tied to the fluff. I could roll up a 'ranger' who was an expert farmer and use the skills and abilities of the class to outperform any commoner trying to farm. On the other hand this would not be in keeping with the intentions of the people who designed the class.

How do people feel about this?

[Lord_Gareth]

Don't do this bro.

We've already had this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206955) god-awful, soul-rending thread full of brick-wall arguments and suffering about this topic. Just...just read the thread, man. It doesn't have to happen again!

*Shudders the whole way back to trauma therapy*

[gomipile]

Oh, I'm sure someone will bring something new to the discussion.

I'm just going to go over here and pop some popcorn and open a watching beer. :smallbiggrin:

[Snowbluff]

I don't get what the big deal is. Fluff is fluff. How you use it is up to you how you use it. It's a table decision, not a forum one.

{{scrubbed}}

[Particle_Man]

I can certainly see if both ways.

I guess my personal preference is "occupation" (which may have something to do with my having played the game since 1st edition and B/X D&D).

But whatever floats people's boats.

[Rubik]

I think the default flavor is way too restricting in a lot of cases, removing my ability to come up with the wealth of characters I could otherwise create. And a lot of the default fluff is crap, and doesn't match up with what the class can (and more often, cannot) do. Look at the fighter, for instance. They make horrible guards, awful leaders, and terrible warlords.

However, they do make a good two (standard) to six (dungeoncrasher) level dip for the abilities my guard/leader/warlord might be able to use.

[Uncensored]

I've always used class as more of a template for the education you've had up to the point that you begin playing.

For example, I once played a High Priest of Olidammara who actually only had Rogue levels(except that my Sneak Attack damage was converted into some neat Cleric stuff).

Sure, I was a Priest by trade, but everything I'd done was sneaky and stabby, so bam! Rogue levels!

[Rubik]

I've always used class as more of a template for the education you've had up to the point that you begin playing.

For example, I once played a High Priest of Olidammara who actually only had Rogue levels(except that my Sneak Attack damage was converted into some neat Cleric stuff).

Sure, I was a Priest by trade, but everything I'd done was sneaky and stabby, so bam! Rogue levels!This is pretty much it. "Cleric" is a class, but "priest" is an occupation, and the two don't (necessarily) have to coincide.

[Uncensored]

Sure. Who would admit that they were a "Rogue"?

Diplomat, Engineer, Locksmith, Support Soldier, or Specialist Archer, however, sound totally legitimate.

[KillianHawkeye]

This is pretty much it. "Cleric" is a class, but "priest" is an occupation, and the two don't (necessarily) have to coincide.

I agree. If I'm grievously wounded, I'll call for a Cleric. If I'm lying on my death bed, then I need a priest.

[MukkTB]

It doesn't help that some classes appear to be generic chassis and others come across as very specific occupations. Fighter VS Paladin for instance. The fighter could be a caravan member, a bandit, a seasoned general or a dockworker with some experience brawling. The Paladin is a holy warrior working for the church with a hard code of conduct. At most he may have been a caravan member, a prince, or some street rat chosen by a magic horsey.

[Bogardan_Mage]

I agree. If I'm grievously wounded, I'll call for a Cleric. If I'm lying on my death bed, then I need a priest.
I get what you mean, but you do realise "cleric" is just (roughly) another word for "priest", right?

[Darth_Versity]

I get what you mean, but you do realise "cleric" is just (roughly) another word for "priest", right?

No, this is a priest

http://danutm.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/priest.jpg

While this is a cleric

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/12100000/Equilibrium-equilibrium-12100005-1024-648.jpg

The second ones much cooler!

[eggs]

Everyone I've ever played with outside internet forums has treated them as occupations. The writers seem to agree.

But it's not something I'd imagine anybody actually getting upset about. The differences between stripping the Warblade of its gloryhound fluff to use it for a gritty berserker and writing a new "Gritty Berserker" class that happens to be nearly identical to the Warblade are negligible.

[CTrees]

Actually, "in the wild," treating classes as occupations seems more common (based soley on my experience).

[ShneekeyTheLost]

See also the Miko example.

Samurai was a cultural caste. Mechanically, she was a Monk/Paladin. She dual-wielded masterwork bastard sword and shortsword, she acted every bit the Samurai, with Duty and Honor as her driving forces.

But despite the oriental armor and weapons, despite her roleplaying aspect, despite the fact that she called her self a Samurai, she did not have a single level in anything which had the word 'Samurai' in it.

Classes are a mechanical construct which works within the rules to achieve the effect you are looking for. It's all based on the character concept you have in your head, the classes are just how you express that concept.

This post and the statements herein are purely my personal opinion, and should not be taken as an attempt to make a definitive statement on what 'should' be or any implication of correctness or incorrectness of any other viewpoint. I reserve the right to respectfully disagree and politely debate with opposing viewpoints, even as I concede the validity of such viewpoints from the poster's perspective.

[big teej]

I think I'll limit my contribution to saying that my table has decided that classes are in-game constructs, and we treat them accordingly.

[rmg22893]

Often we use classes as a chassis for getting a selection of skills and abilities. We ignore the fluff. On the other hand some people see classes as inherently tied to the fluff. I could roll up a 'ranger' who was an expert farmer and use the skills and abilities of the class to outperform any commoner trying to farm. On the other hand this would not be in keeping with the intentions of the people who designed the class.

How do people feel about this?

Favored enemy: Weeds

[deuxhero]

I could see a Wizard who copied and preserved books in a monastery that calls themself a monk,

But yeah, if the fluff "heavyness" or not on a base class is VERY inconsistent.

[nyarlathotep]

The problem is that some classes are far more identifiable by abilities unique to themselves than others. For instance a man who makes his living in the woods and is skilled with a blade could well be barbarian, fighter, or ranger. But the knight with holy powers that are sucked away the instant he does something evil is definitely a paladin.

[Flickerdart]

I am a Barbarian 1/Ranger 2/Scout 4/Wizard 1/Unseen Seer 1. What class am I?

[lorddrake]

I think mostly is what is seen.

I mean, for example, a character (NPC) farmer (not-necessarily ranger) sees on guy waving a blade around. He does not know what this guy is. He could be fighter, barbarian, rogue, paladin... Could even be a cleric or wizard. Anything, really.

But if he sees someone hurling a fireball he knows it is a spellcaster and he is going to call him wizard (even if the guy is a sorcerer or a fighter with a magic item or a rogue with a wand...)

If a guy sees a man with sword he may deduce he had training with it and guess what he is. But it is not tattoed to the guy face that he is a Fighter™.

But any game where the players have fun is worth playing, it doesn't matter if they like to call the guy who heals the cleric or the guy who steals by rogue IC.

[Hazzardevil]

I am a Barbarian 1/Ranger 2/Scout 4/Wizard 1/Unseen Seer 1. What class am I?

You are an:
Unseen swift hunting angry Mage.

[ZenoForce88]

Wait....Classes have Fluff? I've always just skipped to the important Game Information, and left fluff develop through Roleplaying, and character histories of each Player. Maybe i should start actually reading the entries...:smallconfused:

[Gensh]

The problem is that some classes are far more identifiable by abilities unique to themselves than others. For instance a man who makes his living in the woods and is skilled with a blade could well be barbarian, fighter, or ranger. But the knight with holy powers that are sucked away the instant he does something evil is definitely a paladin.

Aye, it's this. The designers clearly intended for them to be occupations, but that mostly fell on its face. When I play a class-based system, though, I typically do it because I want to be able to say "I'm a wizard. I've been trained in the wizard's academy. I am a member of the wizard's guild," and so forth. Otherwise, I'd simply play a classless system and get on with it - only D&D gets a pass because it's the iconic game and a lot of players don't like learning a system they've never heard of.

[Darth Stabber]

One of my favorite characters I have ever played was dreadnecromancer who was a priestess of wee jas. Given she had tomb tainted soul (as the vast bulk of living DNs do) he considered herself a healer (at least to the other tomb tainted members of the congregation). She believed that less intelligent undead were only a threat when uncontrolled and thus fine servants, and very intelligent undead were only a problem when they threatened the stability of society. Thus she tried to control undead that were a threat, and if they would not be controlled they were destroyed for the greater good* of society.

*Her definition of good didn't really line up with the alignment good, which is also why she was very surprised when paladins could find her, and very surprised to be smited. Of course a massive burst of negative energy and an empowered enervation later, she had a wight with some very nice armor.

[Dsurion]

Favored enemy: WeedsAnd the next one he gets from levels is Favored Enemy: Daughter's Boyfriends!


Aye, it's this. The designers clearly intended for them to be occupations, but that mostly fell on its face. When I play a class-based system, though, I typically do it because I want to be able to say "I'm a wizard. I've been trained in the wizard's academy. I am a member of the wizard's guild," and so forth. Otherwise, I'd simply play a classless system and get on with it - only D&D gets a pass because it's the iconic game and a lot of players don't like learning a system they've never heard of.This is pretty much how I feel.

[Rubik]

Also, the word 'barbarian' is a xenophobic insult, flat-out. Nobody would self-identify as one. It'd be like identifying as a 'jackass'. Nobody but a jackass does that, either.

[JadePhoenix]

Wait....Classes have Fluff? I've always just skipped to the important Game Information, and left fluff develop through Roleplaying, and character histories of each Player. Maybe i should start actually reading the entries...:smallconfused:

Yeah, you should. You're missing on some very good ideas.

[The Troubadour]

I use the fluff when it suits me, otherwise I ignore it. Both as a GM and as a player. For instance, I once played a Dwarf Thief. back in AD&D who was actually a "tunnel stalker", not a proper roguish character.

[Flickerdart]

Yeah, you should. You're missing on some very good ideas.
And a tremendous amount of terrible ones, as well as ones that plain ol' aren't true when you look at the crunch attached to it. Far better to make your own fluff, which is likely to reflect your character better than a paragraph drummed up by someone who thought samurai were a powerful anything.

[JadePhoenix]

And a tremendous amount of terrible ones, as well as ones that plain ol' aren't true when you look at the crunch attached to it. Far better to make your own fluff, which is likely to reflect your character better than a paragraph drummed up by someone who thought samurai were a powerful anything.

I disagree. Class fluff gets you ideas for your character's fluff. Some written fluff is not that good, of course. Most of the refluffing I saw on this forum gave me shivers as well.
Let's compare this situation to buying a car. You know there are some good cars and some bad cars. Instead of finding out what is good and bad, you build a car yourself. Doesn't that sound needlessly complicated?
I'm not saying creating your own fluff is bad. Go on, do it, no problem. You're the one saying using written fluff is objectively a bad thing and, well, it isn't.

[Flickerdart]

A car is more like crunch. The fluff would be the branding and marketing of the car, which frankly I don't terribly care for.

[nyarlathotep]

I disagree. Class fluff gets you ideas for your character's fluff. Some written fluff is not that good, of course. Most of the refluffing I saw on this forum gave me shivers as well.
Let's compare this situation to buying a car. You know there are some good cars and some bad cars. Instead of finding out what is good and bad, you build a car yourself. Doesn't that sound needlessly complicated?
I'm not saying creating your own fluff is bad. Go on, do it, no problem. You're the one saying using written fluff is objectively a bad thing and, well, it isn't.

Care to give us an example of bad refluffing. To be honest I don't think you can get much worse than say Order of the Bow Initiate. It's supposed to make you an archer beyond peer, but if you use its abilities you're going to be worse than a straight fighter at using bows.

[Particle_Man]

I think this might be a 3.x thing.

In 1st and 2nd edition you were your class (B/X had this too, and BXCMI had this to the extent that lawful "paladins" could expect aid from other npcs (as could the chaotic "avengers" due to being in the "same club"). Multi-classed characters were all their classes at the same time. Dual-classing was very hard to do, and it was very explicit in "you leave the other class behind", as opposed to "you blend all abilities into a new thing". Heck, in 1st edition, assassins, druids and monks were part of the same club to the extent that you had to fight and beat an existing member to even gain the higher levels of each class (presumably, you would also have to fend off challenges from lower-level wannabes).

3rd edition multi-classing (and Class Feature substitutions) made it much, much easier to take a little from column A and a little from column B. I think the logical extension of this is a point-buy system like Mutants and Masterminds, where you can make up anything, given GM approval.

AFAICT 4th edition went back to "you are your class" with the multiclassing options as feats (get a dash of another class, but basically you are your class) or hybrids "you are your classes". Although there is also "you are your role" since it has a focus on tactical combat and your character's way of contributing in that tactical combat.

Not sure what D&D Next (5th edition) will do with classes.

That to me explains why the assassins are described the way they were - back in 1st ed, that is what they were. In 3rd edition, they brought that back, but then people wanted to play assassins but not with the occupation trappings, so they came out with the Avenger (not necessarily evil) and Slayer of Domiel (downright good!).

But it really depends on the campaign. Some people like some or all of the implied setting of the phb/dmg, so they like the fluff, and so (for example) they like their assassins as a guild of evil, "ask no questions", killers for hire. Others just see the stats and will make up their own fluff.

Tastes vary but neither way is "wrong" or "right" it just depends on what a particular group likes.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I disagree. Class fluff gets you ideas for your character's fluff. Some written fluff is not that good, of course. Most of the refluffing I saw on this forum gave me shivers as well.I disagree.

I start with a 'character concept' long before I go looking for classes. Let's say this character concept is 'Agile Fighter'.

Then I ask myself 'What do I see this character doing?'. Let's say I had just gotten done watching Kung Fu Panda, Forbidden Kingdom, and Kung Fu Hustle, so I've got a hankering for a martial artist.

Now I look at the classes which support that concept and job description.

You'd probably suggest 'monk' after hearing that, based on the fluff and flavor. I'd probably laugh at that suggestion, because I want to actually affect the outcome of the game in some way.

Needless to say, I'd say Swordsage to begin with.

Now, do I want to go monk or ninja? Let's say here I want to be more ninja than monk.

Okay, rather than using the abysmal Ninja class, which isn't worth the paper it is printed on, I will multiclass Swordsage and Rogue. Let's start off with Rogue for the extra skill points (since the 6x on swordsage is clearly a typo) and some sneak attack damage.

I've also mapped out that I will be using Shadow Blade to be more dex-dependent and less Str dependent, I will probably start off with Island of Blades for my stance at 2nd character level (1st level of Swordsage) to help with flanking, and I have a pretty good idea that I'm going to be getting primarily Shadow Hand, Setting Sun, Diamond Mind, and Tiger Claw stuff.

Now we write up the background story for this character, and we're ready to play.



Let's compare this situation to buying a car. You know there are some good cars and some bad cars. Instead of finding out what is good and bad, you build a car yourself. Doesn't that sound needlessly complicated?
I'm not saying creating your own fluff is bad. Go on, do it, no problem. You're the one saying using written fluff is objectively a bad thing and, well, it isn't.

I'd rather say that the fluff is merely the advertising, and instead, I am actually reading the user's manuals and design specifications to determine which vehicle best suits my needs.

A better example, however, would be purchasing a computer.

Using the written fluff to make mechanical decisions is like buying an E-Machine or HP. It's easy, but it's not going to really do what you expect it to, or probably what you actually wanted it to do.

I, on the other hand, prefer to go in and determine what I want.

"Hmm, this is going to be a gaming computer, so I'm going to need a good video card, lots of RAM, and a good processor. I'm also going to want something with upgradibility, so I can start off with a high-dollar motherboard with plenty of extra slots for more upgrades later, and skimp a little on the RAM until my next paycheck, as long as I have enough to get my games at least running.

Now, because this is a gaming computer, I'm going to want a fancy monitor, which means I want a video card with HDMI connection and a monitor with the same. However, fancy monitor and fancy graphics card generally means a lot of money. So for now, I can use my old monitor, but get an HDMI capable graphics card. I'm also going to make sure my motherboard is SLI capable, if not Tri-SLI or something similar, to give me more graphics computing later on."

Does it take more work? Yes. Do you get a computer which better suits your needs? Absolutely.

Same concept. I'd rather go through the mechanics to determine what will do what I want my character to be doing rather than going by the 'fluff'.

[JadePhoenix]

I disagree.

I start with a 'character concept' long before I go looking for classes.
Surely you realize that's not the case for everyone. At times you're asked to join a game and you have no idea what to play. Looking at fluff might give you some ideas.


Now we write up the background story for this character, and we're ready to play.
Again, I never said doing that is a bad thing. It's not. Congrats on playing a Swordsage and calling it by any other name! I'm just saying using written fluff is not a bad thing per se.


I'd rather say that the fluff is merely the advertising, and instead, I am actually reading the user's manuals and design specifications to determine which vehicle best suits my needs.
You missed my point. I'm talking only about fluff here.


Using the written fluff to make mechanical decisions is like buying an E-Machine or HP.
That's not what I said at all. I'm not arguing mechanics or against refluffing or whatever.


Same concept. I'd rather go through the mechanics to determine what will do what I want my character to be doing rather than going by the 'fluff'.
And there's nothing wrong with. What is wrong is saying that people who play with written fluff are 'doing it wrong' like was said here.

[Emperor Tippy]

It depends somewhat on the class, there are some classes that are much more tied to their fluff than others (paladins come to mind as a prime example) but most of them time I treat crunch as crunch and fluff as fluff

Just as one example, I've taken the Psion before, stripped out every reference in the fluff to psionics, and called myself a Sorcerer. I've also used the same thing and called it a mage and a wizard.

Basically, the mechanics of a class are pure crunch and with few exceptions I don't let a classes fluff dictate what a player can refluff mechanical abilities as.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Surely you realize that's not the case for everyone. At times you're asked to join a game and you have no idea what to play. Looking at fluff might give you some ideas.I've never once gotten an idea from the fluff in any D&D 3.5 book. It's really that badly written.

I get my character ideas from lots of places. I also tend to ask the other players what roles are already covered and where the party could use some help, so my character doesn't start off obsolete and all roles are covered.

Reading the fluff from a 3.5 class to get an idea for a character is rather like listening to a sales pitch to determine which products to use. The information is usually vague, inaccurate, and typically bares little to no resemblance to the actual performance of the product.


Again, I never said doing that is a bad thing. It's not. Congrats on playing a Swordsage and calling it by any other name! I'm just saying using written fluff is not a bad thing per se.And I'm merely stating my opinion that if I make a character that uses a class's fluff... it's purely by accident, rather than design.

You missed my point. I'm talking only about fluff here.Which is... what I was talking about? The fluff is often badly misleading about the qualities of the class. To me, that sounds like the advertising and publicity stunts.


That's not what I said at all. I'm not arguing mechanics or against refluffing or whatever.

And there's nothing wrong with. What is wrong is saying that people who play with written fluff are 'doing it wrong' like was said here.I never once said those who play with the written fluff are 'doing it wrong', I am stating my opinion that the written fluff isn't worth the paper is is printed on. If you wish to use the printed fluff, that's your decision, and you are entirely welcome to do so.

As for myself... well, my viewpoints are pretty clear at this point.

[prufock]

I'm of the opinion that, for the most part, "classes" are just convenient ways to refer to skill sets. A wizard is a wizard because that's what you call someone who casts spells. You could also call a sorcerer a wizard or vice versa.

A Bard with ranks in hide, move silently, and bluff is just as much a "rogue" as a Rogue, and a Rogue with ranks in perform is just as much a "bard" as a Bard. A Cleric can be just as much a "paladin" as a Paladin.

It doesn't help that the class names are often generic words. A barbarian is an uncivilized person, a bard is a storyteller or musician, a cleric is a man of god(s), a fighter is someone who fights, etc.

I don't see any real benefit in tying a character class to a specific definition other than a mechanical one.

Might be worth noting that the SRD doesn't even contain any of the class fluff.

[Doughnut Master]

+1 to it varying by class.

In our groups, fluff is what you make of it. Although, the printed fluff can provide very useful elements in that creation process.

I think this allows for more creativity. After all, if your class is your occupation, it's harder to make wonderful things like this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195049)

[rmg22893]

I'm of the opinion that, for the most part, "classes" are just convenient ways to refer to skill sets. A wizard is a wizard because that's what you call someone who casts spells. You could also call a sorcerer a wizard or vice versa.

A Bard with ranks in hide, move silently, and bluff is just as much a "rogue" as a Rogue, and a Rogue with ranks in perform is just as much a "bard" as a Bard. A Cleric can be just as much a "paladin" as a Paladin.

It doesn't help that the class names are often generic words. A barbarian is an uncivilized person, a bard is a storyteller or musician, a cleric is a man of god(s), a fighter is someone who fights, etc.

I don't see any real benefit in tying a character class to a specific definition other than a mechanical one.

Might be worth noting that the SRD doesn't even contain any of the class fluff.

Exactly. Like levels, classes are requirements of the d20 system in order to provide a logical progression of abilities and skillsets. That does not mean someone would instantly recognize your character as a "Bard" or "Wizard" or "Barbarian", because these names and divisions do not necessarily exist in the game world.

[JadePhoenix]

Exactly. Like levels, classes are requirements of the d20 system in order to provide a logical progression of abilities and skillsets. That does not mean someone would instantly recognize your character as a "Bard" or "Wizard" or "Barbarian", because these names and divisions do not necessarily exist in the game world.

Except at times they do. Crack open any setting book and you'll see how they spend pages and pages talking about how people in this place usually dislike warlocks, how paladins are revered in that other place and how that other place around the corner has a bunch of druids.

Shneekey, I love the fluff on many D&D classes. Sorcerer, Binder, Spellthief, Swashbuckler, Rogue, Truenamer, Suel Arcanamach, Warlock, Iaijutsu Master, Telflammar Shadowlord and Soulknife all spring to mind easily. I respect your position of disliking it, though. I wasn't refering to you when I mentioned people saying 'you're doing it wrong' regarding use of printed fluff. I don't want to point any fingers, but it was said in this very thread. I'm sorry you thought I was talking specifically about you, I wasn't.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Except at times they do. Crack open any setting book and you'll see how they spend pages and pages talking about how people in this place usually dislike warlocks, how paladins are revered in that other place and how that other place around the corner has a bunch of druids.

Shneekey, I love the fluff on many D&D classes. Sorcerer, Binder, Spellthief, Swashbuckler, Rogue, Truenamer, Suel Arcanamach, Warlock, Iaijutsu Master, Telflammar Shadowlord and Soulknife all spring to mind easily. I respect your position of disliking it, though. I wasn't refering to you when I mentioned people saying 'you're doing it wrong' regarding use of printed fluff. I don't want to point any fingers, but it was said in this very thread. I'm sorry you thought I was talking specifically about you, I wasn't.

Only most of that fluff is either wrong, misleading, or silly.

Let's use some examples from the list you have given:

Sorcerer. One of the biggest victims of Fluff being directly contradictory to Crunch. "Born with innate abilities" sounds more like Spell-Like Abilities, not spontaneous spellcasting. In other words... Warlock.

Speaking of Warlock, all the talk of 'pacts' sounds a lot more like a Binder than what a Warlock actually is. Strip out the Sorcerer's fluff and drop it here, and it suddenly makes much more sense. You'll have to re-fluff some of the names of invocations to reflect the SLA's granted by the heritage of choice (for example, instead of Baleful Utterance, if you are descended from a dragon, it could be 'cacophonous roar')

Rogue fluff is horrible, but that's more because the class is so versatile and flexible that it's almost impossible to write fluff for the class. Also, because the class multiclasses so well, it's nearly impossible to use fluff as written since it almost never applies past first level.

Soulknife fluff implies it can actually affect anything, or that its class abilities actually have a use that cannot be duplicated by throwing WBL at the problem.

Truenamer fluff implies that you can warp reality. In actuality, they can't even affect a CR appropriate challenge until you hit 20.

[TheGeckoKing]

What you've described is less "The fluff is bad" and more "The way they've tried to express the fluff in mechanical terms is a shambles", or down to just your opinion.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

What you've described is less "The fluff is bad" and more "The way they've tried to express the fluff in mechanical terms is a shambles", or down to just your opinion.

Everything I've expressed is my opinion. 'Fluff-as-written is good/bad' is an inherently subjective choice, and as such, always the opinion of the viewer.

I fail to see your distinction between the fluff is bad and the fluff doesn't match what the mechanics does.

If you describe object A as object B, your description is, at the least, incorrect and faulty. This is what I would call 'bad'. This is what the Fluff As Written does. It just doesn't match what the class actually does, and attempting to play the class with the mechanics and the fluff as written is doomed to failure, because they don't match.

If I were to make a class, and as part of the fluff, mention their 'awesome flying powers', but have no class abilities through which they can obtain flight... that fluff is wrong, because it doesn't describe the capabilities of the class.

[TheGeckoKing]

Everything I've expressed is my opinion. 'Fluff-as-written is good/bad' is an inherently subjective choice, and as such, always the opinion of the viewer.

I fail to see your distinction between the fluff is bad and the fluff doesn't match what the mechanics does.

If you describe object A as object B, your description is, at the least, incorrect and faulty. This is what I would call 'bad'. This is what the Fluff As Written does. It just doesn't match what the class actually does, and attempting to play the class with the mechanics and the fluff as written is doomed to failure, because they don't match.

If I were to make a class, and as part of the fluff, mention their 'awesome flying powers', but have no class abilities through which they can obtain flight... that fluff is wrong, because it doesn't describe the capabilities of the class.

Yeah, but that's just a misapplication of fluff. Whipped cream is nice, but not on a steak. For fluff to be truly bad, it's gotta be awful no matter what you apply to it. Example: Kenders. As another example, most of (or at least a third of) ToM's fluff is generally considered to be pretty good, but got applied to utter dreck. I wouldn't say that's the fluff's bad in this case, but rather that whoever wrote the crunch should of been told that no, he really doesn't understand the game's mechanics that well.

[Darth Stabber]

The phb classes are somewhat broader than subsequent classes. Fo example swashbuckler fluff could also describe a subset of fighters (especially fighter/rogues), DN's fluff is a direct subset of wizard's (like a specialist necromancer only more so), ditto beguiler and warmage, and to some extent healer to cleric.

It's not wrong to just take the standard class fluff to use for your character, but by the same token, if you have a concept that doesn't fit a class, or the class doesn't actually deliver the ability to do what the fluff says (I'm looking at you truenamer), get the mechanics that fit it from the classes that exist, or homebrew it if you have GM tolerant of such and a good eye for balance.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Yeah, but that's just a misapplication of fluff. Whipped cream is nice, but not on a steak. For fluff to be truly bad, it's gotta be awful no matter what you apply to it. Example: Kenders. As another example, most of (or at least a third of) ToM's fluff is generally considered to be pretty good, but got applied to utter dreck. I wouldn't say that's the fluff's bad in this case, but rather that whoever wrote the crunch should of been told that no, he really doesn't understand the game's mechanics that well.

Ahh, I think I see the communication problem we are having.

I believe that the fluff should match the crunch. If the fluff does not match the crunch, then it should be chanced to match the crunch, because the game mechanics is what makes the game what it is, otherwise we'd be RPing in free-form.

You believe the crunch should match the fluff, and if the crunch doesn't match the fluff, then the game mechanics needs to be altered to fit the fluff description.

Is this accurate from your perspective?

[rollforeigninit]

Also, the word 'barbarian' is a xenophobic insult, flat-out. Nobody would self-identify as one. It'd be like identifying as a 'jackass'. Nobody but a jackass does that, either.

I believe one guy did...... Conan

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I believe one guy did...... Conan

See also: The Horseclans series by Robert Adams. The Clans routinely self-identify as Barbaric, as the primary civilized culture defines the term. Then again, considering how corrupt, depraved, and morally bankrupt as the civilized culture in the series is, I'd probably embrace the term 'barbarian' as well.

[rollforeigninit]

It's entirely up to how much effort a given player/dm/group wants to put into making their fluff match their concept match the crunch. My current group is one veteran player & 3 newbies (2 of those are my kids.) They are all running fairly stock out-of-the-box characters. I know that those that would occupy the char-op board (if there was one) would shudder but my 9 year old LOVES her rogue (we're playing Pf). Sure, she could multiclass the hell out of things to get a better character but apparently if we all really optimized we would all be T1 casters anyways.

I believe that eventually, players evolve beyond the fluff & realize that some of it sets unreasonable standards (Paladin has been mentioned.) It's not WRONG to just play your fluff but eventually you will be better off making up your own.

On the other hand, I'm dead sick of seeing every melee build in the world starting with spirit lion Barb. If your backstory NEEDS 4 pages to make it work it MIGHT be a stretch. Fixing that prob is another thread worth of problem though.

[Philistine]

Yeah, but that's just a misapplication of fluff. Whipped cream is nice, but not on a steak. For fluff to be truly bad, it's gotta be awful no matter what you apply to it. Example: Kenders. As another example, most of (or at least a third of) ToM's fluff is generally considered to be pretty good, but got applied to utter dreck. I wouldn't say that's the fluff's bad in this case, but rather that whoever wrote the crunch should of been told that no, he really doesn't understand the game's mechanics that well.

Hmm. You appear to be judging fluff text solely on its literary value, whereas others are arguing that accuracy is at least as important (if not more so) to their determination of what represents "good" and "bad" fluff. I favor the latter position - it doesn't matter to me how well-written the fluff might be, if the fluff fails to accurately describe the class it's attached to (which after all is the whole reason the fluff was written in the first place) then it is Bad.

Of course, there's also a presumption there that WotC's class fluff is well-written. The really sad thing is that even ignoring the accuracy standard altogether, most WotC class fluff still isn't passable - it's either so broad as to be meaningless or so specific as to lock in every member of Class X as fundamentally the same character, and in virtually all cases it's a steaming pile of... hackneyed cliches.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

On the other hand, I'm dead sick of seeing every melee build in the world starting with spirit lion Barb. If your backstory NEEDS 4 pages to make it work it MIGHT be a stretch. Fixing that prob is another thread worth of problem though.

Not all of them do. Granted, it's the easiest method of obtaining Pounce, but by no means is it the only one. In fact, there's a post containing dozens of methods of obtaining Pounce, or at the least, instant or swift action movement.

It's the pounce which people need to make their melee builds viable. The vehicle and methodology varies.

[rollforeigninit]

Apologies, I overstated my point. I just despise that particular pick. It's an excuse to make an ubercharger. They can swap out the move for the pounce but they need to delay it a few levels. Just seems too easy to me.

[Flickerdart]

Apologies, I overstated my point. I just despise that particular pick. It's an excuse to make an ubercharger. They can swap out the move for the pounce but they need to delay it a few levels. Just seems too easy to me.
Usually they do wait a few levels - until 6th, you've only got one iterative attack.

[rollforeigninit]

I meant a few levels in Barb. Must be thinking slow tonight.

[Philistine]

On the other hand, I'm dead sick of seeing every melee build in the world starting with spirit lion Barb. If your backstory NEEDS 4 pages to make it work it MIGHT be a stretch. Fixing that prob is another thread worth of problem though.

See, this is where the refluffing part comes in. You don't need to explain how and why your character started life as a member of a barbarian tribe and later came to civilization, because a dip in the Barbarian class (which could be taken anytime) doesn't mean the character is - or ever was - an unshaven savage unacquainted with any civilized tongue. It simply represents the character's training in a style of fighting which combines mobility and offense.

[JadePhoenix]

What you've described is less "The fluff is bad" and more "The way they've tried to express the fluff in mechanical terms is a shambles", or down to just your opinion.

I agree completely. It's not the fluff that is bad, it's the fluff's connection to the crunch (or rather, how it's not exactly how Shneekey would have done it).

[TheGeckoKing]

Ahh, I think I see the communication problem we are having.

I believe that the fluff should match the crunch. If the fluff does not match the crunch, then it should be chanced to match the crunch, because the game mechanics is what makes the game what it is, otherwise we'd be RPing in free-form.

You believe the crunch should match the fluff, and if the crunch doesn't match the fluff, then the game mechanics needs to be altered to fit the fluff description.

Is this accurate from your perspective?

Pretty much, with the exception that I don't mind reapplying fluff (Truenaming fluff to a Power Word happy Wizard) if it fits to my satisfaction. That and I like homebrewing, so I'm always looking to adjust the crunch first. In the end, I'm a fussy perfectionist that likes their fluff to measure up to their crunch as accurately as possible, instead of a quick refluffing.


Hmm. You appear to be judging fluff text solely on its literary value, whereas others are arguing that accuracy is at least as important (if not more so) to their determination of what represents "good" and "bad" fluff. I favor the latter position - it doesn't matter to me how well-written the fluff might be, if the fluff fails to accurately describe the class it's attached to (which after all is the whole reason the fluff was written in the first place) then it is Bad.

Yeah, but there's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Use the fluff if it's good, and just light the crunch on fire by itself.


Of course, there's also a presumption there that WotC's class fluff is well-written. The really sad thing is that even ignoring the accuracy standard altogether, most WotC class fluff still isn't passable - it's either so broad as to be meaningless or so specific as to lock in every member of Class X as fundamentally the same character, and in virtually all cases it's a steaming pile of... hackneyed cliches.

I concede that WoTC's fluff is hit and miss, but it's not flat out unusable, just iffy. Except Kenders, MoI's obsession with blue and BoED. That stuff needs to die in a fire.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Apologies, I overstated my point. I just despise that particular pick. It's an excuse to make an ubercharger. They can swap out the move for the pounce but they need to delay it a few levels. Just seems too easy to me.

You only need Barbarian1 for pounce. If they take more, it's not just for pounce, there's something else they are doing.

Would you prefer Cloistered Cleric dip for Travel Devotion instead?

[Particle_Man]

I concede that WoTC's fluff is hit and miss, but it's not flat out unusable, just iffy. Except Kenders, MoI's obsession with blue and BoED. That stuff needs to die in a fire.

But, but, how could one hate my kender incarnate/risen martyr with vow of poverty and touch of golden ice? :smallbiggrin:

[ShneekeyTheLost]

But, but, how could one hate my kender incarnate/risen martyr with vow of poverty and touch of golden ice? :smallbiggrin:

How could a Kender make a Vow of Poverty, given their kleptomaniacal nature?

[Particle_Man]

Soulknife fluff implies it can actually affect anything, or that its class abilities actually have a use that cannot be duplicated by throwing WBL at the problem.

Truenamer fluff implies that you can warp reality. In actuality, they can't even affect a CR appropriate challenge until you hit 20.

The solution would be to fix the crunch, not to discard the fluff.

[Particle_Man]

How could a Kender make a Vow of Poverty, given their kleptomaniacal nature?

Same way a Satyr can make a Vow of Chastity - with great difficulty. Oh the roleplay drama as my kender wrestles hourly with her kleptomaniacal desires! :smallsmile:

[Flickerdart]

How could a Kender make a Vow of Poverty, given their kleptomaniacal nature?
Steal from the rich and give to the church?

[Darth Stabber]

As far dipping barbarian for pounce: non-ToB meleers kinda need it, I would be happy if it wasn't a neccessity (okay neccessity is a strong term, but some method of moving ant attacking is REQUIRED for them to perform to any standard worth noting). It's not just uberchargers that need it, grapplers who get improved grab, kung fu bears, kings of smack, totemists (who have their own methods in class of getting pounce, but why burn a bind on it when a barbarian dip is good for a number of reasons), and any number of other common non-ToB melee builds. There is already a huge problem with melee not having nice things, don't start taking the nice things they already have away. Besides having melee classes dip barbarian makes more sense than having them dip cleric for travel devotion, since priesthood is further away from a fighter than barbarian is, since barbarian doesn't neccessarily mean tribal warrior, just a method of combat involving passion and anger over the more collected and technical methodology of a fighter. If you want a good fluffy explanation, fighters need to get in touch with the wild side at some point in their career in order to attain certain abilities that the more regimented methods of fighting can't offer.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

The solution would be to fix the crunch, not to discard the fluff.

You see, this is where we disagree.

I'd fix the crunch for it to not suck, but I'd also fix the fluff to something I personally consider better written. Or I'd fix the crunch for it to not suck and ignore the fluff, substituting my own.

The thing is, fixing the crunch is what is called 'Homebrew'. Fixing the Fluff is what is called 'Character Creation'. At my table, the latter is more commonly accepted than the former.

[Particle_Man]

But that was not your specific critique given of the Soulknife of the Truenamer in your earlier post. If the fluff of the Soulknife implies it can affect something, then it already is in your opinion wrong because it diverges from the crunch, but you didn't give any other reason for not liking the Soulknife fluff in that earlier post. Same with the Truenamer "warp reality" fluff.

You seem to either be giving incomplete critiques or moving the goalposts.

[TheGeckoKing]

You see, this is where we disagree.

I'd fix the crunch for it to not suck, but I'd also fix the fluff to something I personally consider better written. Or I'd fix the crunch for it to not suck and ignore the fluff, substituting my own.

The thing is, fixing the crunch is what is called 'Homebrew'. Fixing the Fluff is what is called 'Character Creation'. At my table, the latter is more commonly accepted than the former.

Now, this is a point I disagree with. It's "Refluffing". You're still changing the game, or at least the part your character will actually "see".

[ShneekeyTheLost]

But that was not your specific critique given of the Soulknife of the Truenamer in your earlier post. If the fluff of the Soulknife implies it can affect something, then it already is in your opinion wrong because it diverges from the crunch, but you didn't give any other reason for not liking the Soulknife fluff in that earlier post. Same with the Truenamer "warp reality" fluff.

You seem to either be giving incomplete critiques or moving the goalposts.

My point is, and always has been, that fluff is more mutable than crunch, because if you change the game mechanics, you aren't playing the same game anymore.

I would change the mechanics of Truenamer and Soulknife because, as written, they suck. Not because they do or don't adhere to the fluff of the class.

The 'fluff' of Truenamer can very easily be used to describe a bog-standard Wizard. A bookish researcher who warps the very fabric of reality by uttering a word or two. For that matter, it fits Archivist as well. Or a Loremaster.

The problem is that it is so generic, it can be nearly universally applied to any character within the archetype, regardless of the build. But if you don't want that fluff to define your character, you have to change it to fit your character.

In other words, the archetypes which WoTC assumes people use when playing most classes aren't the archetypes I tend to use those classes to play.

[Darth Stabber]

Now, this is a point I disagree with. It's "Refluffing". You're still changing the game, or at least the part your character will actually "see".

1) Fluff has little effect on balance (read none). and I've never heard of fluff being overpowered, or inbalanced, just stupid.

2) Unless you are using a defined campaign setting to the letter? You are already refluffing, so it's not hard to edit class fluff while the hood is already open.

3) SRD had no fluff. This suggests that the fluff can be made up on the fly.

4) Most of the splatbooks offer adaptation suggestion, suggesting a mutability is intended.

[TheGeckoKing]

1) Fluff has little effect on balance (read none). and I've never heard of fluff being overpowered, or inbalanced, just stupid.

2) Unless you are using a defined campaign setting to the letter? You are already refluffing, so it's not hard to edit class fluff while the hood is already open.

3) SRD had no fluff. This suggests that the fluff can be made up on the fly.

4) Most of the splatbooks offer adaptation suggestion, suggesting a mutability is intended.

What I meant was not that refluffing is bad, but that it can't be assumed to be inherently part of or allowed in Character Creation. Sometimes, the DM wants to play in FR or Eberron.

[rollforeigninit]

You only need Barbarian1 for pounce. If they take more, it's not just for pounce, there's something else they are doing.

Would you prefer Cloistered Cleric dip for Travel Devotion instead?

We purposely discourage dipping in our campaigns altogether.

If we choose to ignore fluff altogether in favor of whatever mechanic we want to get there maybe a point based character build is a better way to go. Then people can get the advantages of whatever they want without having to worry about it.

[eggs]

Crunch is also mutable. It says so in the PHB. It also says so in half the adaptation sections (Psionic Abjurant Champion, Unarmed Swordsage, Arcane Swordsage, Divine Anima Mage, etc.).

Changing things is a part of character creation. All the things. Isolating one aspect of the game's mutability and saying it's aberrant is misleading.

[TheGeckoKing]

Crunch is also mutable. It says so in the PHB. It also says so in half the adaptation sections (Psionic Abjurant Champion, Unarmed Swordsage, Arcane Swordsage, Divine Anima Mage, etc.).

Changing things is a part of character creation. All the things. Isolating one aspect of the game's mutability and saying it's aberrant is misleading.

Yeah, but that's not part of character creation. That's asking the DM "Can I change mechanic X for Y?". Which if I say so, sounds a lot like homebrew.

[rollforeigninit]

Yeah, but that's not part of character creation. That's asking the DM "Can I change mechanic X for Y?". Which if I say so, sounds a lot like homebrew.

Which is great if the DM say it is. It may anger purists in the Playground but it's fine RAW. We can dither all night about it's impact, fairness, etc, but the DM is the arbiter of pretty much everything even if the PH says otherwise.

[eggs]

Yeah, but that's not part of character creation. That's asking the DM "Can I change mechanic X for Y?". Which if I say so, sounds a lot like homebrew.
Tagging the Truenamer fluff onto a Bard is asking the DM "Can I change descriptor X for Y?" - the answer isn't necessarily affirmative, especially if classes exist as in-game constructs.

Changing the crunch is homebrew. It is not necessarily acceptable, but neither is the changing the fluff. Both are assumptions of character creation.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Tagging the Truenamer fluff onto a Bard is asking the DM "Can I change descriptor X for Y?" - the answer isn't necessarily affirmative, especially if classes exist as in-game constructs.

Changing the crunch is homebrew. It is not necessarily acceptable, but neither is the changing the fluff. Both are assumptions of character creation.

I have never encountered a GM, in all my three decades of playing table-top RPG's, including attending multiple major conventions per year, be upset with me for changing fluff without telling them. Nor have I, in the two decades and change that I have GM'd table-top RPG's, ever had a problem with it.

By that same token, I have yet to meet a GM who did not frown heavily on changing game mechanics, and consider changing game mechanics without prior consent of the GM to be, at the very least, munchkining, and generally, outright cheating. As a GM, I am generally inclined to throw someone out of the game for doing so unless they at the very least present the rules changes to me and gain prior approval before incorporating it into their character.

So please, do go on about how fluff is as immutable as game mechanics. My experience says otherwise.

Which is why I maintain, and always will maintain, that character classes are merely the chassis by which you build your character to do what you want him to do, rather than the occupation to which your character must conform.

[Lord_Gareth]

See, I told you this would happen. I TOLD YOU, BRO! I TOLD YOU ABOUT THE OTHER THREAD BRO!

[Darth Stabber]

See, I told you this would happen. I TOLD YOU, BRO! I TOLD YOU ABOUT THE OTHER THREAD BRO!

Most of us did I'll wager, it's not exactly an unlikely outcome. But this is the internet, hashing out the same argument over and over again and acomplishing nothing is what it's all about.

[Elric VIII]

Most of us did I'll wager, it's not exactly an unlikely outcome. But this is the internet, hashing out the same argument over and over again and acomplishing nothing is what it's all about.

Exactly, and that's why I'm surprised that no on has mentioned the fact that the Monk's flavor mentions nothing about it being the best Wizard-killer ever. :smallcool:


As for me, I usually let the player define the fluff beforehand (and hold them to it). Although, that would mean the my players actually put some thought into their characters...

[prufock]

Except at times they do. Crack open any setting book and you'll see how they spend pages and pages talking about how people in this place usually dislike warlocks, how paladins are revered in that other place and how that other place around the corner has a bunch of druids.

This doesn't really contradict the original point. As I said, "class" can refer to a skill set. This indicates that people of a particular setting feel such a way about people with certain skill sets. These terms make just as much sense:

people in this place usually dislike (invokers)
(holy warriors) are revered in that other place
that other place around the corner has a bunch of (nature worshippers)

It says more about the fluff of the setting than the class.

[JadePhoenix]

This doesn't really contradict the original point. As I said, "class" can refer to a skill set. This indicates that people of a particular setting feel such a way about people with certain skill sets. These terms make just as much sense:

people in this place usually dislike (invokers)
(holy warriors) are revered in that other place
that other place around the corner has a bunch of (nature worshippers)

It says more about the fluff of the setting than the class.

Point me where does it say what a Paladin is. You can only point at the Paladin class description.

[Particle_Man]

I have never encountered a GM, in all my three decades of playing table-top RPG's, including attending multiple major conventions per year, be upset with me for changing fluff without telling them. Nor have I, in the two decades and change that I have GM'd table-top RPG's, ever had a problem with it.

I, as DM, officially object to Shneekey refluffing classes without telling me, and will not allow those refluffed classes in my campaigns. :smallsmile:

[The Troubadour]

I believe one guy did...... Conan

Actually, Conan identified himself as a cimmerian, when he bothered to do so at all. :-)

[Lord_Gareth]

I, as DM, officially object to Shneekey refluffing classes without telling me, and will not allow those refluffed classes in my campaigns. :smallsmile:

Well, it's a damn shame WotC does it all the time too. Must give you massive headaches. Or would you like to explain how the giant spider in Expedition to Undermountain managed to pick up fluff-as-written Barbarian levels when it was raised by Drow?

[JadePhoenix]

I, as DM, officially object to Shneekey refluffing classes without telling me, and will not allow those refluffed classes in my campaigns. :smallsmile:

I have a horror story to share.
I was DMing a long running campaign. My players were running away from a town, with the Scar (you know, from Races of Destiny?) on their heels. One of my players brought a friend along to play, without telling me that. I said I had no room for him, but my friend insisted, said the guy already had a character, so I said fine. I asked the guy what he was playing and he said "a cleric". So I thought "oh, good, they don't have one". He smiled and I thought having him was a good idea. Biggest mistake: I never checked his character sheet. We'd been waiting about 1 hour for my friend, so we already had our time cut short.
The game starts. My players meet the Cleric in the road. He agrees to accompany them, since he was going the same way. The players tell him about the Scar being after them, he says that's no problem and that he can hold his own in a fight.
The game progresses with the characters interacting between each other while they run away, they make camp and the following day they are attacked by the Scar. During the fight, the Cleric draws two handguns and starts shooting everyone. At first I was "what?! there are no handguns in my setting!" and he goes "oh, don't worry, they're refluffed hand crossbows". It made me quite mad, because he simply sneaked it past me, and now my setting had handguns. After the fight, the players asked him to heal them, and he said he had no spells. Turns out he was some Feat Rogue/Fighter hybrid. He called himself a Cleric "for flavor" (probably because of Equilibrium, but he knew that was not a D&D Cleric and never told me what he meant). He had no ranks in Knowledge (religion), even. I waited for the session to end and the I told him on private that I didn't like that, that he tricked me and that his character didn't match my game at all. His answer? "Why are you so upset about it? It's just fluff."

[Darth Stabber]

I have a horror story to share.
I was DMing a long running campaign. My players were running away from a town, with the Scar (you know, from Races of Destiny?) on their heels. One of my players brought a friend along to play, without telling me that. I said I had no room for him, but my friend insisted, said the guy already had a character, so I said fine. I asked the guy what he was playing and he said "a cleric". So I thought "oh, good, they don't have one". He smiled and I thought having him was a good idea. Biggest mistake: I never checked his character sheet. We'd been waiting about 1 hour for my friend, so we already had our time cut short.
The game starts. My players meet the Cleric in the road. He agrees to accompany them, since he was going the same way. The players tell him about the Scar being after them, he says that's no problem and that he can hold his own in a fight.
The game progresses with the characters interacting between each other while they run away, they make camp and the following day they are attacked by the Scar. During the fight, the Cleric draws two handguns and starts shooting everyone. At first I was "what?! there are no handguns in my setting!" and he goes "oh, don't worry, they're refluffed hand crossbows". It made me quite mad, because he simply sneaked it past me, and now my setting had handguns. After the fight, the players asked him to heal them, and he said he had no spells. Turns out he was some Feat Rogue/Fighter hybrid. He called himself a Cleric "for flavor" (probably because of Equilibrium, but he knew that was not a D&D Cleric and never told me what he meant). He had no ranks in Knowledge (religion), even. I waited for the session to end and the I told him on private that I didn't like that, that he tricked me and that his character didn't match my game at all. His answer? "Why are you so upset about it? It's just fluff."

A) this kid is a jerk, and your friend os a jerk for bringing him.
B)it's your fault, you caved and allowed him in, without inspection no less.
C)it's also your fault for allowing the handcross bows to stay handguns, and not fixing it on the spot with a firm banhammer.
D)GM is the guy with the power, but that involves preparation and usuing your stupendous power to prevent things that stupid, even if sourgrapes some folks.

[nyarlathotep]

Fluff is mutable but as the DM has final say in a world he can ban certain fluff just as much as he can ban crunch. IF the world has no eastern cultures I'm not going to be playing a samurai who wields a katana and serves an isolationist lord no matter what class I use. Conversely if I for some reason wanted to play a duelist who specialized in demoralizing his foes and fought with a bastard sword and short sword then I could very well use the samurai class. That also being said I am behold to the DM to explain this and show him my mechanics because, now listen very close on this point because it's hard to grasp, the DM is a referee and if he doesn't look over your seat and understand your mechanics he's not doing his job.

[JadePhoenix]

A) this kid is a jerk, and your friend os a jerk for bringing him.
B)it's your fault, you caved and allowed him in, without inspection no less.
C)it's also your fault for allowing the handcross bows to stay handguns, and not fixing it on the spot with a firm banhammer.
D)GM is the guy with the power, but that involves preparation and usuing your stupendous power to prevent things that stupid, even if sourgrapes some folks.

I'm not saying it wasn't my fault. I'm saying changing fluff without telling anyone else (like Shneekey says he does) about it is not always a good idea.


The solution would be to fix the crunch, not to discard the fluff.

In fact, that's what the Pathfinder Soulknife did.

[Particle_Man]

I have never encountered a GM, in all my three decades of playing table-top RPG's, including attending multiple major conventions per year, be upset with me for changing fluff without telling them.


A) this kid is a jerk, and your friend os a jerk for bringing him.
B)it's your fault, you caved and allowed him in, without inspection no less.



The DM is a referee and if he doesn't look over your seat and understand your mechanics he's not doing his job.

So I take it that Darth Stabber and nyarlathotep are also on board with not allowing SneekeyTheLost to bring a character to the table with altered fluff without telling the DM? :smallsmile:

[Lord_Gareth]

So I take it that Darth Stabber and nyarlathotep are also on board with not allowing SneekeyTheLost to bring a character to the table with altered fluff without telling the DM? :smallsmile:

Hey, guess what? Fluff isn't normally on your character sheet. The DM here failed to inspect the character's mechanics and they thusly had an effect on the game that the DM didn't appreciate. She also didn't ask any questions about the character or his fluff either.

Also, I have a previous point (you might've missed it - it's near the bottom of the last page) about how even WotC refluffs. Might wanna look at it.

[Particle_Man]

I will the moment one of my players wants to play a barbarian spider raised by drow. :smallcool:

Also, Wotc not always being consistent with fluff does not mean "all fluff should be thrown out". Wotc is also not always consistent with crunch.

[nyarlathotep]

The telling him part is less about the DM being okay with your refluffing than the DM being okay with your fluff at all. If you DM is not cool with guns then it doesn't matter if you started with the gunslinger class, the ranger class, or the fighter class, and it also doesn't matter if your weapons stats are for handcrossbows, pistols, or catapults sized down to medium, you still can't have them. You share fluff with the DM so he can see how and if your fluff can fit into the campaign setting he made. You show him your mechanics so he can make sure you're about on the same power level as the rest of the party and to make sure nothing is wrong (you forgot a houserule, missheard starting level, cheated, etc).

The DM should only step in and say no if the fluff and crunch are really far apart. The DM has to clear your fluff and crunch individually and it is up to the player to explain how they meet up. If that means a guy whose sheet says barbarian means that he's a Scotsman in London who gets really surly when drunk so be it.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I have a horror story to share.
I was DMing a long running campaign. My players were running away from a town, with the Scar (you know, from Races of Destiny?) on their heels. One of my players brought a friend along to play, without telling me that. I said I had no room for him, but my friend insisted, said the guy already had a character, so I said fine. I asked the guy what he was playing and he said "a cleric". So I thought "oh, good, they don't have one". He smiled and I thought having him was a good idea. Biggest mistake: I never checked his character sheet. We'd been waiting about 1 hour for my friend, so we already had our time cut short.
The game starts. My players meet the Cleric in the road. He agrees to accompany them, since he was going the same way. The players tell him about the Scar being after them, he says that's no problem and that he can hold his own in a fight.
The game progresses with the characters interacting between each other while they run away, they make camp and the following day they are attacked by the Scar. During the fight, the Cleric draws two handguns and starts shooting everyone. At first I was "what?! there are no handguns in my setting!" and he goes "oh, don't worry, they're refluffed hand crossbows". It made me quite mad, because he simply sneaked it past me, and now my setting had handguns. After the fight, the players asked him to heal them, and he said he had no spells. Turns out he was some Feat Rogue/Fighter hybrid. He called himself a Cleric "for flavor" (probably because of Equilibrium, but he knew that was not a D&D Cleric and never told me what he meant). He had no ranks in Knowledge (religion), even. I waited for the session to end and the I told him on private that I didn't like that, that he tricked me and that his character didn't match my game at all. His answer? "Why are you so upset about it? It's just fluff."

This isn't re-fluffing, except for the hand crossbows part, which I would have no problem with. People might look at him a bit funny when he calls his hand crossbows 'guns', but considering how lethal he probably is with them, no one is going to want to call him on it.

As far as the rest, it's all mechanics. So he's a damage dealer instead of an actual cleric. Congratulations, you no longer have to fear the party bending the Scar over without lube and ruining your campaign in two spells.

I'd have no problem with this. Some of the other players in the game might, when they realize their 'cleric' can't actually heal anyone, and considering the lack of mechanical viability of the character as described, probably won't survive the other party member's wrath at lying to them about his occupation.

I have no problem with refluffing like that. In character, however, the other characters might be more than a bit miffed that they picked up a mountebank with zero healing ability. And like I always tell my players, IC is IC, OOC is OOC, and as a GM, I never interfere with inter-party conflict, only take advantage of it.

I wouldn't have to do a thing, as the GM, about this. I'd let the other players handle it In Character.

[Philistine]

I have a horror story to share.
I was DMing a long running campaign. My players were running away from a town, with the Scar (you know, from Races of Destiny?) on their heels. One of my players brought a friend along to play, without telling me that. I said I had no room for him, but my friend insisted, said the guy already had a character, so I said fine. I asked the guy what he was playing and he said "a cleric". So I thought "oh, good, they don't have one". He smiled and I thought having him was a good idea. Biggest mistake: I never checked his character sheet. We'd been waiting about 1 hour for my friend, so we already had our time cut short.
The game starts. My players meet the Cleric in the road. He agrees to accompany them, since he was going the same way. The players tell him about the Scar being after them, he says that's no problem and that he can hold his own in a fight.
The game progresses with the characters interacting between each other while they run away, they make camp and the following day they are attacked by the Scar. During the fight, the Cleric draws two handguns and starts shooting everyone. At first I was "what?! there are no handguns in my setting!" and he goes "oh, don't worry, they're refluffed hand crossbows". It made me quite mad, because he simply sneaked it past me, and now my setting had handguns. After the fight, the players asked him to heal them, and he said he had no spells. Turns out he was some Feat Rogue/Fighter hybrid. He called himself a Cleric "for flavor" (probably because of Equilibrium, but he knew that was not a D&D Cleric and never told me what he meant). He had no ranks in Knowledge (religion), even. I waited for the session to end and the I told him on private that I didn't like that, that he tricked me and that his character didn't match my game at all. His answer? "Why are you so upset about it? It's just fluff."
Here's a different perspective: you were not the victim here. If you as the DM are going to demand that your players conform to very specific fluff, then it is your responsibility to communicate said fluff to them before play begins - and certainly before you accuse them of "tricking you" if they fail to jump through hoops that you didn't even tell them about!

As for the specific problems you've complained about, one should have been an easy fix and the other was only a problem because you made it one. I even agree that guns are a poor fit in a pre-gunpowder setting - but all you had to do was say, "There are no guns in this setting; this might or might not be critical to the plot at some point. Hand crossbows are fine as hand crossbows, though." If the player can't accept that, then the issue is a disruptive player, not re-fluffing. The cleric confusion, OTOH, was a matter of you tricking yourself - you could just as well have found yourself in the same boat if his character had been a PHB Cleric (especially one who explicitly told the party he could look after himself in a fight). A Negative Energy-channelling Cleric with no healing spells prepared would have been similarly useless for patching up the party's wounds after a fight. Nor are ranks in Knowledge(Religion) a determinant: sure it's one of the few class skills PHB Clerics get, but PHB Clerics also get very few base skill points, and have little reason to take high Int. The real problem is that you heard "healbot" when someone said "cleric"... and whose fault is that?

[Darth Stabber]

So I take it that Darth Stabber and nyarlathotep are also on board with not allowing SneekeyTheLost to bring a character to the table with altered fluff without telling the DM? :smallsmile:

I stated that all character sheets should be reviewed by the GM before play begins, nothing more. Now on order to maintain a certain level of atmosphere I do reserve the right to bat down fluff changes, but I can verify a fluff change much easier than a mechanical one. I expect something mideval, maybe late rennaisance, and that includes muzzle loading matchlock weapons, but nothing beyond that (and even with those on the table no one takes them due to the one multiple action reload.), and if your character doesn't fit that pretty broad frame (or earlier), time to try a new concept.

[Taelas]

Changing fluff without telling the DM is far, far, far more "OK" than changing mechanics without telling the DM. Period.

That being said, you need to inform the DM of any changes you make to fluff, to see if it has any impacts on the setting.

Fluff is most definitely mutable. Character classes are metagame constructs. They can have a presence in-game (for example, many prestige classes mentions orders or guilds to which they belong), but that does not actually have to have mechanical effects. That all depends on the setting.

[Fatebreaker]

Of course classes are just a chassis. If classes were an occupation, then all D&D classes would be the the peripatetic kleptomaniac murderer class.

Seriously, though, they're just a chassis. There are all sorts of character concepts which are awesome concepts, but aren't well served by the mechanics of a class-based system.

The most important thing in your game is for you and your fellow players to have fun. It's why you're playing the game. Which is the better solution:

Playing a character whose fluff doesn't match their mechanics? Or a character whose mechanics don't match their fluff?

(hint: they're both the same thing)

If you have an awesome concept, but no class serves it, you have a break between fluff and mechanics. If you have an awesome class, and your concept doesn't match it, you also have a break between fluff and mechanics.

So rather than insist that because your player came from a monastery, they have to be a monk instead of a wizard, let your players play the character they want to play. They will enjoy it far more.


I have a horror story to share.
I was DMing a long running campaign. My players were running away from a town, with the Scar (you know, from Races of Destiny?) on their heels. One of my players brought a friend along to play, without telling me that. I said I had no room for him, but my friend insisted, said the guy already had a character, so I said fine. I asked the guy what he was playing and he said "a cleric". So I thought "oh, good, they don't have one". He smiled and I thought having him was a good idea. Biggest mistake: I never checked his character sheet. We'd been waiting about 1 hour for my friend, so we already had our time cut short.
The game starts. My players meet the Cleric in the road. He agrees to accompany them, since he was going the same way. The players tell him about the Scar being after them, he says that's no problem and that he can hold his own in a fight.
The game progresses with the characters interacting between each other while they run away, they make camp and the following day they are attacked by the Scar. During the fight, the Cleric draws two handguns and starts shooting everyone. At first I was "what?! there are no handguns in my setting!" and he goes "oh, don't worry, they're refluffed hand crossbows". It made me quite mad, because he simply sneaked it past me, and now my setting had handguns. After the fight, the players asked him to heal them, and he said he had no spells. Turns out he was some Feat Rogue/Fighter hybrid. He called himself a Cleric "for flavor" (probably because of Equilibrium, but he knew that was not a D&D Cleric and never told me what he meant). He had no ranks in Knowledge (religion), even. I waited for the session to end and the I told him on private that I didn't like that, that he tricked me and that his character didn't match my game at all. His answer? "Why are you so upset about it? It's just fluff."

Yeah, this one's on you. As the arbiter of your game, you have control over what is or isn't true within your game world. The most cursory review of his character sheet would have revealed that he wasn't anything at all like what he pretended to be; even a "tell me about your character" would have worked.

Communication is the most important thing which a gaming group can do with one another to improve the quality of their game. It helps prevent situations like this one.

[JadePhoenix]

She also didn't ask any questions about the character or his fluff either.
I asked what he was playing and he said "a cleric". If he wanted me to know what he meant, he would have said "a gunslinger" or "a cleric, like those from Equilibrium". When you're playing D&D and you tell me you're playing a cleric when I ask what you're playing, I expect it to be the D&D Cleric. Is that wrong somehow?


The telling him part is less about the DM being okay with your refluffing than the DM being okay with your fluff at all.

I agree completely. That's why changing fluff without telling your DM is a bad thing, because your DM should know about your fluff beforehand.


This isn't re-fluffing, except for the hand crossbows part, which I would have no problem with. People might look at him a bit funny when he calls his hand crossbows 'guns', but considering how lethal he probably is with them, no one is going to want to call him on it.
That is the thing, they were not hand crossbows, they were gunpowder guns. They were written as such in his character sheet, he described shooting them as guns and all. And he sneaked it by me.


As far as the rest, it's all mechanics. So he's a damage dealer instead of an actual cleric. Congratulations, you no longer have to fear the party bending the Scar over without lube and ruining your campaign in two spells.
That's not the point. This guys introduced himself as a cleric, as if cleric meant "those guys that now gunkata". When the upset players asked him what was going on, he just said "haven't you watched equilibrium?" (god, I have that movie just because of this guy) with a smug smile on his face.
I don't mean to say refluffing is bad - this guy is a jerk, period. He simply wanted to disturb my game or whatever. The fact is that he did it by sneaking refluffed stuff under my nose.


I'd have no problem with this. Some of the other players in the game might, when they realize their 'cleric' can't actually heal anyone, and considering the lack of mechanical viability of the character as described, probably won't survive the other party member's wrath at lying to them about his occupation.
So someone lies to you and then you kill them? Why? :smallconfused:
My players just decided not to travel with him anymore. Noticing he was unwanted, the guy finally left.


I have no problem with refluffing like that.
So you wouldn't mind a Samurai Ninja Cat in your Ravenloft game, or a Twilight vampire in your gritty zombie apocalipse campaign, or a D&D Wizard in your Song of Ice and Fire game. :smallamused:

In character, however, the other characters might be more than a bit miffed that they picked up a mountebank with zero healing ability. And like I always tell my players, IC is IC, OOC is OOC, and as a GM, I never interfere with inter-party conflict, only take advantage of it.
...and so what?


I wouldn't have to do a thing, as the GM, about this. I'd let the other players handle it In Character.
Man, I'd hate being a player in your games, then.


Here's a different perspective: you were not the victim here. If you as the DM are going to demand that your players conform to very specific fluff, then it is your responsibility to communicate said fluff to them before play begins - and certainly before you accuse them of "tricking you" if they fail to jump through hoops that you didn't even tell them about!
What...? "Standard D&D" is very specific fluff since when? :smallconfused:
Clerics are gunslingers as default since when? :smallconfused:



As for the specific problems you've complained about, one should have been an easy fix and the other was only a problem because you made it one. I even agree that guns are a poor fit in a pre-gunpowder setting - but all you had to do was say, "There are no guns in this setting; this might or might not be critical to the plot at some point. Hand crossbows are fine as hand crossbows, though." If the player can't accept that, then the issue is a disruptive player, not re-fluffing.
That's exactly what I did. I never said refluffing was the problem. I said refluffing without telling the DM was the problem.


The cleric confusion, OTOH, was a matter of you tricking yourself - you could just as well have found yourself in the same boat if his character had been a PHB Cleric (especially one who explicitly told the party he could look after himself in a fight). A Negative Energy-channelling Cleric with no healing spells prepared would have been similarly useless for patching up the party's wounds after a fight. Nor are ranks in Knowledge(Religion) a determinant: sure it's one of the few class skills PHB Clerics get, but PHB Clerics also get very few base skill points, and have little reason to take high Int. The real problem is that you heard "healbot" when someone said "cleric"... and whose fault is that?
You didn't understand. My point is that a cleric in D&D (that is, a wandering priest of some religion) is supposed to be able to cast divine spells or at least know something about the gods. This character was supposed to be a cleric, but had neither divine spells nor knowledge about the gods. He was very good with guns, that's all. He knew he wasn't the cleric we were expecting and pulled a jerk move on us (probably because he imagined no one would say "no" to having a cleric in a cleric-less party).
Again, I'm not against refluffing. I'm just against refluffing without telling your DM beforehand. Shooting something down during the game is disruptive and stopping the game to check a player's character sheet breaks immersion.
This situation arose because of one mistake I did - I trusted this guy way too much. He said "cleric" and never even asked which god he served or anything, because I was in a hurry. If he wanted to be honest, the moment people said "wow, a cleric, finally we have one" he should have said "I'm not that kind of cleric" or something. He didn't.



Communication is the most important thing which a gaming group can do with one another to improve the quality of their game. It helps prevent situations like this one.
I agree completely. Which is why not telling your DM you're refluffing something is a bad thing.

[Flickerdart]

A cleric of the cleric class might have no ranks in Knowledge Religion, and never cast a single spell, preferring to solve disputes through negotiations or old-fasioned mace to the face. Does that make him any less of a cleric, just because he doesn't fit your narrow conception of what a cleric must absolutely be?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I asked what he was playing and he said "a cleric". If he wanted me to know what he meant, he would have said "a gunslinger" or "a cleric, like those from Equilibrium". When you're playing D&D and you tell me you're playing a cleric when I ask what you're playing, I expect it to be the D&D Cleric. Is that wrong somehow?You never asked him to elaborate, and I don't see the problem in him wanting to play a ranged damage dealer and call himself a 'cleric'.


That is the thing, they were not hand crossbows, they were gunpowder guns. They were written as such in his character sheet, he described shooting them as guns and all. And he sneaked it by me.Then that's not a fluff change, that's a mechanics change. Tell him to go by the book or go home.


That's not the point. This guys introduced himself as a cleric, as if cleric meant "those guys that now gunkata". When the upset players asked him what was going on, he just said "haven't you watched equilibrium?" (god, I have that movie just because of this guy) with a smug smile on his face.
I don't mean to say refluffing is bad - this guy is a jerk, period. He simply wanted to disturb my game or whatever. The fact is that he did it by sneaking refluffed stuff under my nose.He's a smug jerk, but I still don't see what the problem is. He's playing a mechanically inept ranged damage dealer.


So someone lies to you and then you kill them? Why? :smallconfused:
My players just decided not to travel with him anymore. Noticing he was unwanted, the guy finally left.These are adventurers you're talking about. When was the last time your PC's left anyone alive who deliberately misled them?


So you wouldn't mind a Samurai Ninja Cat in your Ravenloft game, or a Twilight vampire in your gritty zombie apocalipse campaign, or a D&D Wizard in your Song of Ice and Fire game. :smallamused:

Samurai Ninja Cat in my Ravenloft game? Wouldn't last long, but I wouldn't mind.

"Sorry, vampire is a prohibited template in this game, and there are no templates which Vampires have access to that prevents their weakness to Sunlight". Besides, D&D is about the worst RPG to run a 'gritty zombie apocalypse' game.

"Sorry, wizards are a banned class in this game. In fact, all spellcasting classes are banned in this game." And yea, another setting in which D&D does exceedingly poor at.

I would object to the overpowered game mechanics, not to the fluff involved.


...and so what?


Man, I'd hate being a player in your games, then.Why, because I don't prevent interparty conflict when one PC's character blatantly lies to the rest of the party and gets caught at it?

Because there were consequences for his actions?

Please elaborate.


What...? "Standard D&D" is very specific fluff since when? :smallconfused:
Clerics are gunslingers as default since when? :smallconfused:Anything is 'default fluff' since when? :smallconfused:


You didn't understand. My point is that a cleric in D&D (that is, a wandering priest of some religion) is supposed to be able to cast divine spells or at least know something about the gods. This character was supposed to be a cleric, but had neither divine spells nor knowledge about the gods. He was very good with guns, that's all. He knew he wasn't the cleric we were expecting and pulled a jerk move on us (probably because he imagined no one would say "no" to having a cleric in a cleric-less party).
Again, I'm not against refluffing. I'm just against refluffing without telling your DM beforehand. Shooting something down during the game is disruptive and stopping the game to check a player's character sheet breaks immersion.
This situation arose because of one mistake I did - I trusted this guy way too much. He said "cleric" and never even asked which god he served or anything, because I was in a hurry. If he wanted to be honest, the moment people said "wow, a cleric, finally we have one" he should have said "I'm not that kind of cleric" or something. He didn't.

I respectfully disagree with most of this.

There are no mandatory classes. It isn't a prerequisite to have a cleric in the party in order for there to be a game. Quite bluntly, I don't really care what classes people play, as long as the class isn't on the ban list, or what they want their characters to be.

I've literally run a game where one was a 'Jedi' (MoI Incarnate), one was a 'Pirate' (Bard), one was a 'Ninja' (Swordsage), and one was a sentient golem named Alphonse (Warforged Warlock, using his SLA's as 'Alchemy'). In a Wild West setting. Each character had a multi-page background describing the character's background and how he got to the campaign setting and starting point.

The game was an absolute blast.

[Particle_Man]

I'm with Jadephoenix on this one, to the point where I would have booted him from the table and/or had "gods" kill his character instantly. But that is just me. :smallsmile:

I think this is partly a DM empowerment vs. player empowerment issue. If the DM has a certain setting (homebrewed or bought) in mind, then certain character concepts will not fit that setting, just as much as certain crunchy things will not fit that setting. So the DM might just say "IMC I like the fluff associated with this class and will treat it like an occupation, not a chassis. Thus, no dipping into it and you can't automatically even take it unless you convince me that you know about this organization that is the only on that teaches the methods that make up the crunch of this class". This might well shock the players that are used to optimizing their characters by looking in 12 rulebooks for various class combinations, I know, but there are DMs out there like that. This again speaks to it being a 3.x thing, which is a lot more player empowered than previous editions (in fact, in 1st ed (where classes were occupations/professions), it is pretty much stated in the final part of the DMG that the DM is the final arbiter and referee and the players are secondary to the DM's campaign milieu).

And frankly all this talk of "corner case" clerics that don't know anything about religion and can't cast spells is so much internet hot air. You all know what clerics actually do at the table. We see tons of descriptions of cleric spells like "divine power" and stuff like that, in various internet descriptions of the 3.x cleric, cleric's handbooks, etc. Gunslinger is not on the list of any of those descriptions. The player in question was lying.

[Venusaur]

I'm with Jadephoenix on this one, to the point where I would have booted him from the table and/or had "gods" kill his character instantly. But that is just me. :smallsmile:

I think this is partly a DM empowerment vs. player empowerment issue. If the DM has a certain setting (homebrewed or bought) in mind, then certain character concepts will not fit that setting, just as much as certain crunchy things will not fit that setting. So the DM might just say "IMC I like the fluff associated with this class and will treat it like an occupation, not a chassis. Thus, no dipping into it and you can't automatically even take it unless you convince me that you know about this organization that is the only on that teaches the methods that make up the crunch of this class". This might well shock the players that are used to optimizing their characters by looking in 12 rulebooks for various class combinations, I know, but there are DMs out there like that. This again speaks to it being a 3.x thing, which is a lot more player empowered than previous editions (in fact, in 1st ed (where classes were occupations/professions), it is pretty much stated in the final part of the DMG that the DM is the final arbiter and referee and the players are secondary to the DM's campaign milieu).

And frankly all this talk of "corner case" clerics that don't know anything about religion and can't cast spells is so much internet hot air. You all know what clerics actually do at the table. We see tons of descriptions of cleric spells like "divine power" and stuff like that, in various internet descriptions of the 3.x cleric, cleric's handbooks, etc. Gunslinger is not on the list of any of those descriptions. The player in question was lying.

So? Unless you have a rule against lying to the party, then there shouldn't be a problem. If his character considered himself cleric, there is nothing stopping him from calling himself a cleric. Plus, just because a jerk did it should not prevent me from playing a warblade that is not a gloryhound, or a rogue who is a diplomat, not a thief.

[Fatebreaker]

I'm with Jadephoenix on this one, to the point where I would have booted him from the table and/or had "gods" kill his character instantly. But that is just me. :smallsmile:

I would not have allowed handguns into a handgun-free game. But I would have asked at least, "tell me about your character," which would rapidly have revealed that JadePhoenix's concept of "cleric" and Handcrossgunbow-guy's concept of "cleric" were two very different things. The player would certainly not have made it into the game without coming into line with the setting.


So the DM might just say "IMC I like the fluff associated with this class and will treat it like an occupation, not a chassis. Thus, no dipping into it and you can't automatically even take it unless you convince me that you know about this organization that is the only on that teaches the methods that make up the crunch of this class". This might well shock the players that are used to optimizing their characters by looking in 12 rulebooks for various class combinations, I know, but there are DMs out there like that.

That might also shock the folks out there who want to roleplay a concept outside the limited scope of the class description.


And frankly all this talk of "corner case" clerics that don't know anything about religion and can't cast spells is so much internet hot air. You all know what clerics actually do at the table. We see tons of descriptions of cleric spells like "divine power" and stuff like that, in various internet descriptions of the 3.x cleric, cleric's handbooks, etc. Gunslinger is not on the list of any of those descriptions. The player in question was lying.

When you say "cleric," I see this (http://www.google.com/imgres?q=space+marine+chaplain&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=fd3&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1346&bih=925&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=N-X_0KssIC5CNM:&imgrefurl=http://chaos-space-marines.blogspot.com/2011/02/black-templar-update.html&docid=y8cJsHa2qZQcVM&imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_1CdIK9Dvf6E/TU9Yg9lsNRI/AAAAAAAABpQ/4L6BbzXUbPw/s1600/Black_templar_chaplain_by_LordHannu.jpg&w=1137&h=1024&ei=nu-RT93cFYXx6QGwu821BA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=940&vpy=73&dur=81&hovh=213&hovw=237&tx=134&ty=131&sig=111756406986641202604&page=1&tbnh=157&tbnw=174&start=0&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0,i:104).

Handcrossgunbow-guy might very well be smug, arrogant, deceptive, and all that jazz. But if he was trying to deceive, it sounds like he didn't even had to try at all.

This is an example of bad communication.

[JadePhoenix]

You never asked him to elaborate, and I don't see the problem in him wanting to play a ranged damage dealer and call himself a 'cleric'.
I asked him 'what you're going to play'. Now you're stretching.


Then that's not a fluff change, that's a mechanics change. Tell him to go by the book or go home.
It's a fluff change. Damage, reload and range were according to hand crossbows. The only problem is that it was fluff I didn't want in my setting.


He's a smug jerk, but I still don't see what the problem is. He's playing a mechanically inept ranged damage dealer.
I'm not saying he broke the game. I'm saying his fluff didn't match my game and that he sneaked it past me.


These are adventurers you're talking about. When was the last time your PC's left anyone alive who deliberately misled them?
Uh... last week? My players don't kill people for little to no reason.



Samurai Ninja Cat in my Ravenloft game? Wouldn't last long, but I wouldn't mind.
I'm guessing you don't know what a samurai ninja cat is.


"Sorry, vampire is a prohibited template in this game, and there are no templates which Vampires have access to that prevents their weakness to Sunlight". Besides, D&D is about the worst RPG to run a 'gritty zombie apocalypse' game.
I never said it was in a D&D game. And who said the twilight vampire needs a template? He could be a refluffed maenad psychic warrior, the thing is that a sparkling vampire does not fit the game's fluff.


"Sorry, wizards are a banned class in this game. In fact, all spellcasting classes are banned in this game." And yea, another setting in which D&D does exceedingly poor at.
Again, this is my point. When you say 'cleric' and I don't think of 'gunslinger', it's hardly my fault. Someone sneaking a gunslinger past me (due to refluffing without letting me know about it) is a spellcaster in Westeros.


I would object to the overpowered game mechanics, not to the fluff involved.
Then you're a lot more permissive around fluff than I am. I don't want sparkling vampires in my gritty zombie survival games or anime characters in my Ravenloft or Elminster in my Westeros. What you're saying is that I'm wrong to want so and I completely disagree with you.


Why, because I don't prevent interparty conflict when one PC's character blatantly lies to the rest of the party and gets caught at it?
Because there were consequences for his actions?

Please elaborate.

No, because you allow wildly conflicting fluff that makes no sense together.



Anything is 'default fluff' since when? :smallconfused:
Since D&D was published, of course. It's called refluffing for a reason, isn't it?




There are no mandatory classes. It isn't a prerequisite to have a cleric in the party in order for there to be a game. Quite bluntly, I don't really care what classes people play, as long as the class isn't on the ban list, or what they want their characters to be.
I never said it was. What I said is that most parties would welcome a cleric, because they heal and are good support characters.


I've literally run a game where one was a 'Jedi' (MoI Incarnate), one was a 'Pirate' (Bard), one was a 'Ninja' (Swordsage), and one was a sentient golem named Alphonse (Warforged Warlock, using his SLA's as 'Alchemy'). In a Wild West setting. Each character had a multi-page background describing the character's background and how he got to the campaign setting and starting point.

The game was an absolute blast.

I'm glad you had fun on such a game. I'm just saying on my games I don't want that kind of wacky hijinks and I don't think I'm wrong about it. Some people like playing vanilla fantasy. Is that a crime? :smallconfused:
Also, it's quite easy to have a 'multi-page background' for a well-known character (http://fma.wikia.com/wiki/Alphonse_Elric). You don't exactly have to write it...
Not that I care for multi-page backgrounds anyway. Feels like a waste of time. There is an often quoted (and slightly mysoginistic) phrase about backgrounds and skirts around the playground, I seem to agree.


So? Unless you have a rule against lying to the party, then there shouldn't be a problem. If his character considered himself cleric, there is nothing stopping him from calling himself a cleric. Plus, just because a jerk did it should not prevent me from playing a warblade that is not a gloryhound, or a rogue who is a diplomat, not a thief.

The problem is not refluffing or lying to the party, it's lying to the DM.
i've lost count of how many times I had to say this.


I would not have allowed handguns into a handgun-free game. But I would have asked at least, "tell me about your character," which would rapidly have revealed that JadePhoenix's concept of "cleric" and Handcrossgunbow-guy's concept of "cleric" were two very different things. The player would certainly not have made it into the game without coming into line with the setting.
I asked what he was playing. Among D&D players, "cleric" has a very well known meaning. Again, this is only an argument against refluffing and not telling the DM, because your fluff might not fit the DM's setting.

[Dsurion]

That might also shock the folks out there who want to roleplay a concept outside the limited scope of the class description.Eh, honestly, if you're going that far to take liberties with what's described, you'd be better served playing in a system that allows you to just create said character anyway.

[Fatebreaker]

Eh, honestly, if you're going that far to take liberties with what's described, you'd be better served playing in a system that allows you to just create said character anyway.

Preach the word, brother-man.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I asked him 'what you're going to play'. Now you're stretching.


It's a fluff change. Damage, reload and range were according to hand crossbows. The only problem is that it was fluff I didn't want in my setting.Well, that's your choice as a GM, but I wouldn't have a problem with it, as long as it was mechanically identical.


I'm not saying he broke the game. I'm saying his fluff didn't match my game and that he sneaked it past me.You're accusing him of 'sneaking' it past you, 'lying' to you, and all sorts of epitaths I think may be at least partially unearned. You never asked him to elaborate on his character concept.

I could easily make a D&D 3.5 Cleric who does none of the things you'd expect. He would spontaneously cast Inflict spells, be a bog-standard Clericzilla, and have zero ranks in Knowledge (Religion). He would be a better tank than the tank in your game would be, harder to kill, and still not put out one ounce of healing.

Would this mean I was lying when I called him a 'Cleric'? It's using the Cleric base class, after all. It's even using the proper fluff of a Cleric of either Wee-Jas or possibly even Klangadin, depending on race and combat style.


Uh... last week? My players don't kill people for little to no reason.You must play with very different people than I do. My players tend to express their displeasure to people in very simple terms...

"I have studied for three hundred forty two years, six months, and twelve days in the knowledge of the arcane arts. I can personally guarantee you that whatever the worst, most horrible and painful death you can imagine will be but a passing fancy compared to what I am capable of doing. You deliberately misled me. I congratulate you on the attempt, it worked far better than most. For this reason, I will give you two choices: Either tell me precisely what I need to know, as honestly and completely as possible, or I shall begin by casting a spell which prevents your death under any circumstances, then begin disemboweling you. I will use magic to augment the pain to such levels as you have never before imagined could exist. And I will take it as a personal insult if I cannot keep you in such agony for a period of at least six months.

You have ten seconds to reply, otherwise the default choice is option B. Starting... now."

And that's when he's being polite.


I'm guessing you don't know what a samurai ninja cat is.I'm guessing you don't know how I run my games.


I never said it was in a D&D game. And who said the twilight vampire needs a template? He could be a refluffed maenad psychic warrior, the thing is that a sparkling vampire does not fit the game's fluff. I think we have different definitions of what a GM's role in the game is.

In my book, the GM sets the stage, and provides a venue for the player's entertainment. The players take the setting, and run with it, and have fun.

That is the point of playing a game, isn't it? To have fun?


Again, this is my point. When you say 'cleric' and I don't think of 'gunslinger', it's hardly my fault. Someone sneaking a gunslinger past me (due to refluffing without letting me know about it) is a spellcaster in Westeros.Ummm... actually, wasn't the gnomish deity of clockwork's favored weapon some kind of flintlock?

And again, you're accusing him of sneaking something past you when you never bothered looking at his character sheet, or you'd have seen it. If you have a problem with refluffing, you should've looked more carefully.


Then you're a lot more permissive around fluff than I am. I don't want sparkling vampires in my gritty zombie survival games or anime characters in my Ravenloft or Elminster in my Westeros. What you're saying is that I'm wrong to want so and I completely disagree with you.Precisely where did I say you were wrong? I merely said I wouldn't have a problem with it in a game I ran. Then too, I tend to avoid pre-published campaign settings since the authors tend to write poorly-edited rubbish which isn't worth the paper it is printed on.


No, because you allow wildly conflicting fluff that makes no sense together.Close. I allow wildly conflicting fluff that makes no sense together... then find a way to blend it into my campaign so that it CAN make sense together.


Since D&D was published, of course. It's called refluffing for a reason, isn't it?Really? I don't recall seeing anything in the PhB or DmG that demands that you use the fluff provided.


I never said it was. What I said is that most parties would welcome a cleric, because they heal and are good support characters.You haven't seen many clerics written on these boards, have you?


I'm glad you had fun on such a game. I'm just saying on my games I don't want that kind of wacky hijinks and I don't think I'm wrong about it. Some people like playing vanilla fantasy. Is that a crime? :smallconfused:
Also, it's quite easy to have a 'multi-page background' for a well-known character (http://fma.wikia.com/wiki/Alphonse_Elric). You don't exactly have to write it...
Not that I care for multi-page backgrounds anyway. Feels like a waste of time. There is an often quoted (and slightly mysoginistic) phrase about backgrounds and skirts around the playground, I seem to agree.Actually, that's where I was proud of him, because rather than sticking to 'canon' FMA, he decided to take his own tack with it.

Define 'vanilla fantasy'. Your definition and mine don't seem to coincide.


The problem is not refluffing or lying to the party, it's lying to the DM.
i've lost count of how many times I had to say this.


I asked what he was playing. Among D&D players, "cleric" has a very well known meaning. Again, this is only an argument against refluffing and not telling the DM, because your fluff might not fit the DM's setting.

You also didn't ask. He said 'cleric', you didn't ask him to elaborate. A 'cleric', even just using the D&D 3.5 Cleric class, can be the following:

* Large wrathful instrument of death, destruction, and havoc. ClericZilla of Kord with DMM: Persist Divine Power and Righteous Might, using buffs to boost his AC and attack rolls into the stratosphere, and layering on immunity buffs, generally also DMM: Persisted, to be able to shrug off just about anything. Never once heals.

* Cunning and conniving little bastard who can slip in and out unnoticed. Cleric of Ollidarma, using Trickery and Luck domains. Also never heals, but can take the place of the party Rogue with the Find Traps (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/findTraps.htm) spell.

* Blastomancer of Pelor, using the Domain Spontaneity variant which replaces spontaneously casting Cure spells with a single domain. He chooses the Fire domain. He can rain death and destruction on the unrighteous in the name of Pelor! Energy Substitution is used when opponents are immune to fire.

All three examples are straight Clerics using PhB 3.5 'default fluff' as you define it. None of them heal or act as support. Would you accuse me of lying if I played one in your game and called it a Cleric? What else would I call it, if not?

[Fatebreaker]

I asked him 'what you're going to play'. Now you're stretching.

As a friendly piece of advice, one DM to another, you might consider the limitations inherent in boiling down a character to a single word.


The problem is not refluffing or lying to the party, it's lying to the DM.
i've lost count of how many times I had to say this.


I asked what he was playing. Among D&D players, "cleric" has a very well known meaning. Again, this is only an argument against refluffing and not telling the DM, because your fluff might not fit the DM's setting.

Strictly speaking, the guy didn't lie to you. He used different terminology. Those are two very different things.

Now, he also used different terminology knowing that you would assume he meant something else, for the purpose of surprising everyone when he pulled out guns in a fantasy setting. That's a perfectly valid attitude to bar from your games, because it's disruptive and unsportsmanlike.

The point I'm making is that had you asked him to tell you about his character beyond "cleric," you would have been able to catch this ahead of time. This is a good opportunity to learn, because next time it might not be a guy who is deliberately out to bait-and-switch you. It could be a player who genuinely has a different definition or understanding or concept.

Philistine's negative-energy cleric who doesn't heal is a good example. ShneekeyTheLost provided three more. All are still D&D-clerics, but very different than the one you envisioned.

Ask questions. Seek clarity. Communicate with your players. These are virtues a DM should always practice.

If you don't, you have only yourself to blame when you're blindsided.

[prufock]

Point me where does it say what a Paladin is. You can only point at the Paladin class description.

Paladin class description. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm)
Paladin definition. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paladin)

[eggs]

I don't see why this is passing as an argument.

It's standard procedure to run characters by the DM ahead of time.

Sneaking in a character that deliberately ignores rules is obtrusive. So is sneaking a one-winged sparkly cyborg waiter character into the other players' sword and sorcery story. The problem in either case is not the crunch or fluff change, it's the sneaking.

I haven't played in a game where the DM would forbid the Sorcerer class from representing a faith-based jungle shaman in an appropriate setting. I also haven't played in a game where the DM would forbid that Sorcerer from swapping spell lists with the Druid, or trading Bluff, Know Arcana and Spellcraft for Handle Animal, Know Nature and Survival.

But both would be assumed to be run by the DM ahead of time - to check for narrative compatibility with the prior, and to explain just what was going on with the character build for the latter.

[Water_Bear]

With regards to the "Cleric" problem it's wrong to put the blame on the DM.

Yes, in a perfect world, the DM has time to look over every player's build. They would also immediately see any unauthorized homebrew or cheese, and the player would have been nice enough to put together a 2-4 paragraph description and backstory which would reveal any fluff issues. The DM would know every player well enough to be sure they weren't jerks, and have a good enough sense of people to tell when they were going to be disruptive beforehand.

But it isn't a perfect world.

In my experience, putting together a single session will consume hours of prep-work in terms of enemy stats, maps, and coming up with compelling social encounters or sidequests to pad out the game in between fights. Wrangling 4-8 adults and making sure they all show up on time is at least as much work, if not more so. And you don't always get to pick your players; in my experience they come in 2-3 person bunches and kicking out one means you lose all of them.

A DM usually has to rely on their players sense of fair play and honesty; it is trivially easy to slip things past even the most careful DMs if you don't have a problem disrupting the game. Blaming the DM here is cruel and nonsensical if you have any idea what that job actually entails.


In terms of the Chasis/Occupation debate, I think the fact is that there is a sharp mechanical limit to the amount of refluffing you can do before it becomes homebrew. This is because, in a game with Verisimilitude, characters have the ability to observe and understand their environment via the rules.

My beautiful assistants Joe the Commoner and Josephine the Bard will demonstrate;

Psion v. Wizard
Joe and Josephine see two older robbed people walk past, each of which incinerates a hay-bale with their mental powers.

Joe the Commoner, looking at the two brilliant reality-warpers, can tell no difference between them. He then yells "WITCHES!" and runs to hide his prized chickens.

Josephine the Bard, with her ranks in Spellcraft and Psicraft, realizes that one is using an Augmented Energy Missile while the other is casting Fireball. These are similar but mechanically distinct, especially if she wants to use Counterspelling/Dispelling to protect her farm.

Furthermore, relevant Knowledge (Arcana) and Knowledge (Psionics) checks will show her that Psions and Wizards warp reality in mechanically different ways; Wizards are locked into using a small number of prepared spells per day with their versatility coming from their large spellbooks, while Psions know a small number of powers but have enormous freedom in manifesting due to their use of power points.

A Psion could pretend to be a Wizard, but a knowledgeable Character will be able to tell they are a distinct class with different, albeit outwardly similar, abilities.

Barbarian v. Warblade
Joe and Josephine see two heavily armored warriors walk up and, after psyching themselves up, cut down a tree with one swing of their mighty axes.

Joe the Commoner, seeing two highly resilient warriors who can deal large amounts of damage per round, sees no difference between them and runs away yelling "Raiders!"

Josephine the Bard, using her cross-class Martial Lore, identifies the Martial Maneuver the Warblade used. Based on this she determines the Warblade has received special training, fighting with their wits (Intelligence) and using a number of distinct martial techniques.

Using her Sense Motive she also realizes the Barbarian is enraged, and deduces that the Barbarian uses their passion as a weapon to fight past their ordinary limits. Josephine can also guess the limitations of this Rage; that many non-combat skills fall to the wayside during the warrior's fury.

A Barbarian could claim to be a Warblade, but anyone watching them in combat will be able to see that the Warblade uses a number of distinct Martial Maneuvers and careful Stances, while the Barbarian is in an unreasoning Rage*.

*To people who advance the "Battle-Trance" re-fluff; how on Oerth does Calm Emotions snap you out of a meditative state?

Necropolitan Soul-Eater v. Vampire
Joe and Josephine are sleeping in their beds, each on opposite sides of the village, when they are each attacked by a pair of Undead monsters. The walking-dead bend over their beds and use their horrible mouths to suck away at their very life-essences.

Joe the Commoner, in a panic, sees no difference between the two creatures and dies with a muffled "EVIL DEAD!"

Josephine the Bard, trained in Knowledge (Religion), realizes that the Vampire is naturally possessed of a number of SLAs but also of unusual weaknesses. Pulling out her holy symbol she holds it at bay and starts to run for the village bridge, to escape over moving water. While the Vampire is stops at the stream, turning into a bat and flying away, the Necropolitan fires a Soul Blast at her while sauntering over the bridge. Another Knowledge (Religion) check shows her that this second creature carries no such weaknesses and she is forced to fight it with her spontaneous Cure spells.

A Necropolitan can drink blood, cast 'vampiric' spells, and wear a high-collared cape but any Cleric worth the cost of their Holy Symbol will realize they are a vastly different creature than a Vampire despite their superficial similarities.

Hopefully it's obvious now that the mechanics themselves demand that the existence of classes is, if not common knowledge, certainly known by Characters in-universe.

[Particle_Man]

So? Unless you have a rule against lying to the party, then there shouldn't be a problem.

I have a rule against lying to the DM.


When you say "cleric," I see (*insert warhammer 40K stuff from another game that is obviously not D&D*).

Yeah, I would ban that one too, frankly, and also consider it lying to the DM for a D&D (not Warhammer 40K, D&D) game.

[Particle_Man]

Strictly speaking, the guy didn't lie to you. He used different terminology. Those are two very different things.

Knowingly using different terminology with the obvious intention to deceive is called "lying". If I say I will pay you back the money I owe you, but by "pay you back" I mean "think happy thoughts about you" when I know that you (and almost everyone else) means "give money back to person who lent me money", I am lying.


"Gunslinger" was lying.

[Flickerdart]

Those are nice but almost completely irrelevant examples. Josephine would be unable to distinguish, for instance, between a Favored Soul, an Ur-Priest, and a Divine Crusader - and any of them can claim to be a Cleric. And those are just full casters. A Champion of Gwynharwyf can also say they are a Cleric, and cast the spells to prove it, before dropping into a Rage and cutting Josephine to pieces, and then claiming they are a Barbarian.

[Lord_Gareth]

Those are nice but almost completely irrelevant examples. Josephine would be unable to distinguish, for instance, between a Favored Soul, an Ur-Priest, and a Divine Crusader - and any of them can claim to be a Cleric. And those are just full casters. A Champion of Gwynharwyf can also say they are a Cleric, and cast the spells to prove it, before dropping into a Rage and cutting Josephine to pieces, and then claiming they are a Barbarian.

Do you remember that list I made in The Other Thread of all those different scenarios and they were all Rangers?

Good times.

[Flickerdart]

Having to track down a single post inside that forest of a thread? What am I, a Ranger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11466790&postcount=772)?

However, I must amend the final Ranger - it was obviously a Ranger casting Hunter's Eye, instead of a Ranger with FE: Orcs.

[Water_Bear]

Hey, I never said that you can't shift the fluff around a little.

But every single one of those examples; Psions re-fluffed as Sorcerers/Wizards, bizarre Template/Class choices passed off as Vampires, Warblade / Barbarian / Fighter confusion have been advanced on this very forum, the first two in this thread.

People like to say "Classes don't exist, they're just mechanical constructs." But.. guess what? Most of them are distinct enough a person in-universe could tell the difference with a little bit of knowledge.

What my, admittedly somewhat lame, examples show is that at some level characters must be aware of the existence of classes races and templates, regardless of how 'cool' your Necropolitan 'vampire' build looks on paper.

Plus, just to be contrary, an Ur-Priest is a prepared spellcaster who uses Wisdom while a Favored Soul is spontaneous and uses Charisma. This is something characters will be able to notice, albeit with a bit more observation than my examples.

For example; Ur-Priest and Favored Soul are both hit with a maximized Wisdom draining attack. The Ur-Priest has just lost access to most of their high-level spells and the ones left suffer from weak save DCs while the Favored Soul barely notices. The Ur-Priest caught off guard is forced to flee, the Favored Soul keeps firing away with their Spells Known list.

[Flickerdart]

Plus, just to be contrary, an Ur-Priest is a prepared spellcaster who uses Wisdom while a Favored Soul is spontaneous and uses Charisma. This is something characters will be able to notice, albeit with a bit more observation than my examples.

For example; Ur-Priest and Favored Soul are both hit with a maximized Wisdom draining attack. The Ur-Priest has just lost access to most of their high-level spells and the ones left suffer from weak save DCs while the Favored Soul barely notices. The Ur-Priest caught off guard is forced to flee, the Favored Soul keeps firing away with their Spells Known list.
Or the Ur-Priest makes the save/is immune, and keeps hammering out spells, thereby becoming a Favored Soul. Or the Favored Soul goes catatonic, because she dumped Wisdom, and becomes an Ur-Priest.

You can try and stretch your argument for class fluff but the mental ability scores are most definitely fluff-mutable. Is the Ur-Priest a Favored Soul because he invested in Diplomacy? Is the Favored Soul an Ur-Priest because her advanced age and race grants her a high Wisdom? An outside observer has no way of knowing this, or what Wisdom and Charisma actually are. All they know is that an attack that damages the mind can leave some spellcasters unable to cast their spells sometimes.

[Water_Bear]

The point is that they are, however difficult to detect casually, distinct in universe. The only question is how much knowledge you need to puzzle it out, rather than "they're indistinguishable."

My argument has always been;
a) Classes exist in universe, because they can be observed in universe using pure RAW (and maybe a little common sense).
b) If you call a Psion a Sorcerer, or an Ur-Priest a Cleric you are either wrong or lying, in-universe, due to the above.

I have no particular love for the standard Fluff, but the existence of classes in game, and the fact that people know that they exist and are distinct, is indisputable.

[Flickerdart]

Except that I've already proven they're not, with the "cleric" example above. You can quibble endlessly that a sufficiently high Knowledge check lets a character deduce the mechanics of the game somehow, but there's no evidence that "power points" are an in-universe concept, and no reason that a psion cannot use a book to help them refresh their mind at the beginning of each day, or that a wizard can't take Eidetic Spellcaster and chuck his book out of the nearest window.

[Fatebreaker]

A DM usually has to rely on their players sense of fair play and honesty; it is trivially easy to slip things past even the most careful DMs if you don't have a problem disrupting the game. Blaming the DM here is cruel and nonsensical if you have any idea what that job actually entails.

It is also trivially easy to slip things past a DM who asks nothing about your character beyond, "What are you playing?" and accepts a single-word descriptor.

This isn't cruel or nonsensical. This is basic communication.

A simple "tell me about your character" would have rapidly clarified what the player meant. Ask a few follow-up questions, especially if the player is really vague. Seek clarity. It allows you to make better decisions and catch problems before they crop up. Things like, "uses handguns."

Clarity is a good thing.


Yeah, I would ban that one too, frankly, and also consider it lying to the DM for a D&D (not Warhammer 40K, D&D) game.


Knowingly using different terminology with the obvious intention to deceive is called "lying".

The problem here is that "cleric" is an equally accurate description of a high-ranking Tetragrammaton practitioner of gun-kata, a Space Marine Chaplain, and a divine spellcaster from D&D.

He was playing a cleric. That it differed from the DM's perception of a cleric doesn't make him a liar, because what he called a cleric really is called a cleric.

Someone else could easily have made a cleric, using the cleric class, that did not fit the DM's concept of a cleric. Philistine and ShneekeyTheLost have provided examples of such clerics. That does not make them liars for saying that they played clerics.

Again, I don't doubt that the player was attempting to be disingenuous. I would boot them too, especially since they were a one-shot player who wasn't even invited to the game. I would also talk to his friend about inviting random strangers to my game, and ask how much he knew about his friend's shenanigans. It's good to hear that JadePhoenix talked to him afterwards. That's positive. But we can help her avoid it next time by offering advice on how to avoid it. This is a good opportunity to learn -- don't encourage people to repeat their mistakes.

Specificity in identifying problems is a good thing. It's part of that "clarity" vibe.


If I say I will pay you back the money I owe you, but by "pay you back" I mean "think happy thoughts about you" when I know that you (and almost everyone else) means "give money back to person who lent me money", I am lying.

Yes, that would be lying. "Pay you back" does not mean "think happy thoughts about you." There is a difference between lying and using different but accurate terms.

[Water_Bear]

Except the fact is that an intelligent character with enough resources can learn quite a bit about most anything in their environment.

Power Points v. Spell Slots:
They probably don't call them that, but it is common knowledge that spells come in 9 discrete power levels; this is the kind of thing you would have to know to use spell effects tactically. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could count the number of times a Wizard cast spells of each level a day, or just ask them, and figure out their limit is measured in discrete spell slots.

Power Points? Waaayyyy less quantifyable, but that's the point; a Psion can cast their most and least powerful abilities in any combination, augmenting them or leaving them alone. This is also basic knowledge a Psion or Wilder would need to understand in order to use their powers, and thus information which is potentially available to other characters.

Ability Scores and Hit Dice:
Hey Trap the Soul comes out and says you can research a creature's HD in-universe (they probably have a fancier term for it). And who says Casting Stats aren't measurable? The Bonus Spell table and any number of Ability Draining abilities means people ought to have a good idea that Clerics are Wise, Wizards are Intelligent, and Sorcerers are Charismatic.

Add the fact that Detect Thoughts lets you compare Intelligence scores relatively, and Crafters must know about the Six Abilities in order to make their Ability Boosting Items*, and I wouldn't be surprised if Wizards didn't actually have little character sheets prepared when gathering info on an enemy.

*"Hey Master Craftsman, why do we sell so many Cloaks of Charisma and so few Codpieces of Pluck?"


The Cleric v. Ur-Priest v. X-Random Divine Caster is something which I could easily see a mid-level Diviner or lore-focused class like a Bard figuring out within days of adventuring with that character.

For a high-level Intelligent character? The deception wouldn't last beyond the first few hours if they were at all curious about their new buddy's abilities.

[Flickerdart]

Anyone with an ounce of common sense could count the number of times a Wizard cast spells of each level a day, or just ask them, and figure out their limit is measured in discrete spell slots.
Reserve feats and Immediate Magic point and laugh.


The Bonus Spell table and any number of Ability Draining abilities means people ought to have a good idea that Clerics are Wise, Wizards are Intelligent, and Sorcerers are Charismatic.
Sorcerers with their crummy skills are very unlikely to put points into anything Charisma based. Your average Rogue will be more charismatic in practice than any Sorcerer. Clerics are also likely to underperform on Wisdom-based skills.


Add the fact that Detect Thoughts lets you compare Intelligence scores relatively, and Crafters must know about the Six Abilities in order to make their Ability Boosting Items*, and I wouldn't be surprised if Wizards didn't actually have little character sheets prepared when gathering info on an enemy.

*"Hey Master Craftsman, why do we sell so many Cloaks of Charisma and so few Codpieces of Pluck?"
"Here's gloves wot make you stronger, gloves wot make you faster, necklace wot make you tougher, hat wot make you smarter, necklace wot make you see better, and cloak wot make you a ponce."



The Cleric v. Ur-Priest v. X-Random Divine Caster is something which I could easily see a mid-level Diviner or lore-focused class like a Bard figuring out within days of adventuring with that character.

For a high-level Intelligent character? The deception wouldn't last beyond the first few hours if they were at all curious about their new buddy's abilities.
Sure, if the DM allows them to see what class levels people have. You might. I wouldn't.

[Bogardan_Mage]

Or the Ur-Priest makes the save/is immune, and keeps hammering out spells, thereby becoming a Favored Soul. Or the Favored Soul goes catatonic, because she dumped Wisdom, and becomes an Ur-Priest.

You can try and stretch your argument for class fluff but the mental ability scores are most definitely fluff-mutable. Is the Ur-Priest a Favored Soul because he invested in Diplomacy? Is the Favored Soul an Ur-Priest because her advanced age and race grants her a high Wisdom? An outside observer has no way of knowing this, or what Wisdom and Charisma actually are. All they know is that an attack that damages the mind can leave some spellcasters unable to cast their spells sometimes.
A single test might not be able to definatively distinguish them, but the concept is still sound. Just because an enemy combatant probably wouldn't be able to tell someone's class purely on how they respond to a single attack doesn't mean nobody in the world is capable of determining the nature of anybody's spellcasting abilities. The difference between spontaneous and prepared casting is massive, even if it isn't readily apparent in combat (although Vaarsuvius suggests a possible method (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0677.html))

[Water_Bear]

Basically, the above ^

Characters in D&D have access to knowledge about all of the following, purely by RAW and common sense;

# of Hit Dice a Creature Has: Via Trap the Soul research.
Pretty Much Everything Relevant to Spellcasting*: Via careful observation.

Spontaneous v. Prepared: Either by watching the spell-caster in question, asking them about how their spells work and making a Sense Motive check, or just using divination magic to read their minds Characters should figure this out right away.
Casting Stat: Character In-Universe must be able to learn that Abilities exist to craft/use items, and Ability Draining attacks and spells like Detect Thoughts can give the characters access to the actual numbers involved.
Metamagic/Reserve Feats/Unusual Class Features: Again, observation is key. A Mystic Ranger Sword of the Arcane Order can prepare Wizard spells from a spellbook like a wizard, and has a "familiar" but try asking that Ranger what they can do. They will know they can cast Divine spells; anything from Sense Motive, to a quick Mind Probe / Mindrape to learn everything they know about their abilities.

Ability Scores: As said before, Characters can figure out their Abilities and those of the people around them through observation and analysis, especially given the prevalence of Ability-dependent magical effects like Detect Thoughts.
Races/Templates: Knowledge (X) has an explicit use to find out a Race/Template's mechanical advantages/disadvantages. A Zombie and a Corpse Creature are different enough that a knowledgeable character will never mix them up.


So if a character can, by RAW, figure out your Race, your number of HD, your Ability scores and how they influence your skills and class features, and get the basic gist of your spellcasting abilities, how do classes not exist in universe?

That was the whole point of Joe v Josephine; sure, an average person will never be able to tell a Psion from a Wizard (or a Horse from a Dragon, but that's an issue for another thread). But with enough knowledge, knowledge which must be available by RAW, characters can distinguish even fairly similar classes from one another.

Thus classes are an in-universe concept, rather than purely mechanical constructs, simply because charaters can observe the outcome of the mechanics.

*Same goes for Manifesting and Martial Maneuvers.