Classes By Fluff

[shadow_archmagi]

A lot of classes are pretty much the same idea with different mechanics. The most famous example, of course, is the Monk and the Swordsage- Both are eastern-inspired characters with a smattering of supernatural abilities, and so it's a common trend on these boards for people to suggest replacing Monks with Swordsages if the Monk feels underpowered.

In fact, the Zinc Saucier thread is a contest where people attempt to recreate a class without taking levels in it!

I'm curious as to what classes the playground feels like are interchangeable in terms of their overall role and archtype.

Example:

Classes that make good holy warriors: Crusader, Paladin, Ardent, Incarnate, Cleric.

[Kornaki]

Classes that make good holy warriors: Crusader, Paladin, Ardent, Incarnate, Cleric.

Fixed to accomodate the paladin :smalltongue:

[ArcturusV]

Fighters with... well... pretty much anything that has full BAB. Unless you are ACFing out the butt... they're just too damn generic. Hell, even their fluff is generically lame, and amounts to "Anyone who might potentially be good with weapons". Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, Knights, etc, etc, etc, all can take up the role of the Fighter.

Sorcerers are similarly one I see the fluff of getting stepped on quite a bit. Mostly again because the fluff is very generic "I am naturally good at spells without formal training and am slightly tougher physically than a wizard because I liked to pose a lot in the gym and occasionally lifted a weight or two while I was there". Heck, even in the PhB, the Bard can fit and replace that fluff.

[Darth Stabber]

Totemist can kinda fit druid fluff.

incarnate could fit certain cleric concepts.

Soulborn falls right into that mix of holy warrior (but is the worst of the bunch).

Feat rogue and swordsage live in same general headspace (skill monkeys with good combat abilities).

Wilder is more sorcerer than sorcerer.

Archivist and cloistered cleric fit the same profile.

Ninja is just a bad rogue, and ninja fluff is just the japanese version of the exact same concept (thief/assassin). Separating the two is purely to please weaboo fanboys who are convinced that a katana could cut through a tank.

Hexblade, psywar, and duskblade are all "magical warriors" in fluff, and "gish in a box" in crunch. Almost any concept that fits one, could fit the other two.

Wizard, psion, and archivist are all "learned magicians".

Psywar was a fluff defensible monk replacement before swordsage.

Clerics of nature deities and druids are easily confusable.

Anything with full BAB (and a couple things without) could stand in for a fighter.

Healer is an overspecialized cleric

warmage, dread necromancer, and beguiler could all easily be mistaken for sorcerers or overspecialized wizards.

[Feint's End]

Wizard, psion, and archivist are all "learned magicians".


Sorry but this line bothers me. The abilitys necessary to become a psion are innate closer to the way sorcerors recieve their power as opposed to wizards and archivists who have to study to attain them. Sure they still have to train their mind to improve their natural talent but I argue it's nothing close to how the other two classes recieve them.

[Darth Stabber]

Sorry but this line bothers me. The abilitys necessary to become a psion are innate closer to the way sorcerors recieve their power as opposed to wizards and archivists who have to study to attain them. Sure they still have to train their mind to improve their natural talent but I argue it's nothing close to how the other two classes recieve them.

Actually psions are much more inwardly studious. They don't just randomly discover power, they gain the abilities through focus and meditation (a lot like study), wilders randomly discover psionic might.

Edit: also erudite acf.

[Feint's End]

Actually psions are much more inwardly studious. They don't just randomly discover power, they gain the abilities through focus and meditation (a lot like study), wilders randomly discover psionic might.

Edit: also erudite acf.

I still disagree that this is compareable to the way Wizards and Archivists recieve their powers since all they can do they can because they learnt it from books or a teacher while the Abilities necessary to be a Psion are innate and not learned. Just having a high Intelligence won't make you able to learn Psionic but you can still become a Wizard because it is a pure study-area.

I never thought of Psions in a compareable way since the way they use Intelligence is different from the Way Wizards use it -> Wizards as "Bookworms" to go with the stereotype while Psions Intelligence lies more in the ability to know their own mind and explore more depths in it.
But again it also comes down to how you interpret the Intelligence Score. I just say that the way Intelligence and studying work for the different classes makes them effectively different in Flavour and Fluff.

[Perseus]

Some classes are obviously updates to older classes without actually saying it

Totemist = Druid

Warblade = Fighter

Crusader = Paladin

Usually the new class is more balanced and in many ways just work better in a group setting.

[Psyren]

If you're familiar with Wheel of Time, I've always seen the difference between wizards and psions as being similar to the difference between Brown Ajah and White Ajah. Both focus on intelligence and study, but the Browns prefer to study books, science/history and the natural world around them, while Whites prefer philosophy, psychology and meditation. A Wizard inventing a new spell would do so through experimentation and revising something akin to a mathematical formula, while a Psion inventing a new power would be training his mind to think in a different way. Fluff is never concrete of course but this is the way I've always approached the two classes.

[Lord Haart]

Soulborn falls right into that mix of holy warrior (but is the worst of the bunch).
Now let's not do Divine Mind more justice than it deserves.

[Mr.Bookworm]

The only reason the Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade are not actually named the Paladin, Monk, and Fighter is because that obviously wouldn't fly with management or parts of the fandom.

The only one I don't think I've seen so far is the Soulbound Weapon ACF for the Psywarrior; it's basically the Soulknife taped to a class that's actually good.

[Psyren]

Now let's not do Divine Mind more justice than it deserves.

Divine Mind does suck but it can still wreck a Soulborn power-wise.

[Grinner]

Actually psions are much more inwardly studious. They don't just randomly discover power, they gain the abilities through focus and meditation (a lot like study), wilders randomly discover psionic might.

Edit: also erudite acf.

I've always thought they were more like monks than wizards in that respect, just without the mechanical focus on stealth and combat.

[shadow_archmagi]

Are there any other classes that make good monks?

[Seharvepernfan]

Actually, I still see all classes as separate fluff-wise. I think there is a place for each (although that may not be a place you want to be, such as for the monk).

This is true for me even when it comes to classes that have names that people of other classes could have, in-game, such as assassins and rangers who function as "assassins".

[Kaiisaxo]

Sorcerers are similarly one I see the fluff of getting stepped on quite a bit. Mostly again because the fluff is very generic "I am naturally good at spells without formal training and am slightly tougher physically than a wizard because I liked to pose a lot in the gym and occasionally lifted a weight or two while I was there". Heck, even in the PhB, the Bard can fit and replace that fluff.

Not that much, I see more sorcerers as being "commoners born with magiks", while bards' magic is obtained pretty much through serendipity and happenstance, they are the wandering mistrels, the court jesters, the curious travler who sitcks his noese everywhere, the jack of all trades. Though wilders come indeed pretty close to sorcerers in flavor, dangerously close. (In fact one of my sorcerers was once called a wilder)

[CockroachTeaParty]

How about Dragon Shamans and Dragonfire Adepts? Both are classes that... venerate dragons. And have breath weapons! And get... wings? Uh... DRAGONS!!!

[Perseus]

How about Dragon Shamans and Dragonfire Adepts? Both are classes that... venerate dragons. And have breath weapons! And get... wings? Uh... DRAGONS!!!

They should be gestalted together and called a Dragon Shaman Adept

[Darth Stabber]

They should be gestalted together and called a Dragon Shaman Adept

That would be okay, you'd have 1 breath weapon for normal use, and one for metabreath, all while having invocations (active or passive) and auras (passive).

[Seharvepernfan]

and one for metabreath

Ask your doctor DM if metabreath is right for you. Some side-effects ban-hammering may occur.

[Darth Stabber]

Ask your doctor DM if metabreath is right for you. Some side-effects ban-hammering may occur.

Limiting the number of times it can be applied is more than sufficient to prevent players from getting ridiculous.

[Chronos]

Swordsage isn't really the same fluff as monks, since monks are primarily unarmed, while swordsages are based on the use of weapons (after all, they're not called fistsages). Yeah, you can kind of twist the swordsage around using the poorly-developed unarmed adaptation to mimic a monk, but there are still plenty of swordsagish characters (i.e., anything not using the unarmed adaptation) that couldn't be described as a monk. In my mind, I picture Cohen the Barbarian, Prince Zuko, and Zeetha, daughter of Chump as all being swordsages (or primarily so, at least: Zuko might have a Desert Wind-specific PrC, and Cohen probably has a number of dips), but none of them is really monkish.

[Darth Stabber]

Swordsage isn't really the same fluff as monks, since monks are primarily unarmed, while swordsages are based on the use of weapons (after all, they're not called fistsages). Yeah, you can kind of twist the swordsage around using the poorly-developed unarmed adaptation to mimic a monk, but there are still plenty of swordsagish characters (i.e., anything not using the unarmed adaptation) that couldn't be described as a monk. In my mind, I picture Cohen the Barbarian, Prince Zuko, and Zeetha, daughter of Chump as all being swordsages (or primarily so, at least: Zuko might have a Desert Wind-specific PrC, and Cohen probably has a number of dips), but none of them is really monkish.

Actually given the "special monk weapons", unarmed combat is only a part of it, as the fluff of monks also covers armed combat (even though most monk weapons are worse than fists). Many warrior monks in stories use quarterstaves, tonfa, nunchucks, sai, ect, and have all sorts of wacky moves with them that are well in line with swordsage.


I still disagree that this is compareable to the way Wizards and Archivists recieve their powers since all they can do they can because they learnt it from books or a teacher while the Abilities necessary to be a Psion are innate and not learned. Just having a high Intelligence won't make you able to learn Psionic but you can still become a Wizard because it is a pure study-area.

I never thought of Psions in a compareable way since the way they use Intelligence is different from the Way Wizards use it -> Wizards as "Bookworms" to go with the stereotype while Psions Intelligence lies more in the ability to know their own mind and explore more depths in it.
But again it also comes down to how you interpret the Intelligence Score. I just say that the way Intelligence and studying work for the different classes makes them effectively different in Flavour and Fluff.

I'll grant you some of that is correct until you apply the Erudite ACF, and then you have a very bookish psion.

[Chronos]

Sure, there are special monk weapons, but a monk is still pretty good with her fists. Better with her fists, in fact than with the weapons, in general. A swordsage, though, is by default significantly worse with fists than with weapons (any weapons, even ones not associated with their discipline).

[Kuulvheysoon]

Sure, there are special monk weapons, but a monk is still pretty good with her fists. Better with her fists, in fact than with the weapons, in general. A swordsage, though, is by default significantly worse with fists than with weapons (any weapons, even ones not associated with their discipline).

Unarmed Swordsages?

[Chronos]

By default, a swordsage is not an unarmed swordsage.

[Darth Stabber]

Sure, there are special monk weapons, but a monk is still pretty good with her fists. Better with her fists, in fact than with the weapons, in general. A swordsage, though, is by default significantly worse with fists than with weapons (any weapons, even ones not associated with their discipline).

I said in my post that monk's are better with their fists than with those weapons, the point is that weapons are not outside the class's default flavor. And given that the flavor of monk is semi-mystical practioner of martial arts, we have a dead on match, unless you consider failure to be an important flavor note for monks. And given the general european flavor of 3.5, monk is already a poor fit, as european monks tend to be cloistered academicians and theologians, and are not really paragons of martial art skills.


By default, a swordsage is not an unarmed swordsage.

So?

Given that the ACF is in the swordsage's rules section, it's well within the class's immediate flavor reach.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Fluff is never concrete of course but this is the way I've always approached the two classes.

I've always thought of Psions as Meditating on the nature of Psionics/the Universe>Having discussions with other Psions/Scholars>Reading about Psionics and Wizards as Reading and Writing about Magic>Having discussions with other Wizards/Scholars about Magic>Meditating on the nature of he Universe/Magic in other words two dirrerent flavors of scholar-caster that study in ways that are different, but not alien.

[Psyren]

To sum it up, I would say that Wizards are Scholars and Psions are Philosophers. Both are brainy pursuits but they study in different ways.

A book can help a Psion and contemplating his navel can help a Wizard, but they are less effective at doing so than the other way around.

[shadow_archmagi]

They should be gestalted together and called a Dragon Shaman Adept

I prefer Dragon Dragon Shaman Adept, personally, for 100% more dragon in the name.


To sum it up, I would say that Wizards are Scholars and Psions are Philosophers. Both are brainy pursuits but they study in different ways.

A book can help a Psion and contemplating his navel can help a Wizard, but they are less effective at doing so than the other way around.

True, but I feel like the similarities outweigh the differences- From the perspective of anyone else, they're both really smart spellcasters who live in towers full of books and scrolls. Scholars and philosophers have tremendous overlap, and in many parts of history they were synonyms.


By default, a swordsage is not an unarmed swordsage.

Isn't that like saying that when the story calls for a pyromancer, you shouldn't roll a sorcerer, because sorcerers are only really pyromancers if they CHOOSE to take fire spells and fire feats?

[Blackhawk748]

Not that much, I see more sorcerers as being "commoners born with magiks", while bards' magic is obtained pretty much through serendipity and happenstance, they are the wandering mistrels, the court jesters, the curious travler who sitcks his noese everywhere, the jack of all trades. Though wilders come indeed pretty close to sorcerers in flavor, dangerously close. (In fact one of my sorcerers was once called a wilder)

That happened to me once, we were in a psionic heavy campaign (im not a huge fan of psionics but a buddy of mine has a joy boner for them and he was DMing) and when i mean heavy i mean i was the only Sorcerer in the world. Arcane magic had gone kablooie and by some fluke i was born about 15 years afterward. (oh btw no divine either, druids being the only exception) Well to shorten the story, the current bad guy thought i was a Pyrokinetisist/Lightningkinetisist, when i was actually a Storm Mage/Fire Argent Savant. Well to put it bluntly my character was pissed, he was sick of people not believing him when he said he wasn't a psion and actually used magic, so i summoned a Living Holocaust. Yes i had an item that let me do it, once. And i used it on a Bigger Mook. I had no regrets.

[137beth]

Isn't that like saying that when the story calls for a pyromancer, you shouldn't roll a sorcerer, because sorcerers are only really pyromancers if they CHOOSE to take fire spells and fire feats?
No, it's like saying that a swordsage does not stand in for a monk, unless you apply some alternate rules.

[Perseus]

No, it's like saying that a swordsage does not stand in for a monk, unless you apply some alternate rules.

You realize that you make no sense?

I could just take a feat improved unarmed strike and still be a better monk, fluff and all? Heck at least the sworsage is proficient with unarmed strikes.


Edit due to phone messing with me

[SethoMarkus]

I think the bigger issue at hand is that D&D 3.x tries to define every single role, to the point that players no longer have control of their own fluff. Really, there are 4 base classes: stabby, spelly, sneaky, and ranged (he's the black sheep of the family).

In earlier editions of D&D you didn't play a Bard, you played a Stabby+Sneaky+Spelly.

Take the Swordsage vs Monk debate going on here. What is the real difference between a Swordsage and a Monk? It seems to boil down to choice of (or lack of) weapon. This itself is flawed from the original 3.x fluff, making Monk an (almost) always unarmed combatant based on mythical Eastern martial arts. Eastern "monk" martial artists train extensively with weapons. Swordsage is just the more PC version of Monk, when you look at it this way.

What about the different between a Monk and a Fighter then? A Monk is just a Fighter with high Dex, Dodge and Mobility, Improved Unarmed Strike, and a few other special flairs thrown in to make it feel special. A Fighter/Cleric can probably do most of those things (and probably better). Heck, Cleric/Rogue probably makes a better Monk than Monk!

Rather than use imagination and saying that "My fighter is based off of eastern Monk lore", or, "My wizard doesn't really cast spells, he's psychic, but mechanically it works the same way as normal", 3.x has trained us to limit our creativity and take class descriptions at face value.

[Karnith]

I could just take a feat improved unarmed strike and still be a better monk, fluff and all than the monk? Heck at least the sworsage us proficient with unarmed strikes.
Or use one of those fancy-pants special monk weapons. Like, you know, a quarterstaff.

[ArcturusV]

Exactly Setho. It's why when I DM I'm loathe to "change the fluff" on stuff. Because DnD is a game where the mechanics are determined by the fluff, or the mechanics are designed to mimic the fluff. And as they added books almost every fluff unique idea became a separate class.

And generally finding out the reasons my players want the "fluff alteration" is to be more powerful which isn't something I always want to support. Though of course that depends on table particulars.

It's just some classes are insanely broad and unfocused in their fluff, which makes them feel... pointless. Except maybe for Dipping purposes.

Fighter Fluff: I am generically good at fighting.

Sorcerer Fluff: I am naturally good at spellcasting without having to study. So I pose in the mirror a lot more.

Monk fluff is narrow enough I don't really consider it valid for a replacement on fluff concerns. Monk is so narrowly trained you can say that rather than it being a generic, eastern martial art, it's actually a very specific discipline, rigidly trained. I think that's even the fluff they used in 4th edition for it. That it's a specific school that was learned by some insane old man who looked into the Far Realm or something like that. The swordsage is more of a generalist compared to the Monk. It'd be like saying that Fighter is a good replacement for Paladin on fluff.

[Perseus]

Exactly Setho. It's why when I DM I'm loathe to "change the fluff" on stuff. Because DnD is a game where the mechanics are determined by the fluff, or the mechanics are designed to mimic the fluff. And as they added books almost every fluff unique idea became a separate class.

And generally finding out the reasons my players want the "fluff alteration" is to be more powerful which isn't something I always want to support. Though of course that depends on table particulars.

It's just some classes are insanely broad and unfocused in their fluff, which makes them feel... pointless. Except maybe for Dipping purposes.

Fighter Fluff: I am generically good at fighting.

Sorcerer Fluff: I am naturally good at spellcasting without having to study. So I pose in the mirror a lot more.

Monk fluff is narrow enough I don't really consider it valid for a replacement on fluff concerns. Monk is so narrowly trained you can say that rather than it being a generic, eastern martial art, it's actually a very specific discipline, rigidly trained. I think that's even the fluff they used in 4th edition for it. That it's a specific school that was learned by some insane old man who looked into the Far Realm or something like that. The swordsage is more of a generalist compared to the Monk. It'd be like saying that Fighter is a good replacement for Paladin on fluff.

Funny enough the Fighter and the Warblade have almost identical fluff.

Yet for some reason the Warblade has class features and is a great class whereas the Fighter fails.

So how much does fluff really matter in a class? None. I can fluff my Barbarian as a wizard or cleric and guess what? He is still a barbarian.

(There was a really great thread about a barbarian who thought he was a wizard and was RP'ed as such....)

[Daftendirekt]

Are there any other classes that make good monks?

Any class that isn't the Monk.

[137beth]

Funny enough the Fighter and the Warblade have almost identical fluff.

Yet for some reason the Warblade has class features and is a great class whereas the Fighter fails.

So how much does fluff really matter in a class? None. I can fluff my Barbarian as a wizard or cleric and guess what? He is still a barbarian.

(There was a really great thread about a barbarian who thought he was a wizard and was RP'ed as such....)
Funny how a warblade and a warblade-refluffed-as-a-paladin have almost identical crunch.

Yet for some reason the WRAAP has specific, meaningful fluff that isn't generic and is a great class, while the warblade fails at being interesting.

So how much does crunch really matter in a class? None. I can crunch my Fighter as a Warlock* and guess what? He is still a fighter.

*Maybe I'll even rename the re-crunched fighter a "warblade", and laugh when people say it is a "replacement for the fighter" even though all the crunch is different:smalltongue: and no, for those of you dumb enough to think that, I do not think that the warlock and warblade are mechanically identical.

[Perseus]

The class is the crunch. The fluff doesn't matter.

My Warblade/Wizard/Dragonfire Adept can be fluffed as anything, even a healer, but it has no mechanical effects on the game.

Call yourself a nimbly pimbly cat that runs through the trees for all you want, you still only have X Class Abilities.

It is somewhat like...

I'm a scientist, I do the work of science. However I'm going to call myself an artist. Does it matter what I call myself? Will that change what I do at work tomorrow? Will I not be a scientist even when I fluff myself to be an artist?

Exactly. Fluff doesn't matter.

[shadow_archmagi]

So anyway, I guess when I made this thread I was hoping that it'd generate ideas for new builds for old character concepts (Wanna play a nature guy? You've already tried druid, why not sample Totemist//Ranger?)

[Karnith]

(Wanna play a nature guy? You've already tried druid, why not sample Totemist//Ranger?)
Well, you can fulfill basically any character concept with ranger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11466790&postcount=772). Thanks, Flickerdart!

[137beth]

The class is the crunch. The fluff doesn't matter.

My Warblade/Wizard/Dragonfire Adept can be fluffed as anything, even a healer, but it has no mechanical effects on the game.

Call yourself a nimbly pimbly cat that runs through the trees for all you want, you still only have X Class Abilities.

It is somewhat like...

I'm a scientist, I do the work of science. However I'm going to call myself an artist. Does it matter what I call myself? Will that change what I do at work tomorrow? Will I not be a scientist even when I fluff myself to be an artist?

Exactly. Fluff doesn't matter.

The class is the fluff. The crunch doesn't matter.

My Warblade/Wizard/Dragonfire Adept can be crunched as anything, even given healing abilities, but it has no effects on how I roleplay it.

Give yourself the powers of a nimbly pimbly cat that runs through the trees for all you want, you still roleplay X Class.



Exactly. Crunch doesn't matter.

[georgie_leech]

The class is the fluff. The crunch doesn't matter.

My Warblade/Wizard/Dragonfire Adept can be crunched as anything, even given healing abilities, but it has no effects on how I roleplay it.

Give yourself the powers of a nimbly pimbly cat that runs through the trees for all you want, you still roleplay X Class.



Exactly. Crunch doesn't matter.

...So every fighter with the same number of levels is the same character concept?

[137beth]

...So every fighter with the same number of levels is the same character concept?
I'm curious as to why you quoted me saying something which was entirely unrelated to your response...:smallsigh:

[georgie_leech]

I'm curious as to why you quoted me saying something which was entirely unrelated to your response...:smallsigh:

You're saying the class is the fluff and not the crunch. In other words, that every single Fighter has the same fluff/concept, every Paladin has the same fluff/concept, every Wizard has the same fluff/concept.

[137beth]

You're saying the class is the fluff and not the crunch. In other words, that every single Fighter has the same fluff/concept, every Paladin has the same fluff/concept, every Wizard has the same fluff/concept.
A class can be part of fluff.

By your argument, Perseus was saying that the class if the crunch, and so every single wizard is mechanically identical to every single other wizard. Huh, interesting.

And no, I don't actually think that classes are 100% fluff. Neither do I think they are 100% crunch. I was making a sarcastic response to the post above me.
And to clarify: saying that a class is all fluff is not the same as saying that fluff is all class. Saying that a class is all crunch is not the same as saying that crunch is all class. You can have differently fluffed sorcerers who choose different spells:smallsigh:

EDIT: Let's make things even simpler: Character eye-color is pure fluff. There is no mechanical effect whatsoever of what color eyes you write down for your character. That does not mean that all blue-eyed characters have identical fluff to all other blue-eyed characters, it means they have one single thing in common.

Two fighters have one fluff-aspect in common: the fluff associated with their class. How you could possibly make the absurd leap to think that that somehow indicates that everything else about their fluff is identical is beyond me.

[Darth Stabber]

For some people fluff matters, I don't know why (I have some guesses), but it does to them. Personally I view classes as containers for abilities, and 3.5 to be a convoluted pointbuy system, as opposed to a truely classed system (like 2e and 4e). The higher modularity/granularity of the system lends itself well to this view, and the ease of multiclassing does a lot to break down the rigid views of classes as "whole progression entities", other than druid. Add all the ACFs to this, and the effect grows. Finally the fact that the SRD is fluff free, and people start to feel like the crunch is really liberated from the crunch. I do prefer some level of connectivity for PRCs, but I'm not that much of a stickler.

I'm guessing that part of the "default fluff matters" is derived from other editions, where classes are taken whole (or mostly whole), and multiclassing makes a single entity that is like a single class (2e and 4e work like that), and where people use published/defined settings, there is some resistance to the idea of monkying around with them (or certain setting details care a lot about where your powers come from, like FR's demand that cleric's have a deity). There is probably more to it than that, but i'm kinda speculating.

[georgie_leech]

A class can be part of fluff.

By your argument, Perseus was saying that the class if the crunch, and so every single wizard is mechanically identical to every single other wizard. Huh, interesting.

And no, I don't actually think that classes are 100% fluff. Neither do I think they are 100% crunch. I was making a sarcastic response to the post above me.
And to clarify: saying that a class is all fluff is not the same as saying that fluff is all class. Saying that a class is all crunch is not the same as saying that crunch is all class. You can have differently fluffed sorcerers who choose different spells:smallsigh:

EDIT: Let's make things even simpler: Character eye-color is pure fluff. There is no mechanical effect whatsoever of what color eyes you write down for your character. That does not mean that all blue-eyed characters have identical fluff to all other blue-eyed characters, it means they have one single thing in common.

Two fighters have one fluff-aspect in common: the fluff associated with their class. How you could possibly make the absurd leap to think that that somehow indicates that everything else about their fluff is identical is beyond me.

My point is that classes *do* give the same crunch, or at least the same options for what crunch is used. The same can't be said of the fluff from a class. A Sorcerer could be powered by draconic blood, or maybe I'm using it to represent an idiot savant with arcane energies, or Perhaps a "wizard" that has studied magic to the point that he is no longer limited by how many spells he has memorised at a time, only by his magical energies... Those are just off the top of my head. But unless your DM changes the classes in someway, the defined benefits and options given at each level is class specific; If you want access to Turn Undead, you need to take a level in a class that grants that ability, not just say your Fighter learned how at some point.

[137beth]

My point is that classes *do* give the same crunch, or at least the same options for what crunch is used. The same can't be said of the fluff from a class. A Sorcerer could be powered by draconic blood, or maybe I'm using it to represent an idiot savant with arcane energies, or Perhaps a "wizard" that has studied magic to the point that he is no longer limited by how many spells he has memorised at a time, only by his magical energies... Those are just off the top of my head. But unless your DM changes the classes in someway, the defined benefits and options given at each level is class specific; If you want access to Turn Undead, you need to take a level in a class that grants that ability, not just say your Fighter learned how at some point.

Some outlines of fluff is defined in the PHB, so unless you start making exceptions, all sorcerers have the "same options" for fluff, just like they all have the "same options" for what spells to take, unless your DM adjusts what sorcerers are in his/her world. Crunch can be changed just as easily as fluff. For fluff, the book gives you some ideas, and you can pick one of them, mix them, or make something up of your own. For crunch, the book gives you some options, and you can use some of them, mix them up, or make up your own and use those. I don't see the difference.

[georgie_leech]

Some outlines of fluff is defined in the PHB, so unless you start making exceptions, all sorcerers have the "same options" for fluff, just like they all have the "same options" for what spells to take, unless your DM adjusts what sorcerers are in his/her world. Crunch can be changed just as easily as fluff. For fluff, the book gives you some ideas, and you can pick one of them, mix them, or make something up of your own. For crunch, the book gives you some options, and you can use some of them, mix them up, or make up your own and use those. I don't see the difference.

I suppose the difference is in the variety and effects. I've never seen a WOTC product that indicated the Thogaturge (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195049) was one of the "options" presented for fluff, but I see no reason he couldn't exist. My wizard may hurl Fireballs of purest white to represent his belief in cleansing fire. I don't, however, have the option of claiming that it therefore is extra effective against evil undead (more than most undead seem to be weak to fire anyway).

In other words, the built-in Fluff is easily changed and isn't a hard and fast "rule" as far as RAW is concerned; Fluff is mutable. The Crunch, on the other hand, can't be assumed to be adjustable without DM adjudication.

[ArcturusV]

True. Though as I tried to say, I usually feel squicky about it myself. I mean the reason various classes are the way they are, is Fluff. Paladin Crunch is fluff derived. Same with Knights, Rangers, Druids, Sorcerers, Bards, etc, etc, etc.

... so it feels weird to massively twink Fluff to me. I mean sure, color your spells or describe the somatic components as interpretative dance rather than finger waggling, fine. Claim your Wizard is actually divinely powered and gifted his spell knowledge by his patron God... and you're basically a Cleric, and you have to ask questions that relate to Crunch like the differences Divine and Arcane magic have, etc.