Manipulating flavor

[JoeFredBob]

This is something of a spin-off from the "fantasy or not?" thread, but I felt like I would be derailing it somewhat, so I'm posting this over here.

I see many many comments about people disallowing particular classes because of the flavor. "Oriental" classes, Tome of Battle, psionics, they all get their share. My question is: why? Why must the flavor of classes be so immutable as to disallow them entirely? I can see saying "sure, you can make a character of class x, but it can't have y flavor because there is no area for that in my world", but I don't understand outright banning. I'll give some examples of how I think one could make some of these things fit different flavor.

I recently created a Wu Jen. I made him have a strong connection with nature, took acquire familiar and improved familiar to get an advanced wolf (DM cooperation of course), took survival cross class and did basically everything i could to boost it, and took track. Suddenly I had a rugged outdoorsman Wu Jen with a slightly Native American flavor. I changed the flavor significantly enough that halfway through the session (it was a one-shot) someone reacted to me learning a spell from a scroll by saying "wait, you're an arcane caster?!?".

I also recently made a character who, fairly late in his adventuring career, had become a vigilante figure. He excelled in quick assassination and escaping detection. One of the last choices I made when creating the character concept was his base class: rogue or ninja. If he had been a ninja he would have been the same character. He would not have earned himself a tight black costume with an eye-slitted mask and a pair of ninja-to. He would still have been walking around in common garb. Incidentally, he uses flat, sharpened pieces of metal designed for throwing (shuriken), despite being a rogue.

I can also see the well-trained village militia member who has run regularly for his entire life, trained on numerous weapons most would consider improvised, and learned to have an almost 6th sense about when attacks are coming. As he defeats more and more enemies his body becomes much hardier, allowing him to resist most diseases and even poisons. Through a slight bit of a knack for untrained magic, he eventually learns to do even stranger things, like fold space in a way to let him traverse long distances instantly. He is a monk that isn't oriental or particularly sage.

I understand that all these classes can be played in ways that don't fit with the flavor of some campaigns. However, I would posit that every class can be played in at least one way that fits the flavor of any given campaign. Do people disagree with that?

[Jack Mann]

Amen, brother.

I recently made a viking swordsage. While he does use one of the supernatural maneuvers, he's mostly a nordic warrior in the classic barbarian mold (an intelligent, enlightened barbarian, mind). Not a whole lot of wushu, but a lot of impossible feats of strength and daring, in the spirit of the old sagas.

[Wehrkind]

An excellent set of examples of how fluff, mechanics, and the silly names of classes are all highly malleable.

[Bears With Lasers]

My favorite ToB-using character used a bunch of Tiger Claw, with Desert Wind boosts (the supernatural my swords are covered in fire ones) and Shadow Hand maneuvers. The stuff you'd expect of an anime kung-fu character.

His combat flavor? Gritty knifework and infighting, in a mix of kali and Muay Thai-style strikes. The Shadow Hand stuff was shadows flickering about him, which was quite suitable for a stealthy-ish "dark" character; the Desert Wind boosts were sudden bursts of black fire to mirror his rage. It worked just fine.

(Example: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15693&page=6#152 )

[RiOrius]

...I would posit that every class can be played in at least one way that fits the flavor of any given campaign. Do people disagree with that?

It depends on what you consider "playing a class." For instance, while the militia man you spoke of in your original post has the same features as a Monk, he has vastly different flavor. A Monk's resistance to disease and poison comes not from experience and physical hardiness, but rather from discipline and control. That discipline is, to me, key to being a Monk: it's as defining a trait as improved unarmed strikes.

Or consider the Warlock[1], and a campaign setting that excludes Demons, Devils, and other Evil Outsiders. Sure, you could re-work the flavor of the Warlock to get power from some other source, but then you lose a key to the Warlock class: they make deals with devils for power. And you could probably, with enough creativity, come up with some reason for Dragon Shamans[2] or Dragonfire Adepts[3] in a world without Dragons, but you still lose their flavor and thus, arguably, an aspect of the class.

The other issue is DM work. Now, maybe you're at some slacker college with an easy major, but I, at least, barely had time to run a campaign this semester, much less go out of my way to help re-write flavor. I mean, that's really what all DM restrictions are about: how much work is the DM willing to through? A player can create a whole new class, with brand-new features and shiny flavor and whatnot, but that's going to mean more DM work to ensure it's reasonable. In this game, anything can be done with DM approval; the only kimitations are how far the DM is willing to go in approving new things and how far someone can go in creating new things.

[1] Complete Arcane
[2] PHB 2
[3] Dragon Magic

[Bears With Lasers]

"Playing a class" means using its mechanics. OF COURSE you lose the flavor when you change the flavor! That's part of, well, changing the flavor! You get new flavor instead.
I could have a Warlock's flavor with a sorcerer, or a Monk's flavor with a Fighter. If someone says "the Warlock and Monk are inappropriate for my game", odds are they really mean the flavor--they just can't separate that from the mechanics.

I'm currently playing a Dragonfire Adept that's been redone to use Fey flavor, since I think dragons are lame. The mechanical changes needed for this are very minor--essentially, just turn the bonuses vs. dragons into bonuses vs. fey.

You can see a combat with this character here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36303&page=4#100 There's a bunch of posts on that page.

[adanedhel9]

For the most part, I agree.

I will say, however, that for some classes, the mechanics and the flavor support each other. If you're looking to change the flavor, such classes might be problematic.

To reuse my example from the previous thread, if you don't like the idea of spellcasters learning their magic via academia, you're going to have a hard time keeping the Wizard mechanically intact.

[Bears With Lasers]

Adanedhel: why? Turn the spellbook into a kind of arcane focus for all spells--hell, even make it not look like a spellbook Allow them to learn new spells from scrolls by going through the process of internalizing the magic via their innate talent.

[Zagreen]

A Monk's resistance to disease and poison comes not from experience and physical hardiness, but rather from discipline and control.

Well yes it's a vastly different flavor, that's kind of the point. What exactly is the difference between saying it comes from experience and hardiness and saying it comes from discipline and control? Either way, the effects in the game world are exactly the same: resistance to disease and poison. This is true whether you are a Monk With A Capital M or not.

[Bears With Lasers]

Psionics: take a psion. Call him a sorcerer. Make his psicrystal look like a tiny dragon, an externalization of his draconic essence. Call his powers "spells"--they interact with things the exact same way. Call his "psionic focus" simply a "focus".
Voila. You've got an arcane-flavored psion.

Reflavoring: it's really not that hard.

[Wehrkind]

The flavor text argument is largely fatuous. There is no reason why a monk has to be trained in a monastary, as none of his abilities require it. That's the whole point of the thread, that while the classes have suggested back grounds and reasoning for their powers, there is no hard and fast reason why they need to have that fluff. The only things class dictate are abilities and things like BAB. They do not dictate how you aquired the abilities, or what you do with them outside of specific mechanical requirements.

In the warlock example, why do you NEED evil outsiders? I don't have the book in front of me, but from my understanding that is just an explanation of where the powers come from. He doesn't need to actively make sacrifices or rework deals with those beings to maintain his powers. That being the case, just replace the words "evil outsider" with "supernatural being that exists in the game world." For some examples "Spirits of the Ancestors", "Elemental Lords", "The Auld Gods", "The collective destructive urges of all mankind" and probably any number of others will all do.

That's the thing with the names and "flavor" of the classes: They have only the most cursory relation to the abilities. A barbarian is not necessarily someone who doesn't speak Greek. A rogue can be a perfectly stand up guy. A bard does not necessarily sing for his supper, carrying news and stories to entertain noble house holds. Only a few classes have hard "fluff' written in, like paladins having to act within a certain code, and assassins having to be evil (if I recall,) and none of them have anything but the most basic relation to what the classes can do. The only reason they have names and fluff is that a list "Class A, B, C" with abilities listed after would make for poor reading. If someone reads "Fighter" they know what the class does reasonably easily without having to study the abilities to figure out what they are good at. "Wu Jen" does not have the same simplicity, as do many of the caster types, because they just don't exist, and there are too many types for "spell caster" to really differentiate.

[Ulzgoroth]

Adanedhel: why? Turn the spellbook into a kind of arcane focus for all spells--hell, even make it not look like a spellbook Allow them to learn new spells from scrolls by going through the process of internalizing the magic via their innate talent.
Maybe it doesn't look like a spellbook, but what does it look like? Also, being a book actually carries mechanical implications...I can tear a page out of a spellbook, and what that means is clear. If it's some gemstone, or walking-stick, or what-have-you...how do I do that?

Similarly, you just can't re-flavor the supernatural out of Desert Wind and Shadow Hand. You can make them less flashy if you want to...but they're still magic.

If it's appropriate you can stick the monk, or the swordsage, or the warblade, or barbarian, or whatever crunch behind your militiaman. But there are solid fluff-related elements that can't be ignored without actually changing crunch...if JoeFredBob's man makes it to level 20 as a monk he becomes an outsider, and explain that as you will.

[Bears With Lasers]

Just watch me re-flavor the supernatural out of the "my swords do fire damage" Desert Wind boosts: my swords don't burst into flame. They still do fire damage, mechanically. Things resistant to fire damage will take less hit point damage, which is fine because HP is abstract. But using Burning Blade? Purely a mechanical thing.

[Edo]

Similarly, you just can't re-flavor the supernatural out of Desert Wind and Shadow Hand. You can make them less flashy if you want to...but they're still magic.I would beg to differ (http://edgykredge.blogspot.com/2007/03/shadow-shifting-style-part-i.html).

[Ulzgoroth]

Genuinely can't comprehend how you call that 're-flavor' as opposed to 'houserule'. If you think your weapon being covered in fire really means nothing other than an extra D6 with certain properties at damage time, do you pay any attention to what your characters actually see, or are they just identified for you? And, um...lighting?

And the day you start being able to summon shadows to conceal you via that (rather interesting) real-world study of conscious shadow-casting, I'll see the relevance.

[Bears With Lasers]

Ulz: the fire lasts one round; it's irrelevant as a light source. As long as you're doing the damage the boost says and using up the d6, why does it matter if your blade is visibly covered in fire?

If you really like, though, the fire can be naturally-occuring substances or alchemical powders. That'll explain the "ring of fire" maneuver and so on, too.

[RiOrius]

"Playing a class" means using its mechanics.

Ah, so here's where we fundamentally disagree. You see classes as mere collections of rules: pure crunch.

Thought experiment time: Consider a character who can create magic innately. He has "no books, no mentors, no theories--just raw power that [he] direct[s] at [his] will." This power is directed in a few forms: a burst of pure energy (ranged touch, scales with level), the ability to sense magic (Detect Magic usable at will), and a few specific effects he can call forth whenever he wants to (you can guess what I'm referring to by now, I presume?).

You, apparently, would consider this character a Warlock, whose fluff has been replaced with that of a Sorceror. I argue that it is equally valid to view that character as a Sorceror, whose crunch has been replaced with that of a Warlock. I, personally, would view it as neither Warlock nor Sorceror, but rather as a mixture of the two.

I would agree with the idea that there's no reason (except for saving the DM extra work) to ban stuff that is strictly crunch for reasons that are strictly fluff. I just don't think classes are strictly crunch. You want to play a character with good unarmed strikes and poison immunity, due to a lifetime of barrom brawls, in my campagin, even though I've banned Monks for flavor reasons? No problem: you aren't playing a Monk anymore.

[Bears With Lasers]

That character is "[X] fluff with Warlock crunch". Mechanically, it's a Warlock. The "innate talent" fluff is not Sorcerer-exclusive. In any case, that's semantics--but realize, when you say I'm banning Monks, people will tend to assume that you are including the crunch in that. Very, very few classes have fluff exclusive to them; none have fluff that you can't implement any other way. You'd be better off saying "no oriental characters" if that's what you mean.

[Wehrkind]

Yea, I daresay that one could easily take the monk and work a character out that fits the typical Western/Judeo-Christian setting of D&D. Samson might be a stretch, but off the top of one's head, there are lots of Biblical figures that get odd abilities by the grace of Yaweh.
The monk class is simply a collection of abilities that allow one to approximate the genre of Eastern light fighters, a genre that is not unknown in the West.

I do think that if you are going to take the time to figure your campaign world in enough depth that you think you can write out certain "flavors" of characters, then you have enough time to help a player who wants to play a reasonable approximation of a class tweak it a bit though.

[Jade_Tarem]

The only classes I could see being remotely problematic are classes with alignment restrictions or codes. Even then, with enough time you could probably come up with what you want.

[Morty]

An unrelated question why the hell does everyone treat Sorcerer as dragon descendant? In PHB description it's said that some sorcerers claim that the have dragon ancestry, but it's nothing set in stone. There are also Heritage feats, but noone has to use them, and not all of them are dragon-related.

[Maxymiuk]

I typically ban oriental flavor classes from my games simply because otherwise I end up having to deal with the Rabid Japanophile Syndrome (I game online).



I recently created a Wu Jen. I made him have a strong connection with nature, took acquire familiar and improved familiar to get an advanced wolf (DM cooperation of course), took survival cross class and did basically everything i could to boost it, and took track. Suddenly I had a rugged outdoorsman Wu Jen with a slightly Native American flavor. I changed the flavor significantly enough that halfway through the session (it was a one-shot) someone reacted to me learning a spell from a scroll by saying "wait, you're an arcane caster?!?".


I like what you did there, but on the other hand, this was your own decision as a player to change the fluff to something you liked better. From my experience, there aren't very many people willing to put in that much effort, and they instead stick with the FAW (Fluff as Written).

[JellyPooga]

I've really got to go with 'Bears' and co. on this one (which, no offence to him, for some reason I rarely do). Fluff is Fluff. Crunch is Crunch. These things are interchangable. Even the very strictest fluff meets crunch classes (like Paladin) have some leeway.

O.k. so some classes are more generic than others, Rogues and Fighters are probably the most diverse in their backgrounds of any given class, with Paladins being on the other end of that scale, but that's not to say that the Paladin fluff must be associated with the Paladin crunch. One way to change the Paladins fluff is to simply remove the Divine nature of his abilities. Instead of a God, he aspires to the ideals of a Lord of some description. He studies under this Lords tutelage in the arts of war and magic. If he ever feels that he has violated this Lords trust or code of honour, his conscience forbids him from using the gifts his Lord granted him. It's not the most imaginative alteration, but it's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

RiOrius mentioned Warlocks in a non-demon/devil campaign and the impossibility of. Wtf? If anything, Warlocks are one of the more fluff-customisable classes out there. Any spell-like power drawn from a supernatural source of any type inherant in a character is a possibilty. Here's a few; Fey blood, Divine Power, 'Power of the Land', Inherent connection to the Plane of Shadow, Mutation (X-Men style)...the list goes on.

M0rt: Four words; Races. of. the. Dragon. This book highly exaggerated the Sorcerer = Dragon Descendant thing. Thus, because there is a lot of crunch stuff for it, a lot of people subscribe to it. Having said that, saying that your Sorcerer has a Devil for an anscestor and taking a lot of the Draconic feats would not be a far cry from appropriate. I mean, some of the Draconic feats; Gain a claw attack when you cast spells, Energy Resistance, Increased Spell DC's, Natural Armour, Better Saves - all of these could be attributed to a devilish or demonic heritage. Then again, you don't even have to go for the 'heritage' thing, ignore the related feats and say its something else (The power of Fantastitude - you're so fantastic and great that you just make stuff happen...anything really.)

Anyway, I'm rabling a bit, so I'll shut up now.

[Saph]

Just watch me re-flavor the supernatural out of the "my swords do fire damage" Desert Wind boosts: my swords don't burst into flame. They still do fire damage, mechanically. Things resistant to fire damage will take less hit point damage, which is fine because HP is abstract. But using Burning Blade? Purely a mechanical thing.

So wait a minute. In your game, these swords of yours do the type of damage that's referred to in the rules as 'fire damage'. This unknown attack type (whatever your character calls it) does extra damage to enemies who take extra damage from fire. It's resisted by creatures that are resistant to fire. It has no effect on creatures that are immune to fire. It can, presumably, be detected as fire, so that creatures with fire resistance abilities can use them. In short, it's mechanically identical to fire in every single way - but it's not fire? Why not just call it fire and be done with it? If there's no practical difference between this thing and 'fire', why would anyone in the world call it anything other than 'fire'? What's the point of having two different words for exactly the same thing?

- Saph

[Bears With Lasers]

First of all, I'm not doing this in my game, I'm just saying it's possible.

Second of all... it's fire damage, which is a mechanical term. The boost still does fire damage. It's just that your swords are not lighting on fire, fluff-wise. Other than that, it's the exact same thing. Using Burning Blade would have exactly the same effects it does now... except your character's swords wouldn't go FWOOSH.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

RiOrius mentioned Warlocks in a non-demon/devil campaign and the impossibility of. Wtf? If anything, Warlocks are one of the more fluff-customisable classes out there. Any spell-like power drawn from a supernatural source of any type inherant in a character is a possibilty. Here's a few; Fey blood, Divine Power, 'Power of the Land', Inherent connection to the Plane of Shadow...
You mind-reader you.

I'm currently working out a Warlock/Shadowcaster combination Prestige class based on a Shadow-linked Warlock flavor as it is.


Having said that, saying that your Sorcerer has a Devil for an anscestor and taking a lot of the Draconic feats would not be a far cry from appropriate. I mean, some of the Draconic feats; Gain a claw attack when you cast spells, Energy Resistance, Increased Spell DC's, Natural Armour, Better Saves - all of these could be attributed to a devilish or demonic heritage.
Right. Those are changes no more intensive than making Move Silently "Rice Paper Walk" or "Footpaddin'". :smalltongue:

More people should read chapter four of the PH, I think.

[Saph]

First of all, I'm not doing this in my game, I'm just saying it's possible.

Second of all... it's fire damage, which is a mechanical term. The boost still does fire damage. It's just that your swords are not lighting on fire, fluff-wise. Other than that, it's the exact same thing. Using Burning Blade would have exactly the same effects it does now... except your character's swords wouldn't go FWOOSH.

So how does everyone else figure out that your weapons are doing fire damage?

If they can't - if the flame is invisible or something - then you're giving the character a mechanical advantage, because now it's much harder for opponents to know that they need to cast resist energy (fire) before going into melee with you.

- Saph

[Bears With Lasers]

Um, they don't. You can put them up against opponents with fire resistance anyway. There are dozens of reasons an enemy might choose to cast Resist Fire before a fight. Make one up. Or just have them cast it and describe it as a more generic protection.
Besides, casting it in the middle of a fight when you saw fire on some guy's swords? When magical swords that burst into flame are commonplace, and the fire doesn't really do much? Few intelligent casters would do that.

[Saph]

Um, they don't. You can put them up against opponents with fire resistance anyway. There are dozens of reasons an enemy might choose to cast Resist Fire before a fight. Make one up. Or just have them cast it and describe it as a more generic protection.

And there's the point. Now the DM is having to metagame instead of just having the NPC see the fire and react to it.

Flavour and mechanics twine together. If you're allowed to change the flavour for your character's abilities, you have a mechanical advantage.

- Saph

[SMDVogrin]

So how does everyone else figure out that your weapons are doing fire damage?

If they can't - if the flame is invisible or something - then you're giving the character a mechanical advantage, because now it's much harder for opponents to know that they need to cast resist energy (fire) before going into melee with you.

How do they figure it's fire damage? They scream "It burns!" as their wounds sizzle from the mysterious alchemical powder that coated his swords.

Or for the Viking mentioned up-thread, vials of Greek Fire, purchased through the offices of our Varangian kin from far-away Constantinople and cunningly concealed in the hilt of my weapon.

Voila, flameless fluff. Next?

[Bears With Lasers]

Of course the DM is having to metagame. Metagaming is pretty much required for good DMing. I'd say metagame importance actually has priority over in-game stuff--for example, the good old "don't stab your party in the back, even if it's what your character would do, unless it's that type of game" unwritten rule.
The game is meant to be fun. Sacrificing that for the sake of making it a more accurate simulation strikes me as counterproductive.

Setting up encounters properly requires metagaming. Otherwise, depending on what the characters do, they'll either get killed straight out or walk straight through them. If your PCs favor Finger of Death, set the weak-fort-save LBEG up with Death Ward, or the battle will be over in one round. This doesn't require compromising the NPC's personality (although you should probably change their personality, if it does)--you just come up with a reason for them to do so. Is coming up for a reason for someone to cast Resist Fire that hard? They could be worried about the mage's fireballs, or enchanted flaming swords, or simply taking standard precautions. Or you could flavor it as a more general protection.

Besides, sure, flavor can give you an advantage or disadvantage. So what? Being a drow has a huge disadvantage (i.e. you can't reveal the fact or out come the torches and pitchforks) in default settings, but that seems to be okay. Being a noble can have an advantage. Flavoring your character as attractive (not all high-CHA characters are) can be advantageous. If you're that worried about the advantage, negate it by having the enemies who'd cast resist fire do it anyway as above.

[Indon]

Personally, I view classes as a combination of flavor and mechanics, and tweaking one (Non-burning fire damage, that's a new one to me) is just as much houseruling as tweaking the other. Nothing wrong with houseruling, of course, but it's generally not discussed on this forum unless it's a common houserule (Swordsage-as-Monk seems to be a good example).

Furthermore, fluff and crunch that are changed that they no longer compliment each other (Non-burning fire damage is a good example) can seriously endanger the players' suspension of belief (What do you mean 'it's fire damage'?), making the game overall less enjoyable for anyone else who views the game as more than a collection of mechanics.

Each to their own, and a group can play D&D however they want, but if one of my players comes up to me and asks for fire that isn't fire, I'm probably shutting them down. Now, they ask for fire that's searing, heat-rising-from-weapon hot but not aflame, I might houserule it that way, because that's a creative, appropriate reflavoring and some player influence on the campaign environment can be beneficial. But I'll evaluate such changes alongside "Hey, can I use XXX homebrew class?" and shut them down when I feel them to be inappropriate.

[hewhosaysfish]

Bears, even if these swords don't burst into flame, I would assume they get hot. Or cause anything they hit to suddenly get very hot while being themselves quite cold. If they don't, fire damage doesn't make sense. If they do, then how and why?

[Bears With Lasers]

Bears, even if these swords don't burst into flame, I would assume they get hot. Or cause anything they hit to suddenly get very hot while being themselves quite cold. If they don't, fire damage doesn't make sense. If they do, then how and why?

There are a number of perfectly (Ex) possibilities, i.e. an alchemical powder. That's not waht I was proposing, however.

You're missing what I'm saying. "I'd assume they get hot"--why? Why can't they do fire-typed damage, mechanically, without being hot IC? Fire damage is a mechanic. Some games don't even have it--damage is damage. D&D does, but it's just a mechanic that's applied whenever you get fire. It doesn't have to be this way.

The sword could, mechanically, do [Fire] damage, without having anything to do with fire inside the game-world. The character's just hitting harder. The character can't tell exactly how much HP damage he does. HP and damage are mechanics. You can apply the "take fire damage" mechanic--check for fire resistance, subtract it from the damage, et cetera--and adjust the monster's or NPC's HP without describing any fire.
This doesn't have to influence the game in any way. Even if it does, it doesn't have to be in any significant way.

If other people have a problem with it, that's bad--but then, that applies to anything. People can have problems with lots of things. But, really, why would you care? The character isn't any more powerful than he'd be otherwise. He just looks different.
Meanwhile, there's "fluff" that will have much bigger in-game effects, by default... like having black skin and white hair as an elf, or being female if the world's sexist, or etc.
Why would you care if the character does 1d6+5 fire damage when he uses that boost although no fire appears IC, if he still uses the same mechanics he would otherwise? The character doesn't have any advantage. Even if he did, it'd be a minor one, especially compared to, say, an improved build.

[Saph]

You're missing what I'm saying. "I'd assume they get hot"--why? Why can't they do fire-typed damage, mechanically, without being hot IC?

Because it doesn't make any sense. If these things are doing heat damage, why aren't they hot?

Lots of things in D&D strain suspension of disbelief, but there's generally some balance- or fun-related reason for them. But this strains suspension of disbelief (as well as requiring several explanations) without giving you any benefit in return. What's the point?

- Saph

[KIDS]

Manipulating flavor is a great thing. Though doing it does not make someone "better" as a player, it's only a matter of increasing his enyjoment.
In early times, fighters took suboptimal feats and fought to become swashbucklers, which was fine. Nowadays one would just laugh if someone played a fighter that way with swashbuckler right in the nearby book, and it's fine too.

[Abstruse]

Except that there are spells which do fire damage and yet do not provide visual evidence that they're going to do so to normal sight -- like darkfire (SpC p59). Sure, the spell description says "dark flames appear in your hand", but they're still invisible to normal vision.

As Bears says...

The Shadow Hand stuff was shadows flickering about him, which was quite suitable for a stealthy-ish "dark" character; the Desert Wind boosts were sudden bursts of black fire to mirror his rage.

That doesn't sound all that different to me than the fluff for the spell.

[Bears With Lasers]

Um, why does it strain suspension of disbelief? It just means you mark off a certain amount of HP. In character, no fire occurs. There's nothing to disbelieve. It becomes a purely mechanical effect, just like rolling stats (no fluff determines what you roll. The outcome is represented inside the game world, just like the HP damage is, but which method you use isn't based on anything inside the game, just like using the boost and doing the fire damage wouldn't be.
It doesn't strain suspension of disbelief for me. The mechanics occur outside the game world you're suspending your disbelief at. Mechanically, all "1d6 fire damage" means is "roll 1d6, see the number, subtract the number beside the words Fire Resistance (if you have any) from that number, and subtract the result from HP."

The "point", the benefit in return, would be that you can play a supernatural-stuff-free character without being mechanically penalized for that decision.

[Indon]

Except that there are spells which do fire damage and yet do not provide visual evidence that they're going to do so to normal sight -- like darkfire (SpC p59). Sure, the spell description says "dark flames appear in your hand", but they're still invisible to normal vision.


That's just great, since that appears to be exactly what the spell is supposed to do.

That's a lot different than "Yeah, they don't see my Fireball coming because it's dark fire, didn't you know? They still dodge and stuff, though, and it still deals fire damage, so carry on with the game mechanic."

[Bears With Lasers]

...except that Darkfire requires a ranged touch attack to hit someone with it, and fire resistance still applies. How is that any different from reflavoring Produce Flame to look like dark fire, say?

[Indon]

Because the first words in that spell are "Flames as bright as a torch appear"?

This 'dark fire' is supposedly invisible, right?

Edit: But really, that's a bad example because it doesn't work mechanically.

A better example would be a Fireball that is said to produce a ball of exploding leaves. They burn just like they were fire, but they're leaves instead. This is an (extreme) example of bad reflavoring which damages suspension of belief and should be denied by the DM. Similarly, a good example would be firing, say, a ball of blue or green fire instead of normal fire.

[Bears With Lasers]

I haven't looked the spell up. Okay, your flames wouldn't glow when you shoot them at someone. Um... oh noes, how horrible? In that case, yes, the spell would change (because illumination is a mechanical effect), but only very slightly. Or the dark fire itself could be invisible, but still give off a glow.

[Saph]

Um, why does it strain suspension of disbelief? It just means you mark off a certain amount of HP. In character, no fire occurs. There's nothing to disbelieve. It becomes a purely mechanical effect, just like rolling stats (no fluff determines what you roll. The outcome is represented inside the game world, just like the HP damage is, but which method you use isn't based on anything inside the game, just like using the boost and doing the fire damage wouldn't be.
It doesn't strain suspension of disbelief for me. The mechanics occur outside the game world you're suspending your disbelief at. Mechanically, all "1d6 fire damage" means is "roll 1d6, see the number, subtract the number beside the words Fire Resistance (if you have any) from that number, and subtract the result from HP."

'Fire damage' in D&D is not just a mechanic. It's supposed to represent something, and that something is - guess what? - fire.

The D&D system is supposed to represent and simulate things. When you attack with your sword, it's doesn't represent subtracting numbers from a HP score, it's supposed to represent that you are actually trying to physically hit someone.

If you take that away, the entire D&D system becomes nothing more than a really complicated and arbitrary set of mathematical equations. If 'fire damage' isn't supposed to represent fire, then what's the point of having all those rules to govern it? Might as well get rid of them.

For that matter, if we're changing or ignoring all the parts of the PHB that describe flavour and what the mechanics represent, why not change the other parts, too? How about if I say that I'd like my wizard to be immune to HP damage? Sure, that's mechanics, rather than flavour, but it's not as though the PHB says 'the mechanics are sacred, the flavour is disposable'. All I'm doing is ignoring a different part of the book from the part that you are.

- Saph

[Bears With Lasers]

'Fire damage' in D&D is not just a mechanic. It's supposed to represent something, and that something is - guess what? - fire.
And you can't occasionally ignore that... why? How would it hurt? Yes, in general the mechanic represents fire. And yet, it doesn't have to.


The D&D system is supposed to represent and simulate things. When you attack with your sword, it's doesn't represent subtracting numbers from a HP score, it's supposed to represent that you are actually trying to physically hit someone.
Yeah, it is. D&D is, to some extent, a simulation. This doesn't mean you can't ever change that.
And no, making an attack roll DOESN'T have to represent trying to hit someone. Let's say you've got four attack rolls. When you make a full attack, you could describe four attacks, two of which hit... or you could describe one swing and connect of the sword. Mechanically, you do the same amount of damage. Similarily, a character whose dodge bonus to AC allowing him to avoid a blow could describe it as actively dodging, or his innate luck powers causing him to stumble in a way that avoids it. You could describe Magic Missile as slightly destabilizing something, rather than as a bolt of force hitting them.


If you take that away, the entire D&D system becomes nothing more than a really complicated and arbitrary set of mathematical equations. If 'fire damage' isn't supposed to represent fire, then what's the point of having all those rules to govern it? Might as well get rid of them.Overall, fire damage represents fire. That doesn't mean that you can't in this one instance apply fire damage without IC fire. D&D isn't a perfect simulation. How will using the fire damage mechanic when it's called for by the Burning Blade mechanic hurt, even if the Burning Blade boost doesn't actually represent something in the game world?


For that matter, if we're changing or ignoring all the parts of the PHB that describe flavour and what the mechanics represent, why not change the other parts, too? How about if I say that I'd like my wizard to be immune to HP damage? Sure, that's mechanics, rather than flavour, but it's not as though the PHB says 'the mechanics are sacred, the flavour is disposable'. All I'm doing is ignoring a different part of the book from the part that you are.

- SaphI'm sure you could see why being immune to HP damage could be MECHANICALLY problematic. That is not just a fluff effect, you are gaining an enormous mechanical advantage.
You could, however, have a wizard whose HP represents a protective magical aura, and have him take no cuts or bruises until the aura is gone completely (i.e. he's at 10 HP or less). Sparks fly and the aura visibly weakens whenever he takes a hit. Alternatively, you could describe the wizard getting nicked or bruised every time someone hits him, as is the default.
Similarily, I'm running a fey-adapted Dragonfire Adept. I'm describing some of his HP and his Natural Armor as a powerful aura around him. When I mechanically use a breath weapon, flavor-wise that aura lashes out at people. The flavor is different; the mechanical effect is the same. A character with the spell Aura of Evasion would still receive its benefits against my "breath weapon".

[Indon]

Similarily, I'm running a fey-adapted Dragonfire Adept. I'm describing some of his HP and his Natural Armor as a powerful aura around him. When I mechanically use a breath weapon, flavor-wise that aura lashes out at people. The flavor is different; the mechanical effect is the same.

Which is all well and good (and I'd probably approve it) until you're low on health and somehow your aura is still just as strong as when you have ten times the health.

Of course, if I were to rule that if you were low health the breath weapon got weaker (in order to, you know, not damage suspension of belief), there'd probably be no end to the whining, so I guess maybe I wouldn't approve it for that reason.

[Matthew]

Banning something is a lot easier than dealing with it on a case by case basis. That's typically why DMs ban stuff that they think may not mesh with their game.

[Bears With Lasers]

Which is all well and good (and I'd probably approve it) until you're low on health and somehow your aura is still just as strong as when you have ten times the health.
HP does not directly represent health. A fighter can be described as being without wounds even though he's at 150/200 HP; the aura can be described as being strong even if it were to only represent hit points. Of course, I could also take the fluff and argue that it only degrades to a certain point (and beyond that, it represents Natural Armor).


Of course, if I were to rule that if you were low health the breath weapon got weaker (in order to, you know, not damage suspension of belief), there'd probably be no end to the whining, so I guess maybe I wouldn't approve it for that reason.Or maybe the aura's offense and defense could be unrelated. You're right, there'd be complaining, and it'd be perfectly reasonable. You'd be nerfing my character for absolutely no good reason. As is, I'm playing a dragon-flavored class as a character that actually appeals to me, and I am not gaining any advantage or disadvantage from it. I'd call that a Good Thing. More fun is had.


Edit: using published modules is easier than making stuff up, too, and yet DMs are willing to go to the extra effort for fun...

[Matthew]

Indeed, a Fighter with 1/200 Hit Points can do exactly th same things that a Fighter with 200/200 Hit Points, except take more Hit Points Damage. He can run a marathon, write a book or bake a cake just as well, but he can't jump off a cliff and survive...

Edit: DMs who don't use published modules generally do so because they have the time to tailor things exactly as they would like them. If you have time to spare, you might as well just make up your own Base Classes to suit the campaign and player concepts.

[Saph]

I'm sure you could see why being immune to HP damage could be MECHANICALLY problematic. That is not just a fluff effect, you are gaining an enormous mechanical advantage.

I don't remember reading anything in the PHB that said "Mechanics are all-important, but fluff can be changed to whatever you like."What I remember reading is a lot of fluff, and a lot of mechanics, all mixed together.

You're saying that you should be allowed to rewrite the fluff for your character to what suits you. Okay then, why shouldn't I be allowed to rewrite the mechanics of my character to what suits me? All I'm doing is ignoring a separate set of paragraphs to the ones you are.

- Saph

[Indon]

Or maybe the aura's offense and defense could be unrelated.
And that's where you'd want to damage the suspension of belief.



You're right, there'd be complaining, and it'd be perfectly reasonable.

It would be for you, because you don't care about suspension of belief in the game. But I do. I would deny many of the houserule descriptions you've made examples of in this thread for that reason, though I would accept some of them.


You'd be nerfing my character for absolutely no good reason.
Your breath weapon would do more damage, conversely, if you had temporary hit points for some reason. It's just a matter of making crunch make more sense with fluff, thus making both more interesting.



As is, I'm playing a dragon-flavored class as a character that actually appeals to me, and I am not gaining any advantage or disadvantage from it. I'd call that a Good Thing. More fun is had.

All well and good in your campaign, DM's are free to approve or disapprove of whatever they like.



Edit: using published modules is easier than making stuff up, too, and yet DMs are willing to go to the extra effort for fun...

I agree! Reflavoring is making things up! You call it homebrewing, or houseruling. There is nothing wrong with it, but it should be approved by the DM on an individual basis, and by no means is it right for everyone or appropriate for every game.

[Bears With Lasers]

I don't remember reading anything in the PHB that said "Mechanics are all-important, but fluff can be changed to whatever you like."What I remember reading is a lot of fluff, and a lot of mechanics, all mixed together.
Eyeroll.
You can rewrite your mechanics if your group is fine with that. However, having someone suddenly be immune to HP damage is not something almost any group would be fine with.

The major difference between changing mechanics and changing fluff is that there's a call for mechanics to be "fair" for a variety of reasons, whereas fluff is more of a personal thing. Not all fluff is allowed (i.e. you can't play a descendant of dragons in a game world without dragons), but if Fluff X is acceptable, why would it stop being acceptable due to some mechanics changes?


You're saying that you should be allowed to rewrite the fluff for your character to what suits you. Okay then, why shouldn't I be allowed to rewrite the mechanics of my character to what suits me? All I'm doing is ignoring a separate set of paragraphs to the ones you are.

- Saph
Because the mechanics are a game, in the same sense that poker is, although a more loose one. Rewriting the mechanics as you will is cheating.

Of course, this is an RPG, and "cheating" is okay if your group is fine with it. Changing mechanics, overall, is actually perfectly fine provided everyone agrees. Groups do it all the time--it's called "house rules". Does drowning not set you to 0 HP in your game? You've changed the mechanics.
You can do this in "fluff"less games, too. For example, you could change the mechanic of Blackjack so that aces are always one point, rather than 11 or 1 as you please.

[Bears With Lasers]

And that's where you'd want to damage the suspension of belief.
Why? You're presumably fine with fighters doing the same amount of damage at 1 HP out of 200.
Why does it damage disbelief for my Spooky Fey Offensive Powers and Spooky Fey Offensive Powers to be different? There are tons of ways it could make sense. The offensive "part" of the aura doesn't get damaged when the defensive part does, for example (like damaging a robot's armor wouldn't damage its weapon).


It would be for you, because you don't care about suspension of belief in the game. But I do. I would deny many of the houserule descriptions you've made examples of in this thread for that reason, though I would accept some of them.
I care about suspension of disbelief. Yours is just apparently easily broken, and you don't seem to be willing to look for ways to maintain it (like the above aura explanation).


Your breath weapon would do more damage, conversely, if you had temporary hit points for some reason. It's just a matter of making crunch make more sense with fluff, thus making both more interesting.
But the crunch can make sense with the fluff without changing the crunch. You can do that. You don't have to change the crunch of my breath weapon just because my flavor for it and my Natural Armor "scales" is a swirling aura of power.



I agree! Reflavoring is making things up! You call it homebrewing, or houseruling. There is nothing wrong with it, but it should be approved by the DM on an individual basis, and by no means is it right for everyone or appropriate for every game.
Yes, reflavoring is making things up, just like creating a personality is. It's a making things up that affects other people much more less directly than making rules up, though.
Houseruling is appropriate for every game; every game does it. No one plays D&D purely RAW. Changing fluff is just vaguer houseruling (because fluff is vaguer) that doesn't affect everyone. Saying "yeah, he looks like a fey not like a dragon" isn't really different from saying "and my world has no dragons so you can't play a dragon descendant".

[Artemician]

I don't remember reading anything in the PHB that said "Mechanics are all-important, but fluff can be changed to whatever you like."What I remember reading is a lot of fluff, and a lot of mechanics, all mixed together.

You're saying that you should be allowed to rewrite the fluff for your character to what suits you. Okay then, why shouldn't I be allowed to rewrite the mechanics of my character to what suits me? All I'm doing is ignoring a separate set of paragraphs to the ones you are.

- Saph

.. Because you're not making the game fun for anyone?

When people rewrite fluff, the aim is to have fun. Fun Fun Fun. It isn't hurting anyone, so why are you trying to stop people from having fun?

If a player wants to roleplay a manuever as something else, when it doesn' t provide a really unfun and unbalancing advantage for himself, why would a DM disapprove?

[Saph]

Because the mechanics are a game, in the same sense that poker is, although a more loose one. Rewriting the mechanics as you will is cheating.

Of course, this is an RPG, and "cheating" is okay if your group is fine with it. Changing mechanics, overall, is actually perfectly fine provided everyone agrees. Groups do it all the time--it's called "house rules".

Exactly. And that's exactly what you're doing when you rewrite the flavour for your character - taking part of the text in the PHB (or Complete Arcane, or whatever) and changing it, because by the book, Dragonfire Adepts are all about dragons. It's a house rule, and has to be approved by the DM.

If you tried to rewrite your Dragonfire Adept to a Feyfire Adept without okaying it first, then there are plenty of groups out there who would say that YOU were cheating. Players who care a lot about fluff and not a lot about mechanics are okay with you taking liberties with the mechanics, but not with the fluff. Players who care a lot about mechanics and not a lot about fluff are okay with you taking liberties with the fluff, but not with the mechanics.

- Saph

[Bears With Lasers]

Obviously fluff is as subject to DM permission as anything else. We know that already. How on earth is this related to whether fluff and crunch are separable? When did I say that you should be able to play whatever fluff you want, regardless of what the DM says? That'd be like playing an elf (in the fluff) when the DM said his world has no elves.
It'd be perfectly reasonable to use the elven crunch for a character, though, minus the age thing (unless you want to justify those--fountain of youth, village where people study longevity magic, etc).
And it'd be a stupid move on the part of the DM to say "no, you can't use the elven crunch, even though it's balanced and we used it last game because that's for elves, and those don't exist in my world". The lack of elven fluff shouldn't influence the viability of the elven crunch.
Similarily, if a DM felt that elves were mechanically unbalanced, barring someone from playing an elf fluff-wise for that reason would be a bad move. You could just use human crunch for the elf.

Also, as I said, taking liberties with my fluff affects only me directly. Taking liberties with the rules of the game affects everyone.

[Matthew]

Not quite true, that. Your fluff can impact the gameworld as much as having an additional Bonus Feat at Level 5.

[Indon]

When people rewrite fluff, the aim is to have fun. Fun Fun Fun. It isn't hurting anyone, so why are you trying to stop people from having fun?


That's the same aim when people rewrite rules. This doesn't change the fact that some homebrewed concepts are really good, and some aren't.

Similarly, some reflavoring is cool and nifty. But it can get pretty absurd, and thus affect the players' suspension of belief.

I'm just pointing out the distinct ramifications of bad reflavoring, as opposed to bad rulings. Some think bad reflavoring isn't as bad as a bad ruling; others disagree because they place less emphasis on rules and more on flavor. That's pretty much what it comes down to.

Edit: Okay, apparently that's not all it comes down to.

-Bad crunch/fluff synergy is what makes bad reflavoring bad. If it sounds absurd or stupid or nonsensical, then it can damage everyone's experience, not just that of one player, provided they're actually trying to envision any of this stuff. Saying "fluff and crunch are separate" is saying "fluff/crunch synergy does not matter", which is saying, "There is no such thing as bad flavor", which there is.

[Bears With Lasers]

Yes, it impacts the game world, not the other players. The rules impact players, who have to follow them.

Obviously bad reflavoring is bad. That's an issue of quality, not of the separability of crunch and fluff.

[Grey Paladin]

Scratch that, by the time I finished my post it was rendered obselute

[Indon]

Bad reflavoring is bad when it does not make sense with crunch. You can not divorce fluff and crunch; you can change fluff and crunch into other configurations that still work, but they're still stuck with each other so long as you're playing a game that is both descriptive and mechanical in nature.

[Saph]

Obviously fluff is as subject to DM permission as anything else. We know that already. How on earth is this related to whether fluff and crunch are separable? When did I say that you should be able to play whatever fluff you want, regardless of what the DM says? That'd be like playing an elf (in the fluff) when the DM said his world has no elves.

Similarily, if a DM felt that elves were mechanically unbalanced, barring someone from playing an elf fluff-wise for that reason would be a bad move. You could just use human crunch for the elf.


Most players don't want fluff and crunch to be separate. When I pick 'Elf' for my race, I damn well want my character to be an elf in the gameworld, too, and I'm far from being the only one. I want what's on my character sheet to have some kind of relevance to my physical persona in the gameworld.

If not, I'm effectively playing two separate games - a mathematical optimisation game where I crunch the numbers for my character sheet and try to make them as big as possible, and a roleplaying game where I have my character do whatever I want while I wait for the numbers to resolve. Like I said before, if you're doing this, why use the D&D conflict resolution system at all? As a mathematical model, it's not particularly elegant or well designed. It's not interesting on its own merits, not to most people, anyway. It's only interesting because of what it represents. I might as well resolve conflicts with poker hands or some other game that I enjoy playing.

- Saph

[Bears With Lasers]

Crunch/fluff need have no synergy--for exmaple, the "burning blade mechanics without any IC fluff" example. Yes, breaking suspension of disbelief is bad--but this is a problem with bad fluff. You could have fluff that jibes perfectly with its crunch, but still breaks suspension of disbelief. For example, I could have synergistic crunch/fluff that allows me to jump to the moon, but that'd break suspension of disbelief.

Edit: most players do want crunch and fluff to be separate to some extent. For example, I don't think most people would object to playing a Samurai who doesn't take the Samurai class.

When you pick "elf" for your race, you want to play an elf, fluff-wise. But what's the difference between playing an elf with one set of crunch and playing an elf with another, so long as the crunch can be made to fit without more effort than you're willing to spend? How is that any different from published variant rules?
If you want to play "a human", why does this mean playing the human using the rules for humans published in the PHB? Would using the elven crunch for a human character somehow not be playing a human anymore?

You are effectively playing two different games already--you're just mixing them to a certain extent. The game stays fun for most people if you mix them a little less--and most single fluff alterations are only mixing it a little less. You can have Burning Blade's effects be resolved in a purely mechanical fashion without suddenly separating the system from the result entirely, although that is also possible... it's just that you're better off playing with a different system (unless you really like D&D's mechanics, which some people do), then.

[Matthew]

Yes, it impacts the game world, not the other players. The rules impact players, who have to follow them.

Obviously bad reflavoring is bad. That's an issue of quality, not of the separability of crunch and fluff.
See, the issue I'm having, is that if we take the War Blade Viking, for instance, and we introduce him to a game where NPC Viking are typically Warriors and Fighters, the Player Character mechanics are impacting more than just the Player Character, as the Character is mechanically well beyond the norms of that group. He could be a Viking, but he would have to be a 'Special' Viking, as far as I can see. Otherwise, presumably there ought to be more Viking War Blades in the game world.

[Bears With Lasers]

Um... why?
The viking swings his sword or axe just like all the other vikings. The fluff is the same. He may be better than Fighter vikings of his level, but the same could be accomplished by having a better build as a Fighter.
How is he special? In-game, he just hits things hard (Stone Dragon strikes vs. regular high-damage attacks), shrugs off spells (Moment of Perfect Mind vs. just making the save), and so on. In-character, he's just like the vikings. Some of them may well be better (a good fighter build could take out a Warblade, no fuss no muss; some of the Viking NPCs could be significantly higher level; etc).

[Amazing Roar]

See, the issue I'm having, is that if we take the War Blade Viking, for instance, and we introduce him to a game where NPC Viking are typically Warriors and Fighters, the Player Character mechanics are impacting more than just the Player Character, as the Character is mechanically well beyond the norms of that group. He could be a Viking, but he would have to be a 'Special' Viking, as far as I can see. Otherwise, presumably there ought to be more Viking War Blades in the game world.

The Fighters are better than the Warriors, but you don't seem concerned by that. Why is the Warblade being better than the Fighter an issue?

[Saph]

When you pick "elf" for your race, you want to play an elf, fluff-wise. But what's the difference between playing an elf with one set of crunch and playing an elf with another, so long as the crunch can be made to fit without more effort than you're willing to spend? How is that any different from published variant rules?
If you want to play "a human", why does this mean playing the human using the rules for humans published in the PHB? Would using the elven crunch for a human character somehow not be playing a human anymore?

Yes! Because you're using the set of mechanics that were designed to represent elves! So you're a human, except that you live as long as an elf, have the senses of an elf, don't sleep and trance as an elf does, have the weapon proficiencies of an elf, the favoured class tendencies of an elf, the greater dexterity and lesser constitution of an elf, the knowledge of the Elven language of an elf, and the bonus languages, etc., that an elf gets.

You're not a human. You're an elf pretending to be a human. And you won't even do a very good job of pretending. By the start of your adventuring career, you're over a hundred years old! You don't think some people might have noticed that there was something a bit odd about you?

It's the 'fire' situation all over again. The inhabitants of this elfless elf-filled world of yours will have a word for people like you, and that word will basically mean 'elf'.

- Saph

[Bears With Lasers]

Yes! Because you're using the set of mechanics that were designed to represent elves! So you're a human, except that you live as long as an elf, have the senses of an elf, don't sleep and trance as an elf does, have the weapon proficiencies of an elf, the favoured class tendencies of an elf, the greater dexterity and lesser constitution of an elf, the knowledge of the Elven language of an elf, and the bonus languages, etc., that an elf gets.

You're not a human. You're an elf pretending to be a human. And you won't even do a very good job of pretending. By the start of your adventuring career, you're over a hundred years old! You don't think some people might have noticed that there was something a bit odd about you?
Like I said, you would have to either ignore, alter or justify the fluff to make it feel right. You could use human age categories... or you could be from a village that has a spring of youth. You have learned to sleep more deeply and therefore for a shorter time... or you can sleep like a human. You have certain weapon proficiencies. Great, it's the culture of your area. You're keen-eyed; some people are like that. Favored class is, like the weapons training, cultural/regional. "Elven" could be your local language--it's not as though elven represents a particular language, just a distinct one; the "elven" language of my world doesn't have to be the same as the "elven" language of your world, so "elven" could just mean your people's language--or you could just get your regional language instead of Elven.

You have +2 dex and -2 CON. This is irrelevant--only your final stat matters. You will be more agile than many people, but there are bound to be some humans out there more agile than you (i.e. ones with stat boosts from levels). You won't ever be the hardiest person in the world... most people aren't. You might be one of the most agile people in the world... okay. Someone has to be.


It's the 'fire' situation all over again. The inhabitants of this elfless elf-filled world of yours will have a word for people like you, and that word will basically mean 'elf'.

- SaphOr maybe "agile", or "the [X] tribe". Your human wouldn't have to be like a typical elf at all. To accomplish that, you would need to either justify or alter some of the crunch. Justifying it all would probably be a real pain and wind up not being what you want to play. But you could do it. You just shouldn't, necessarily.

Those mechanics typically represent elves. You could have them represent something else. Where they overlap with fluff, you can find alternate explanations. It's just not necessarily a good idea, and it can take a lot of bother. The fire situation isn't like that. It takes no effort to explain, because nothing happens in-game.

[Matthew]

The Fighters are better than the Warriors, but you don't seem concerned by that. Why is the Warblade being better than the Fighter an issue?
Well, because there is a basic difference between an NPC Class and a PC Class. PC Classes are supposed to better than NPC ones, PCs (and NPC Adventurers) are a cut above the NPCs.

Um... why?
The viking swings his sword or axe just like all the other vikings. The fluff is the same. He may be better than Fighter vikings of his level, but the same could be accomplished by having a better build as a Fighter.
How is he special? In-game, he just hits things hard (Stone Dragon strikes vs. regular high-damage attacks), shrugs off spells (Moment of Perfect Mind vs. just making the save), and so on. In-character, he's just like the vikings. Some of them may well be better (a good fighter build could take out a Warblade, no fuss no muss; some of the Viking NPCs could be significantly higher level; etc).
Well, he is mechanically different from the other 'Vikings'. He can do mechanical things that other Vikings cannot do. He is a mechanical exception.

[Bears With Lasers]

Um, yes. He is mechanically different. That happens when you change the mechanics. So is an optimized fighter build.

What's wrong with him being mechanically different? Fluff-wise, he's just a skilled viking warrior.

[Roethke]

Well, because there is a basic difference between an NPC Class and a PC Class. PC Classes are supposed to better than NPC ones, PCs (and NPC Adventurers) are a cut above the NPCs.

Well, he is mechanically different from the other 'Vikings'. He can do mechanical things that other Vikings cannot do. He is a mechanical exception.


I think you're confusing the issue of more powerful classes from a new book introduced into a setting with the fluff & crunch argument.

Heck, if you just introduce a barbarian into a community made up of fighters and warriors, there are all sorts of things the barbarian could do, that the others couldn't (moving substantially faster comes to mind), but it still fits well, flavor-wise.

[Matthew]

Mechanics support fluff, some do it better than others. There are some oddities in the War Blade mechanics with regard to Vikings, such as Swim and Ride not being Class Skills.

Gather Information would also yield some potentially odd results, that mechanic would have to be altered.

[Bears With Lasers]

Cross-class Swim and Ride if you want them. You'll be passable. Gather Information is semi-metagame anyway.

[Matthew]

That's the point, though. War Blade is a 'good' fit, but it has to be mechanically altered (ever so slightly) to divorce it entirely from it's fluff.

[Bears With Lasers]

Except... it doesn't? Cross-classing skills isn't altering a character. Gather Information, like I said, is metagame (if it can tell you someone is a Warblade, rather than describe what they do).

[Matthew]

Cross Class Skills would be no good in this instance. Vikings were supposedly famed swimmers, you could play one who wasn't very good at it, for sure, but you couldn't play a 'typical' Viking. Ride is a slightly different matter, as not all Vikings were skilled horsemen. Nonetheless, that makes it hard to play a War Blade as a Horseman, for instance. Fluff and Mechanics interact, that's exactly what is going on with Gather Information, as far as I can see.

What definition of 'Meta Gaming' do you have in mind?

[Roethke]

Cross Class Skills would be no good in this instance. Vikings were supposedly famed swimmers, you could play one who wasn't very good at it, for sure, but you couldn't play a 'typical' Viking. Ride is a slightly different matter, as not all Vikings were skilled horsemen. Nonetheless, that makes it hard to play a War Blade as a Horseman, for instance. Fluff and Mechanics interact, that's exactly what is going on with Gather Information, as far as I can see.

What definition of 'Meta Gaming' do you have in mind?

The skills are such an abstraction that it's hard to imagine the 'typical' viking being able to put many ranks in Swim. After all, in D&D the ability to make swim checks is directly related to your INT-score, not very sensical either.

[Amazing Roar]

Well, because there is a basic difference between an NPC Class and a PC Class. PC Classes are supposed to better than NPC ones, PCs (and NPC Adventurers) are a cut above the NPCs.

So some of the Vikings have a class that's superior to the one some of the others have, and that's okay because their class is meant to be better, but if a new Viking has a class that's even better than the first set of Vikings, it's somehow wrong? That, uh, seems wierd to me. Is there a reason this Viking can't be better than the rest which isn't just 'he shouldn't be better!'?

[Ramza00]

I love manipulating flavor, it is what people should do with classes, prestige classes, and to some extent spells.

Seriously WOTC when they print a class/prc seriously needs to have half of page dedicated to the adaptation listing good ideas on how to modify the flavor and to a lesser extent how to modify the mechanics.

[Leush]

Manipulating flavor=houseruling. There's actually an interesting 'motivational poster' I saw on this theme, but I haven't the patience to dig it up now. But I'd like to say, that when playing d&d some may decide that they are indeed playing two different games, but it makes sense to me if I say that I am playing one game, where some of the time I spend rolling dice and adding numbers, and the rest of the tim I spend deciding what those numbers mean and what implication they have.

Bears, the elf example, papraphrased and summerised, boils down to: "I want to play a human with bonuses to spot, listen, search, weapons proficiency and a few other things instead of more skillpoints per level and a bonus feat."

Which boils down to the mechanical cheating of changing crunch that you mentioned either here or on that other thread of horror.

It makes no sense (most of the time) if you play in a world where you decided that elves are modelled by such and such mechanics and humans by these other mechanics to suddenly reverse it for a select few.

[Matthew]

The skills are such an abstraction that it's hard to imagine the 'typical' viking being able to put many ranks in Swim. After all, in D&D the ability to make swim checks is directly related to your INT-score, not very sensical either.
No, that's the number of Skills Ranks you have access to, which is slightly differentiated from the skill level you can achieve. Strength determines how good a natural swimmer you are, and you can improve it via Skill Ranks. There aren't many Skills worth a Viking Fighter investing in, other than Swim and such. A Fighter isn't even much of a representation, since you don't get access to Profession (Sailor) or whatever. The point is, mechanics support fluff, they can be divorced from them, but why bother? Why not just alter the mechanics to fit the fluff?

So some of the Vikings have a class that's superior to the one some of the others have, and that's okay because their class is meant to be better, but if a new Viking has a class that's even better than the first set of Vikings, it's somehow wrong? That, uh, seems wierd to me. Is there a reason this Viking can't be better than the rest which isn't just 'he shouldn't be better!'?
PCs and NPCs are differentiated. Warrior and Fighter are not supposed to be equivalents, but PC Classes are. There is a fundamental difference between an NPC Class and a PC Class, they belong to two totally different types of protagonists.

[Roethke]

No, that's the number of Skills Ranks you have access to, which is slightly differentiated from the skill level you can achieve. Strength determines how good a natural swimmer you are, and you can improve it via Skill Ranks. There aren't many Skills worth a Viking Fighter investing in, other than Swim and such. A Fighter isn't even much of a representation, since you don't get access to Profession (Sailor) or whatever. The point is, mechanics support fluff, they can be divorced from them, but why bother? Why not just alter the mechanics to fit the fluff?


That's funny. I see it from exact the opposite direction. Why bother bending over backwards to make mechanics (which are not 'realistic' to begin with, but are supposed to be relatively consistent) support fluff, when you can, at a whim, change your fluff. Seems like more work to change the mechanics in some self-consistent manner.

[Matthew]

Mainly because I don't start with mechanics. Fluff comes first, then mechanics. I can see it from the other direction, but I want mechanics able to support concepts, not concepts that support mechanics. I suppose that's why I find the word 'fluff' to be so odd. For me the 'fluff' is the meat, whilst the mechanics are the bones / muscle.

[Quincunx]

Trundling this back to nearly its beginning--

Bears, if those bursts of black fire (Desert Wind maneuvers) were visible to onlookers, then we're fine with it. If not, we'd expect some compensation for the loss of onlookers' cues, a skill check like that of a psion suppressing the manifestation whatchamacallits. Displays.

I would like to be able to support Saph's claim that common sense applies in the average D&D run, and the implication that common sense is not metagaming, but tiptoeing on the rules, I can't find any bonus or penalty related to common sense*. Asking for more Knowledge: Unnatural Black Flames checks would break immersion, and maybe rob me of a sense of accomplishment for not being able to figure out that flavored fire /= un-firelike fire.


*Old WoD 'Common Sense' merit should, in some form, be in every rules system, as a buffer against newbies and habitual short-term planners.

[Amazing Roar]

PCs and NPCs are differentiated. Warrior and Fighter are not supposed to be equivalents, but PC Classes are. There is a fundamental difference between an NPC Class and a PC Class, they belong to two totally different types of protagonists.

But nothing seems to distinguish the NPC Vikings that are Warriors from those that are Fighters. One group just has a better class than the other. Why can't a third group have an even better class?

In fact, shouldn't you support the Warblade Viking? He's got a class that's better than the NPC Vikings, which differentiates him, a PC, from the rest, NPCs. Isn't that how you said things were meant to be be? Isn't that good? Why isn't that good?

[Roethke]

Mainly because I don't start with mechanics. Fluff comes first, then mechanics. I can see it from the other direction, but I want mechanics able to support concepts, not concepts that support mechanics. I suppose that's why I find the word 'fluff' to be so odd. For me the 'fluff' is the meat, whilst the mechanics are the bones / muscle.

Hmm, so we actually agree. (see
Here ) Fluff comes first.

The term 'fluff', I believe, exists because it is malleable, wheras 'crunch' is less so. If I want my character to have brown hair, great. Red hair? That's okay too, doesn't really have an impact on mechanics. If I want my character to have naturally curly brown hair that gives me a +6 to all diplomacy checks, not so great, it begins to interfere with the relatively hard-and-fast rules, hence 'crunch'.

I think we both want mechanics that support concepts, but I see it from a minimalist point of view. So long as there's nothing in the mechanic that interferes with my concept, leave it be. (to pull in from another discussion, If I say my character's grew up swimming in the ocean, that doesn't necessitate that I max out my ranks in Swim).

What I'm hearing from the other side, is that the mechanics should fit the concept as closely as possible, kind of maximalist. I.e., if my character is a farmer who rides horses, there darned well better be ranks in prof(agriculture) and Ride.

Really, both approaches can coexist. It isn't such a big deal.

[Kioran]

The most fascinating thing as that you can, with a minimum of Homeruling, use Generic classes to simulate almost anything. Make the Viking a Warrior with good Fort Save and Class Skills Swin+Profession(sailor) and you´re good to go. It also enables to build a "speedfighter" with good reflex and uncanny dodge....
This adaption of other classes Bears proposes is nothing more than houseruling to adopt a higher power level for any fluff I desire. I just don´t quite see the sense in arbitrarily increasing the power lvl......

And admit it - this is not about rights or principles, it´s just about increasing the heroism of the game, nothing more.

[Tellah]

What's so sacrosanct about using the word "Elf" to describe +2 Dex, -2 Con, don't need much sleep, spot secret doors, etc? I ran a campaign world where the stats for elves were used for a race called "The Fair Folk," modeled after the old (pre-Shakespeare) idea of fairies the size of humans.

In the pseudo-Japanese part of my campaign world, I've renamed the Raptorans "Tengu." Aquatic Goblins are called "Kappa" and they have little leafy fringes around their heads. Halflings are called "Koropokkuru." Wizards, Psions, and Wu Jen are all called "Onmyoji," and anyone who is decently sneaky might be called a "ninja," regardless of the class they play.

Saph and Matthew, I'd like you to explain why I'm having wrong fun over here.

[Matthew]

But nothing seems to distinguish the NPC Vikings that are Warriors from those that are Fighters. One group just has a better class than the other. Why can't a third group have an even better class?

In fact, shouldn't you support the Warblade Viking? He's got a class that's better than the NPC Vikings, which differentiates him, a PC, from the rest, NPCs. Isn't that how you said things were meant to be be? Isn't that good? Why isn't that good?
Sure there is. The Warrior and the Fighter belong to two fundamental groups in D&D. It used to be Classed and Non Classed, but now it's NPC Class and PC Class (which is a bit of a misnomer, since NPCs often have PC Classes). Fighters are foreground protagonists, Warriors are background protagonists.

War Blades are foreground Protagonists. They're a good Class with interesting mechanics and fluff / flavour (but a fairly stupid, if descriptive, name). I wouldn't be inclined to use War Blade over Fighter as the mechanics behind a Viking. Niether are ideal, but that's rather the point. Mechanical changes are often necessary to support concepts. That's why we end up with Knight, Samurai and Ninja Base Classes (not that I think these are good mechanics).

What's so sacrosanct about using the word "Elf" to describe +2 Dex, -2 Con, don't need much sleep, spot secret doors, etc? I ran a campaign world where the stats for elves were used for a race called "The Fair Folk," modeled after the old (pre-Shakespeare) idea of fairies the size of humans.

In the pseudo-Japanese part of my campaign world, I've renamed the Raptorans "Tengu." Aquatic Goblins are called "Kappa" and they have little leafy fringes around their heads. Halflings are called "Koropokkuru." Wizards are called "Onmyoji," and anyone who is decently sneaky might be called a "ninja," regardless of the class they play.

Saph and Matthew, I'd like you to explain why I'm having wrong fun over here.
Now come on Tellah, who said anything about wrongness? Fun is fun, if you're having fun that's fine. If I don't like something that doesn't mean everyone else is wrong, it just means it's not to my taste.

[Amazing Roar]

Sure there is. The Warrior and the Fighter belong to two fundamental groups in D&D. It used to be Classed and Non Classed, but now it's NPC Class and PC Class (which is a bit of a misnomer, since NPCs often have PC Classes). Fighters are foreground protagonists, Warriors are background protagonists.

Okay, tell you what, ignore the fact that the Fighters have levels as Fighter, and the Warriors have levels as Warrior. Just pretend that the Fighters, group F, are better at fighting than the Warriors, group W, because they are. No reason beyond that. Is there any reason why a third group, Group WB, cannot be better at fighting than group F? If there is, please post it. I cannot think of one.

[Counterspin]

I've never met a bit of crunch and a bit of fluff I couldn't reconcile. I've never met a bit of fluff I couldn't hitch to multiple pieces of crunch. If you doubt this, PM me the pair and I'll give you a reply. You may not like the result, but it can always be done.

Therefore, fluff and crunch can be separated but you don't have to allow it. Though I think it's really weird that Indon and Saph, who are big RP proponents on the boards, seem to be so hung up on the idea of not only playing RAW but FAW (Fluff as written).

[BardicDuelist]

I tend to agree with the orrigional post. When I "ban" classes, I will always make exceptions if the player can make the fluff fit (a blind "ninja" who was nothing more than a beggar who discovered the uses of ki when he was forced to look inward instead of outward is an example of what I let happen). The only things that I outright ban are things that use rule sets that I, as a DM , am not familiar with. I don't allow psionics, ToB, ToM, and Incarnum because I do not have to time to read the mechanics. I do not have the books because I didn't like the fluff.
As a player, I don't care what people play alongside me or if I don't understand the rules they have to use. If anything it makes my roleplaying easier (I am generally confused or curious at times).

On a side not, I do enjoy the fact that in the DM's guide, it says that you should never create a class which is better at fighting than a fighter, and yet Wizards seems to ignore this quite often.

[Indon]

Though I think it's really weird that Indon and Saph, who are big RP proponents on the boards, seem to be so hung up on the idea of not only playing RAW but FAW (Fluff as written).

I'm just pointing out that changing fluff is a variety of houserule. Heck, since you can't really separate crunch and fluff (Though there seem to be many definitions of what that means :smalltongue:), many fluff changes could be considered to be a crunch change or vice versa (Are you reflavoring elf crunch, or homebrewing a human subrace?).

It's not like I don't play with houserules, and it's certainly not like I don't think there aren't places where descriptions can be outright improved (I'm sure there are a few examples among elven subraces) but you should be careful with them just as with rules changes.

As I've said before; descriptions should be descriptions, not justifications.

[Matthew]

Okay, tell you what, ignore the fact that the Fighters have levels as Fighter, and the Warriors have levels as Warrior. Just pretend that the Fighters, group F, are better at fighting than the Warriors, group W, because they are. No reason beyond that. Is there any reason why a third group, Group WB, cannot be better at fighting than group F? If there is, please post it. I cannot think of one.
Veh? So, you are asking apart from the reasons, what are the reasons? If you want to create three grades of Base Classes, then that's up to you. NPC, NPC Adventurer and PC or something, I suppose? Warrior is not supposed to be a playable Class, Fighter and War Blade are. If War Blade is truly more powerful than Fighter (which is not always the case, apparently), then you might as well remove Fighter or Warrior, rather than create three tiers of Melee Base Classes. I don't know enough about War Blades to say for sure, as my actual play experience with them has been minimal.
Regardless, it's not the power level difference that is really the issue. Can you play a War Blade with different fluff? Yes. Can you play a War Blade with any fluff you like? No. Just like the Fighter, Barbarian, Knight and so on, some fluff it is unsuitable and some is more suitable than others, because of a limitation of mechanical support. Can you play a Viking War Blade? Of course. Can you play a Viking War Blade 1 with 4 Ranks in Swim? No. Can you pretend that he's a good swimmer anyway? Yeah, but the fluff and mechanics will be at odds.
None of this has to be a big deal. If you don't need that mechanic, are happy with contradictions between fluff and mechanics or just don't agree there are any, then there's nothing to worry about.

[Diggorian]

Reading this rapid fire post, I'd say I'm more like Saph and Indon regarding fluff. Why?

There are class systems and there are skills systems. Skills characters collect an assortment of skills/perks/flaws/abilities and define what they are by those. "What do you do?" is answered with what your best at or even what your character does to earn money (like in real life). "I'm a close combat specialist ... a mercenary ... an adventurer." Generic class systems denote character similarly.

Class characters are defined from you from the start, "I'm a fighter." All your skills/feats/flaws/abilities stem from that core identity. I find it particularly well suited to the medieval mindset, where you did what what your father did your whole life, taught it to your kids and died doing that.

Third edition brought some aspects of a skills system into D&D with vaguer class fluff and easier multiclassing. Personally, I still think of classes in the medieval way, so I'll change crunch (skills and abilities) easier than I'd change fluff (the definition of a lifestyle).

I'll expand on my fighter/warblade reconcilliation later.

[Inyssius Tor]

@Matthew: Your issue is that Fighters and Warblades have different power levels? How is that related at all to the original topic?

For that matter, why aren't you concerned about putting Clerics or Druids or Warblades or Swordsages or Rogues or Wizards in your game anywhere? Arguably, they're all more powerful than Fighters...

[Kioran]

Okay, tell you what, ignore the fact that the Fighters have levels as Fighter, and the Warriors have levels as Warrior. Just pretend that the Fighters, group F, are better at fighting than the Warriors, group W, because they are. No reason beyond that. Is there any reason why a third group, Group WB, cannot be better at fighting than group F? If there is, please post it. I cannot think of one.

My beef with a third, more powerful tier of Fighters is that they introduce more power into a campaign and reduce, by shifting the relative scale of power, their Standard array Warrior-comrades to the relative powerlevel of "Gimpy the paraplegic kobold".
Even if the fluff is variable at times, if your character kills a monster/NPC, you will probably also kill it in-time. Sooner or later, even NPCs have brains, they will figure out you fight more effectively by several orders of magnitude. While they might revere you as hero or whatever it reduces the ordinary NPCs of either side, even if they hail from a people of fearsome prowess in battle, to ordinary mooks.
Whats the difference between a mook with 6 or 8 HP? You´ll still kill several of them easily with your juiced up class. Introducing more power will, while possibly adding color to the chars, drain it from their surroundings.

[Matthew]

@Matthew: Your issue is that Fighters and Warblades have different power levels? How is that related at all to the original topic?

For that matter, why aren't you concerned about putting Clerics or Druids or Warblades or Swordsages or Rogues or Wizards in your game anywhere? Arguably, they're all more powerful than Fighters...
No, it's not my primary issue, as I just got through saying, though I do not see how it's not related. Though, I would point you to BardicDuelist's post about what the DMG has to say about creating Base Classes better at Melee than Fighters.

Rogue is not a more powerful Class than Fighter. Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers and Wizards are way more powerful, but only past a certain level. That's a core imbalance in the game that we're all aware of and nobody is happy about.

[Amazing Roar]

Veh? So, you are asking apart from the reasons, what are the reasons?

I'm asking what fluff reasons you have for that Viking group to not have three tiers of fighters. That's all.


Kioran, yours is indeed a good reason, but isn't it kind of hard to play DnD like that? I mean, shouldn't you be playing a level 1 Commoner who never goes up levels? If you don't, you'll become stronger than everyone else, and you seem to think that's bad...

[Matthew]

No particular fluff reason beyond what I have already said. Power variables between foregrounded protagonists of the same archetype are generally described by levels.

[Amazing Roar]

So why did you bring the Warblade as Viking up in the first place? You don't like the idea because it'll be more powerful than the other classes. That's a reason not to like it, but it has absolutely nothing to do with manipulating flavour. It's just to do with Warblades being better than Fighters. It's not really relevant to this thread at all, is it?

[Matthew]

JackMann said he was playing a Warblade with a Viking flavour.

I said I thought that a Warblade with a Viking flavour had a few potential mechanical problems [i.e. Swim Skill and Profession (Sailor) not Class Skills]. I also said that I thought it could create a mechanical power disparity that affects more than just the original Player Character, which Kioran has done a better job of describing than I. That disparity has the potential to create contradictions between mechanics and fluff.

[JoeFredBob]

In response to the War-Blade-Doesn't-Have-Swim thing, I'd like to mention that the Wu Jen that I mentioned in my first post tried to track some creatures at one point.

He got a 36.

This is at level 9.

Sure, I had to make some sacrifices, but I made the skill mechanics meet the fluff.

[Raum]

PCs and NPCs are differentiated. Warrior and Fighter are not supposed to be equivalents, but PC Classes are. They are? Why? Where does it state PC classes should be similar power levels?

I do realize class balance is a common topic but I don't remember seeing WotC ever say it was a goal.
-----
Most flavor text is easily changeable and has little if any effect on game mechanics. However there are exceptions. When flavor results are observable in character, changes may impact mechanics. The invisible fire posited by Bears is one example. A paladin's code is another. In general, these types of flavor changes should be carefully thought through to ensure you know it's impact.

However, when the flavor doesn't impact mechanics there really shouldn't be any reason not to change it. There's no mechanical difference between a sorcerer with aberration blood instead of dragon. Or between a warlock with a celestial ancestor instead of demonic. Similarly, there's no reason psionics can't be reflavored as magic. In fact, the psionics / magic transparency rule strongly implies they stem from similar forces.

I do think changes should be thought out, but the flavor is hardly a sacrosanct cannon. The PHB actually encourages changes to flavor. So do most of the recent accessory books.

[Matthew]

Sure it does, it says so in the DMG when discussing changing the Base Classes. Don't do it, they are balanced is the general thrust of things, at least I think it does... [Edit] Yeah, pages 25 and 36 of the 3.0 DMG indicate that PHB Base Classes are balanced and that NPC Base Classes are not balanced against them.

[Leush]

Excuse me? Balanced? You mean druids are actually balanced? And polymorph and divine might (or whatever you clerics call it) and wildshape are balanced too? And doesn't the DMG also say that if you don't like something, you should change it? And how does say bard who has survival as a class skill instead of say gather information break the game? Or say a druid who doesn't have polymorph, or a fighter with spot and listen or a d12 hitdice? Or any other number of modifications? In fact, what makes their judgement of class balance so sacred? I can tell you now that they didn't mathematically model every possible outcome of every campaign and challange...

And if you don't like changing a class mechnaics why not like take Generic Classes, which make allowances for most crunch and most fluff to float together nicely. Want a wizard who can swim? Go for it. Want a fighter who can dance? No problemo. Ofcourse you have to actively divise special abilities for it to not get dull, but so what, D&D is if treated as a role playing game essentially a formalised imagination game, so anyone with a sufficient level of brain to daydream should be able to make up half-balanced feats and special abilities, and any half-awake dm should be able to veto them or tone them down if they get out of hand.

[Matthew]

I didn't say the Base Classes are balanced, I said they are supposed to be. I have no problems with changing the rules of the game to suit playstyle and preferences, I can assure you.

[Raum]

I don't think the DMG says the classes in general should be balanced. It does say the fighter should be one of the best "combat-oriented" classes. I think the intent is that each archetype be reasonably balanced within all the archetype's classes. I don't see anything which makes me believe they meant to balance the classes across archetypes.

Edit: I don't see what you were pointing out on pages 25 & 36 Matthew, which heading should I look under? I had referred to pages 174-5 previously.

Nevermind, I'm looking at the 3.5 DMG.

[Matthew]

Well, as I said, it does on page 25 of the 3.0 DMG, at least as far as I can see.


Likewise, a Wizard with more spells per day is also unbalanced in regard to other classes without some significant drawback...[this is followed by a lengthy paragraph about balancing new Base Classes against old].

Maybe they removed that passage for 3.5?

[Raum]

It's certainly not on those pages. What section and heading was it under?

[Matthew]

Chapter Two: Classes: Modifying Classes

[Raum]

It looks like it has changed then. That's the section I referred to earlier, pages 174-175. Now it states "...you should be aware of the implications." and goes on to say "If you have created a variant class with sneaking and subterfuge capabilities better than the rogue, or a combat-oriented class more adept at combat than the fighter, you have gone astray."

[Bears With Lasers]

"If you have created a... combat-oriented class more adept at combat than the fighter, you have gone astray."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Matthew]

Yeah, that comes in the third paragraph of that section in the 3.0 DMG, immediately preceded by the above quote.

[Diggorian]

You know I wonder.

Before warblade was admitted into our current campaign, my DM said it was too powerful. I disagreed. We made my current character as a 6th level Warblade who fought himself as a then 6th level fighter. Granted, our fighter is houseruled a bit, but at this level the change equateed to one extra feat (Exotic Weapons Group heavy blades).

Out of ten one on one matches, it came out warblade 6 fighter 4. not too big an advantage.

Anyone aware of a warblade vs fighter crunch analysis? Bears, you're familiar with both, read anything on this?

[Merlin the Tuna]

Anyone aware of a warblade vs fighter crunch analysis? Bears, you're familiar with both, read anything on this?Not exactly what you were asking for, but Tempest Stormwind has done some number crunching on Barbarian vs. Warblade damage output at low to mid levels; the Barb wins that one. Regrettably, I can't find the links for it right now.

[kamikasei]

Out of ten one on one matches, it came out warblade 6 fighter 4. not too big an advantage.

Anyone aware of a warblade vs fighter crunch analysis? Bears, you're familiar with both, read anything on this?

I was under the impression that the advantage ToB classes had over their core counterparts was in their ability to handle non-fightery characters - that Warblade vs Fighter might not be all that dramatic, but Warblade vs Wizard compared to Fighter vs Wizard would show the Warblade as clearly better.

[Diggorian]

Thanks for the head up, found it here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=781643).
My DM bud used talent trees for Fighters like the modern classes have ... but he gave other trees to other classes too. I'm about to start a camp and have alot to consider.

EDIT
I was under the impression that the advantage ToB classes had over their core counterparts was in their ability to handle non-fightery characters - that Warblade vs Fighter might not be all that dramatic, but Warblade vs Wizard compared to Fighter vs Wizard would show the Warblade as clearly better.


The comparison linked above does straight fighter versus warblade crunch -- and shows the fighter faulty. Versus wizards, I'd think mages would still win. The ToB classes are just like martial casters really, but real casters really cast.

Back to the topic, for this campaign, which is styled at a first century AD feel, I banned several classes for not fitting the Classical period.

For example, Clerics use the Cloistered cleric variant mechanics, I find core clerics too ... crusadey. The only fluff tweak was calling them "Priests", like the AD&D class. Paladin banned for similar reasons.

Arcane magic isnt codified yet in the setting and is extremely distrusted, so I ditched every class that prepares arcane spells.

[Ramza00]

I was under the impression that the advantage ToB classes had over their core counterparts was in their ability to handle non-fightery characters - that Warblade vs Fighter might not be all that dramatic, but Warblade vs Wizard compared to Fighter vs Wizard would show the Warblade as clearly better.

Smiles, nods :smallwink:

Fighters type characters have always been able to do damage. It is situations that require them not to do damage, for they need to get in close thus mobility that cause fighters to stink. Also Fighter type characters are often are easily capacitated. Bad will saves, bad reflex saves, throw up a barrier/wall/prevent movement and suddenly the fighter is screwed.

What does a fighter do when a wizard casts hold person on him (a 3rd lvl spell)? He prays to god that he makes his saving throw soon, or the rest of the party kills the squishy wizard quickly.

What does a Warblade do when a wizard cast hold person on him? He uses Iron Heart Surge, to shrug the effect off and then he proceeds to getting close to said wizard so he can begin slicing him up

[Dareon]

Everything is subject to DM approval. I feel like I should repeat that, because it seems fairly important.

Everything is subject to DM approval.

If, as a DM, you don't mind a human whose training and upbringing grants him +2 Dex, -2 con, bonuses to Search/Spot/Listen, proficiency in several weapons, and the need for less sleep instead of bonus skill points and a bonus feat, that's fine, especially if your campaign world contains no elves. If you don't want that, that's fine too.

But otherwise, flavor is really easily mutable. A flaming weapon that deals fire damage without bursting into flame is simple. An enemy (in this case, we'll make him a wizard) observing or subjected to that recognizes the fire damage as easily as if the sword turned itself into a single large flame. That's mechanical. He then goes "You fool! You come at me with that sword, not knowing I have prepared Abdul's Impenetrable Dweomer Shield!" Then he casts a spell. The PC caster makes his Spellcraft roll, and realizes it's one of the spells that grants fire resistance. The name of the spell as it's written in the PHB doesn't matter. If the bad guy called Resist Elements 'Abdul's Impenetrable Dweomer Shield', then that's what he has in his spellbook. For more information on this topic, please see Romeo and Juliet, by William Shakespeare, Act II, Scene II.

Naturally, it doesn't work for everything. A Pyrokineticist (Expanded Psionics Handbook) really kind of relies on making things burst into flame, so invisible flames aren't easily applied. It CAN be done, though. A more subtle Pyro could just use a very high-powered Matter Agitation.

A personal example, perhaps. In the world I play a Warlock in, a warlock's source of power is unknown. It could be the evil gods, it could be the blood of VERY ancient dragons (They're extinct), it could even be from a dead good god. No one knows for sure. That's houseruled fluff change. Nothing about their mechanics changes.

My own personal Warlock has the bloodline of a half-fiend hero whose powers were based around cold. I haven't actually decided that's the source of his powers, instead choosing to let the DM surprise me, but his warlock abilities are thus based around ice. His Eldritch Blast is horrendously cold, to the point of freezing cold-immune undead solid and making them shatter. That's a flavor interpretation of a non-elemental blast reducing the HP of the undead to 0. Naturally if he'd actually used Hellrime Blast, it wouldn't have had any effect at all. Likewise, his Spiderwalk lowers the temperature of his hands, letting them freeze to walls. Same mechanics as regular Spider Climb. But they're both personal fluff changes the DM's fine with. Again, nothing in the mechanics changes.

[Bears With Lasers]

Sometimes I feel like people push "everything is subject to DM approval" line too hard. Sure, it is, but that doesn't mean DMs should reject things without very good reasons.

When did gaming evolve such a power structure, anyway? I mean, for example, in Wushu, any player can veto something another player does, rather than "the DM has Absolute Power!"

[Tor the Fallen]

Sometimes I feel like people push "everything is subject to DM approval" line too hard. Sure, it is, but that doesn't mean DMs should reject things without very good reasons.

When did gaming evolve such a power structure, anyway? I mean, for example, in Wushu, any player can veto something another player does, rather than "the DM has Absolute Power!"

Since the DM is doing the majority of the work?

[Indon]

Sometimes I feel like people push "everything is subject to DM approval" line too hard. Sure, it is, but that doesn't mean DMs should reject things without very good reasons.

When did gaming evolve such a power structure, anyway? I mean, for example, in Wushu, any player can veto something another player does, rather than "the DM has Absolute Power!"

Centralized power structures probably predate the tabletop genre; multi-player formats strike me as relatively new compared to storytelling and moderated games, D&D's dual heritages.

[Matthew]

Sometimes you get a good group, but sometimes you get somebody who loves to argue and contest every ruling. For the fun of everybody else, it's usually reasonable to have somebody with some vestige of authority. People generally create authority / power structures if their absent anyway. Since the DM is the primary source of information and interaction with the campaign, it usually falls to him to keep things fair, just like if you have a GM in a tabletop War Game. A good DM shouldn't have to justify every ruling to the players, primarily because there should be an atmosphere of trust, only the controversial ones need become a debate and preferably outside of, or prior to, the actual game session.

[Ramza00]

A good DM shouldn't have to justify every ruling to the players, primarily because there is a relationship of trust, only the controversial ones.
A good DM should have a justification for every action. That isn't the same as him having to explain the justification with every decision. Not every decision should be argued or debated, that creates waste.

Only the bad ones should be argued. Regardless a good DM should have a justification a rationale why he is saying No.

[Matthew]

Well, indeed, presumably he will. The idea is not that he makes decisions in isolation from logical thought! The point is that a relationship of mutual trust at the table is much more desirable than a tyrannical DM, but that final authority needs to rest with somebody for those more difficult moments (such as how Fly By Attack works).

[Ramza00]

Well, indeed, presumably he will. The idea is not that he makes decisions in isolation from logical thought! The point is that a relationship of mutual trust at the table is much more desirable than a tyrannical DM, but that final authority needs to rest with somebody for those more difficult moments (such as how Fly By Attack works).
So you are agreeing with

"No, because I said no" is not good enough on its own. Saying "No, because I said no lists X,Y,Z" (for example X,Y,Z will cause inbalance not just percieved inbalance)

[Matthew]

Sure, but there are sometimes moments where one player doesn't agree with the reasoning and then (if you will not be dissauded either) there is no real recourse, but "because I said so." Alignment decisions are probably most vulnerable to this sort of problem.

[Jack Mann]

A few notes.

First, it was a viking swordsage, in case you didn't have enough to complain about. A big, hefty lad who fought with a pair of handaxes. Occasionally took on a bestial look as he became more focused and hardened in combat (shifting from bloodclaw master), something I'm flavoring as the skinchangers from Germanic and Norse legend (berserkers supposedly got their abilities from the bear skin shirts they wore, taking some of the bear's power as their own).

He doesn't need the swim skill. Vikings were not necessarily good swimmers. Many of them were not primarily sailors or fishermen, but were hunters or farmers when they weren't going a-viking. Same with pirates. English sailors often didn't learn to swim, because they felt the ocean would take what the ocean wanted, and there was no use trying to deny it.

But even if they did, he doesn't need ranks. He's strength-based (and I made quite a few mechanical sacrifices to make the character the way I wanted). His modifier is +5. He makes the DC 15 for rough waters more than half the time. He at least manages to stay afloat on a 6 or better. Once he goes underwater, he has 24 rounds in which he can try to make his check again before he has to start making constitution checks to keep holding his breath. With no ranks, he's still a pretty decent swimmer. He's not as good as the guy who's put ranks into it, of course, but he's better than many historical sailors.

[Matthew]

Heh, my mistake. I wasn't really concerned with the specifics of the build (as I assumed that you had probably done a good job regardless), but with the limitations of mechanics to support fluff in general.
I'm not really sure that we have much evidence either way as to whether Vikings were good swimmers or not. To be honest, I had Beowulf in mind more than anything and his reputed swimming Feats (but, then, his chief virtue was his amazing Strength, so maybe he had no ranks himself).

[Assassinfox]

"I use a rapier with great skill and finesse. I find openings in my opponents defenses and take advantage of them with unparalleled speed. My noble upbringing took care of me, giving me years to practice and hone my skills. What class am I?"

A fighter with weapon finesse, and the full weapon feat tree for rapiers!

Or

A rogue with weapon finesse and weapon focus (rapier)!

Or

A swordsage who specializes in Diamond Mind!

Or

A swashbuckler!

Or

A very high level aristocrat with Martial Weapon Proficiency and Weapon Finesse!

The exact same fluff, but so many different mechanics. Am I blaspheming against the holy union of Fluff and Crunch?

[Matthew]

No, but you're not really giving much in the way of fluff either. It's kind of like saying: "I am a golden haired Elf. What Class and Build am I?"
Answer - Elf, of course! I'm playing (O)D&D!

[Assassinfox]

No, but you're not really giving much in the way of fluff either. "I'm a golden haired Elf. What Class am I?"

Ranger, because elves are always archers. :smallwink:

What was wrong with my fluff? You can go ahead and give the character a name and background and all those combinations will still work. The only thing that might look funny is the rogue's trapfinding.

[Matthew]

Nothing wrong with it at all. It does exactly, as you say, suit any possible combination of the above. Where mechanics and fluff have potential mutual support problems is when things become more specified. When they remain general, things are usually fine.

[Dareon]

Sometimes I feel like people push "everything is subject to DM approval" line too hard. Sure, it is, but that doesn't mean DMs should reject things without very good reasons.
My main reason for bringing that up was because there was nearly two whole pages of argument about a non-fiery flaming weapon that essentially boiled down to "It's stupid!" "No it's not!" before veering into completely arbitrary territory, and I was trying to get the point across: "Okay, you think it's stupid, it doesn't have to be in your game."

I feel that unless something being done is fun-killing, no one has the right to criticize how another person's game is run.

[Ramza00]

Sure, but there are sometimes moments where one player doesn't agree with the reasoning and then (if you will not be dissauded either) there is no real recourse, but "because I said so." Alignment decisions are probably most vulnerable to this sort of problem.
Good Reasoning isn't the same as people liking the reasoning or if its popular. Good reasoning is just by its very nature sound. Popular is popular.

[Kioran]

Kioran, yours is indeed a good reason, but isn't it kind of hard to play DnD like that? I mean, shouldn't you be playing a level 1 Commoner who never goes up levels? If you don't, you'll become stronger than everyone else, and you seem to think that's bad...

I´m not talking aboout playing commoners - I´m talking about the power level of baseline Rogues or Fighters optimized within the confines of their class. This is still a lot more more powerful than commoners, but a normal NPC Warrior will, at low levels, still occassionaly hit you and cost you resources. You could even raise the power lvl a little since this puts the worldly characters at a disadvantage to the casters - use the following set ouf houserules I came up with:

- Use generic classes (UA I think, but it´s in the SRD)
- juice them up a little by offering a primary power at ECL 1 for everyone, and another one at 8th lvl for Experts(since they, of the generics, suck), meaning for example: Monk AC, Paladin Divine grace, Monk Martial Arts, an animal Companion - In short one of the primary class features, DM fiat to keep things balanced, or take one of these instead: +4 skill Points every lvl, permanent +4 bonus to distribute among your abilities, magical aptitude, or acces to a LA +1 race without penalties
- Make it mandatory for any caster to take magical aptitude - you can´t take caster lvls without it. That solves the multiclassing problem - no expert can lvl in later and beat the caster at his game(multiclassing is free with generics), and no caster can cherrypick for one primary feature without crippling their progression, having to sink in 8 lvls...

If you start at a low lvl, you have a party of slightly juiced up Fighters, Experts at usual power lvl(though they don´t work as well as "Rouges" as the classical rouge does), and some very squishy Casters who can cast Divine and Arcane(thus nerfing was appropriate imo). They also have fewer spell slots, but cast spontaneously, and most importantly, they cast.
For me, this makes for a low-powered game where the Chars simply have to take the consequences into consideration. For the DM this means several low power encounters instead of atomic Monsters from hell. But it´s alot easier to manage and helps your suspension of disbelief.

And now, back to topic: Since you use generic classes, you are really quite free with the fluff. I like this better than to bend the fluff a lot.......

[Jack Mann]

I'm not really sure that we have much evidence either way as to whether Vikings were good swimmers or not. To be honest, I had Beowulf in mind more than anything and his reputed swimming Feats (but, then, his chief virtue was his amazing Strength, so maybe he had no ranks himself).

Oh, to be sure, some of the vikings were excellent swimmers. Swimming was quite popular, both to do and to watch, as we can find from the various stories and legends of that time. It's just that not all of them were necessarily good swimmers. Remember, high ranks in the swim skill represent specialized training. So, transposed to D&D, Beowulf may have had a fair number of ranks (or, as you say, may have gotten along on his prodigious strength alone), but Johnny Beornson probably didn't. So long as he had a fair strength, he could get along in calm waters, which is about all he'd need, since he's only out on the waters part of the year. He doesn't have the time to go out and practice every day, build up those particular muscles, perfect his breast stroke.

'Sides, in some of the stories, it was considered fair game for one person to try to drown another. Perhaps what is needed isn't ranks in swim, but a high grapple modifier...

[Cyborg Pirate]

'Sides, in some of the stories, it was considered fair game for one person to try to drown another. Perhaps what is needed isn't ranks in swim, but a high grapple modifier...

Or perhaps, we should all realise that Vikings, like anyone else in the world, were People. With their own set of interest, likes and dislikes, which differs from individual to individual. And that Maybe, we should stop trying to pidgeonhole them :smallmad:

I can't believe I read through this whole thread. It's insane. I've lost so much sanity reading some of the replies, they might as well lock me away right now.

BWL, I feel your pain :smallfrown:

[Assassinfox]

I can't believe I read through this whole thread. It's insane. I've lost so much sanity reading some of the replies, they might as well lock me away right now.

BWL, I feel your pain :smallfrown:

Quoted For Truth. :smallannoyed:

[Eldritch_Ent]

Overall here, I'll have to agree with the bears. Yaknow, the ones with the highly focused beams of light-energy? Yeah, those ones.

I'm the kind of player who feels the fluff is the fun part, but the crunch is there to keep the fuff from running out of hand. (This is a Rollplaying game- first you roll, then you play!) We've seen young children play fluff only games- "I shot you! You're dead!" "No, you missed!", and an entirely crunch-based game is just two people comparing dice rolls. So long as game balance is kept, Fluff can be altered. (For example, Magic Missile doesn't have to be little beams of energy. It can be twinkly stars, flying pudding cups, hands of energy that fly out and slap you foe, or winged bears with lasers being conjured from your fingertips and doing a quick strafing run on your target.) They all do 1d4 + 1 damage per level, even if some are a bit silly.


Okay, as for the flameless fire "Fire doesn't have to mean fire" thing,
I think Bears is basically saying [Fire] as an energy doesn't need to neccesarily be [Fire]. It can be [Heat] or [Matter Agitation]. (Burns can be through friction, heat, energy, matter agitation, radiation, chemical reactions, and many other things that don't need flame.) And it can, depending on setting, be something else- like [Radiaton] or [Melted Butter], so long as it's internally conistent with game mechanics. I mean, if [Butter] is a highly feared and respected element on a certain plane, but fire is a tasty topping for slightly scorched baked goods, then what's wrong with having a Mage cast [Protection from Butter] and then start slinging [Butterball] spells or [Buttery Ray] about?



As for having an "invisible darkflame fireball",/Astronomy Wizard
I don't think it matters so long as everyone can still tell they were attacked and still get their reflex saves and spellcraft checks to rationalize what was just cast on them. I mean, there's tons of variations on Fireball, not just color- I actually liked the exploding burning leaves one, very elven- but one of my favorites so far has in fact been a blast of Superheated Desert air, and sometimes superhot sand from an Arabian-themed wizard. Mechanically, it was a fireball. It still did heat damage, but fluff wise- it wasn't. Same thing with the character, actually- He used stars to power his arcane effect- his "spellbook" was an astronomer's tool calibrated to look at different constellations in the night sky. His known spell list was a "Known Constellations list", and instead of studying his book, he went stargazing- or just contemplated the meaning behind constellations when he had no access to night sky- even going so far as to dial in the coordinates where the constellations would be if he could see them. One could still "rip pages out" by screwing with the settings or misaligning gears in his little telescope thingummy..... In all purpouses he was a mechanical/crunch [Wizard], but in fluff he was an [Astronomer], dressed in silk robes and pointy-tipped shoes, and spoke with a bad accent.


As for the Viking-that-can't-swim thing...
I have to go with Cyborg Pirate here. People are different from eachother. I mean, even people who have spent their entire lives on a baot might not neccisarily be good at swimming. There might be no interest (No skill ranks invested) or no aptitude (Cross class skills or low int modifier.), I mean, some people just sink like a stone regardless of their heritage. But just because one person from Boatland has fewer skill ranks in X skill and fights differently doesn't mean he can't still the same culture as someone who has full swim ranks and a more traditional way of swinging an axe. They're both still proud Boatlanders, with their pointy helms and fuzzy shirts!

And finally, as per the "Fae caster who's HP wasn't his body but a forcefield",
I don't see how him having a forcefield (Yet it eventually giving out, with him reserving enough to keep his attack abilities going) is hurting suspension of disbelief. I mean, if he was a half dragon, so long as he had 1 hp, it wouldn't matter how many times he'd been stabbed in the lungs by a fighter with a +5 flaming broadsword the previous round. I honestly don't see how it's any different. =/ (Hell, some players even "play" their characters dodging everything even when they take damage mechanically, and when low on HP the character would complain that he's "Getting tired and doesn't know how long he can keep avoiding blows."... And the times where he'd actually get hit and have it affect his performance mechanically (Trip, disarm, 0 or less hp, amputation,) he'd "get hit" then too. Since he was a Swashbuckler, I don't really see how this was terribly blasphemous some people make it out to be, since he followed the mechanical rules to the letter.)

And that is all I have to say on that subject. Sorry for being so long winded, guys. O_o

[Dausuul]

I understand that all these classes can be played in ways that don't fit with the flavor of some campaigns. However, I would posit that every class can be played in at least one way that fits the flavor of any given campaign. Do people disagree with that?

If you want a campaign world that doesn't do Vancian-style magic, then prepared casters are pretty much impossible to reconcile with the setting. The best you can do is sort of pretend they're using some other mechanic and just sort of happen to only cast X many spells per day.

[Starsinger]

I actually recall the 3.0 DMG encouraging players to rename their spells and class features, so as to personalize fluff. Now personally, I've done a great deal of fluff twisting... like Fireball, I personally hate the standard image of fireball "you shoot a tiny bead of fire from your hand and it bursts (but without pressure, no explosions) into a 40ft. circle of fiery doom". I played a Shugenja who had fireball on her list of spells. I did not ever refer to it as fireball except when I told my DM mechanically what I was doing. I called it "Blossoms of the Red Lotus" which conjures a swarm of red lotus petals from the sky, which set fire upon contact with a creature or object that would be damaged by fireball. This was in a standard D&D game, not Oriental Adventures or Rokugan, but still the party wizard's spellcraft let him know what I was casting, despite the fact that his fireballs and mine looked different, and had different names. But that's really a minor change of fluff.

In a game I was DMing a player wanted to play a warforged mechanically. He did not like the fluff of being a living golem. He also was playing a barbarian, but didn't like the fluff of being a savage brute with no place in civilized society. So, we made him a robot instead of a warforged, same mechanics. Instead of a savage brute, he occasionally short circuits and goes haywire, afterwhich he needs to recharge a bit and is lethargic, same as being enraged and then winded. (Unless Warforged don't get fatigued after rage, in which case I nerfed my player's racial traits). As for the large question of what a Robot is doing in medieval-esque D&D? Of course, a wizard did it. Some silly level 1 wizard got ahold of a gate scroll and there was a mishap, time travel was involved. To most NPCs he was indistinguishable from a golem or a warforged. There was no harm, no foul, and he was happy with his new fluff. He was even illiterate, like barbarians, since the languages of this era are archaic and not in his data banks. He could've learned to read, like a barbarian, but he never did.

Fluff is only important if it varies wildly from mechanics. Like if I'm playing a Fighter with a two handed weapon and dealing hundreds of damage per round with sneak attack, but fluff-wise I'm a 5 year old girl with a strength score of 2 there's a problem. But if I'm playing a wizard, and instead of having a spell book, I brew up special potions which produce my effects, and carry around potions of flammable liquid which function the same as fireball, or vials of acid which I splash onto someone, which mimics... say, acid splash or Melf's Acid Arrow, what's the harm?

But if the same wizard, who is playing this mad alchemist type character, brews up a potion of teleport, it gets iffy. I'm not saying Fluff is immune to crunch, or crunch is immune to fluff. But as long as they both work together, does it matter how fluff is changed from what the PHB says?

[Eldritch_Ent]

I played a Shugenja who had fireball on her list of spells. I did not ever refer to it as fireball except when I told my DM mechanically what I was doing. I called it "Blossoms of the Red Lotus" which conjures a swarm of red lotus petals from the sky, which set fire upon contact with a creature or object that would be damaged by fireball.

Yaknow, the confusion a normal Wizard borrowing some "Fluffed" Wizard's Spellbook/Telescope/Tarot Deck could cause. "I need to prepare Fireball but the goblin ate my spellbook. You there, desert lad, give me the- What? Where's Fireball in this damn thing?" "Oh, that's Helios's Chariot, at Zenith 572.4, 3-" "Bah, I don't have time for that. Spellcaster girl, what about you?" "Red Lotus Petals." "That's even worse, but it should be easier to find in a spellbook than on this thing." "I'm a spontaneous Caster." :smallmad: "Fortune teller, don't tell me you're a spontaneous caster too!" "No." "Good, then show me-" "The card you are looking for is the Tower, sign of destruction and chaos. It has a long tradition of-" "Arrrrrggh! :smallfurious: "

[Roethke]

Yaknow, the confusion a normal Wizard borrowing some "Fluffed" Wizard's Spellbook/Telescope/Tarot Deck could cause. "I need to prepare Fireball but the goblin ate my spellbook. You there, desert lad, give me the- What? Where's Fireball in this damn thing?" "Oh, that's Helios's Chariot, at Zenith 572.4, 3-" "Bah, I don't have time for that. Spellcaster girl, what about you?" "Red Lotus Petals." "That's even worse, but it should be easier to find in a spellbook than on this thing." "I'm a spontaneous Caster." :smallmad: "Fortune teller, don't tell me you're a spontaneous caster too!" "No." "Good, then show me-" "The card you are looking for is the Tower, sign of destruction and chaos. It has a long tradition of-" "Arrrrrggh! :smallfurious: "

[ASIDE: It took me a good 30 seconds of thinking to figure out that 'Yaknow' was a contraction of "You Know", and not a reference to some mysterious "Yak" at the present time. Brain is most definitely fried.]


Anyhow, that seems to be a small thing to get caught up in to prevent custom fluff.

Seems like the obvious way to go is to leave the rules alone and consider the magic behind it constant... so when the Fortune Teller reads the Astronomer's spellbook it's

"That idiot. Why is he blathering on about Helios's chariot, when it's obvious from the relationships to the Aether that he means the Tower, sign of chaos and destruction".

Such 'translation' isn't too much of a reach. I always had it in mind that each wizard used his own shorthand anyhow, as the fluff for why it takes so long to to copy a scroll or spell. This is just taking that idea a bit further.

[Assassinfox]

If you want a campaign world that doesn't do Vancian-style magic, then prepared casters are pretty much impossible to reconcile with the setting. The best you can do is sort of pretend they're using some other mechanic and just sort of happen to only cast X many spells per day.

Get the psion, call it a spellcaster, call its powers spells. There ya go.

[Indon]

Yaknow, the confusion a normal Wizard borrowing some "Fluffed" Wizard's Spellbook/Telescope/Tarot Deck could cause. "I need to prepare Fireball but the goblin ate my spellbook. You there, desert lad, give me the- What? Where's Fireball in this damn thing?" "Oh, that's Helios's Chariot, at Zenith 572.4, 3-" "Bah, I don't have time for that. Spellcaster girl, what about you?" "Red Lotus Petals." "That's even worse, but it should be easier to find in a spellbook than on this thing." "I'm a spontaneous Caster." :smallmad: "Fortune teller, don't tell me you're a spontaneous caster too!" "No." "Good, then show me-" "The card you are looking for is the Tower, sign of destruction and chaos. It has a long tradition of-" "Arrrrrggh! :smallfurious: "

That is interesting, and a result of changed fluff echoing back to crunch in interesting ways.

The bad way to run that is, "I copy the spell from the arab-mage. What, it's mechanically identical!" which you risk by divorcing crunch and fluff.

[Roethke]

That is interesting, and a result of changed fluff echoing back to crunch in interesting ways.

The bad way to run that is, "I copy the spell from the arab-mage. What, it's mechanically identical!" which you risk by divorcing crunch and fluff.

Why is that the 'Bad Way'? (see above post)

[Indon]

Why is that the 'Bad Way'? (see above post)

Hmm. Actually, I did forget that there already is a penalty for copying spells out of another wizards' spellbook, which is what I'd impose in that situation.

[Kioran]

A custom spell (for example flinging crystal shards at high velocity instea of a magic missile) does not cause to much aggravation if within limits - the Lotus petals burst into flames, so even someone who didn´t know about the "fluffed up" spell will likely know what it does. This is, in my books, a minor alteration - small balls of energy which burst into white, blazing splashes of molten stone instead of scorching ray? Fine.
If you, however, use an entirely different type of class(i.e. a caster to simulate a martial/a martial to emulate an Expert character) to emulate something you´re overdoing it. Theres power and Features never meant for something, and rightly so, since it effectively neutralizes all but the most effective classes an kills fluff.

[Roethke]

A custom spell (for example flinging crystal shards at high velocity instea of a magic missile) does not cause to much aggravation if within limits - the Lotus petals burst into flames, so even someone who didn´t know about the "fluffed up" spell will likely know what it does. This is, in my books, a minor alteration - small balls of energy which burst into white, blazing splashes of molten stone instead of scorching ray? Fine.
If you, however, use an entirely different type of class(i.e. a caster to simulate a martial/a martial to emulate an Expert character) to emulate something you´re overdoing it. Theres power and Features never meant for something, and rightly so, since it effectively neutralizes all but the most effective classes an kills fluff.

So what about the Cleric with the Strength domain who wades into battle? He's certainly emulating a non-caster. Of course, restrict what you will in your games, but I don't see the reason for it. It's what Indon (I think that's who it was) said in another post. When the fluff becomes an excuse to play a wizard emulating a martial character that you run into trouble or are 'overdoing it' to my mind.

[Kioran]

So what about the Cleric with the Strength domain who wades into battle? He's certainly emulating a non-caster. Of course, restrict what you will in your games, but I don't see the reason for it. It's what Indon (I think that's who it was) said in another post. When the fluff becomes an excuse to play a wizard emulating a martial character that you run into trouble or are 'overdoing it' to my mind.

That cleric is still casting spells, isn´t he? Of course you could rework this into standing around and shouting and drumming on your helmet to get pumped before charging, but then you´have difficulties explaining all the other spells....
However, let me rephrase this more carefully: Using an entirely ifferent kind of class and refluffing almost all its features to emulate something entirely different(i.e. playing a fighter with a greatsword as Sailor Moon or whatever), especially if it greatly increases your power, is certainly not okay with me.....

[Fhaolan]

Yaknow, the confusion a normal Wizard borrowing some "Fluffed" Wizard's Spellbook/Telescope/Tarot Deck could cause. "I need to prepare Fireball but the goblin ate my spellbook. You there, desert lad, give me the- What? Where's Fireball in this damn thing?" "Oh, that's Helios's Chariot, at Zenith 572.4, 3-" "Bah, I don't have time for that. Spellcaster girl, what about you?" "Red Lotus Petals." "That's even worse, but it should be easier to find in a spellbook than on this thing." "I'm a spontaneous Caster." :smallmad: "Fortune teller, don't tell me you're a spontaneous caster too!" "No." "Good, then show me-" "The card you are looking for is the Tower, sign of destruction and chaos. It has a long tradition of-" "Arrrrrggh! :smallfurious: "

Actually, that's precisely the kind of stuff I find fun, personally. I can understand other people not liking it, but I do. My mind works in odd ways sometimes.

I have dealt with spellbooks which are collections of colored rocks on strings, a bundle of carved sticks, and similar things. In many cases it was a reaction to a specific attitude. That you can't be a wizard unless you have a robe and a pointy hat. And a paladin always wears mithral full plate, and a barbarian always only has a loincloth, and, and, and, and.

There are two paths I'm seeing here, and they are both perfectly valid paths, but they are not compatable.

One path is from the side of wargames, boardgames, and other highly regulated systems. These are the rules. The rules specify both fluff and crunch. As they are both specified in the rules, fluff and crunch are therefore rules. Divorcing fluff from crunch breaks the rules. When I say 'elf', I want everyone playing the game to have the exact same mental image that I have. Needless variation creates confusion.

The other path is the path of make-believe. I have this fluff I want to model in D&D. Rather than creating brand new crunch to cover this fluff, going through the messy process of balancing and rule-lawyering, can't I just borrow existing crunch from somewhere else? It's just a visual layer on top of the rules, it's not like I'm actually changing *rules*...

Both are perfectly reasonably ways of playing D&D, but they don't get along very well in the same game. In D&D terms, one is Lawful and the other is Chaotic. :smallsmile:

[Indon]

That cleric is still casting spells, isn´t he? Of course you coul rework this into standing around and shouting and rumming on your helmet to get pumped before charging, but then you´have difficulties explaining all the other spells....
However, let me rephrase this more carefully: Using an entirely ifferent kind of class and refluffing almost all its features to emulate something entirely different(i.e. playing a fighter with a greatsword as Sailor Moon or whatever), especially if it greatly increases your power, is certainly not okay with me.....

Though, as a humorous character that sort of thing might be interesting.

Sorceror: "What? Of course I'm a monk! I grew up in a monastery, I can use my ki to do stuff, I'm wearing a robe and I've got a staff! How am I not a monk?"

[Starsinger]

Though, as a humorous character that sort of thing might be interesting.

Sorceror: "What? Of course I'm a monk! I grew up in a monastery, I can use my ki to do stuff, I'm wearing a robe and I've got a staff! How am I not a monk?"

Do you mean Monk as in the class in the PHB with a ton of abilities and d8 hd? Or do you mean Monk as in someone who lives a monastic lifestyle? While the first may be harder for a Sorcerer to pass off as, nothing says he can't do the second. Like, in Rokugan both Samurai, the class with d10 HD and fighter feat progression (except at 1st level), and Shugenja are considered Samurai, the social class being above peasants. Sorta like Miko who is a Samurai, despite not having levels in any class named Samurai.

[Diggorian]

Changed the Monk into the "Ascetic" in my new setting to avoid such confusion and de-orientalize them. That was the only fluff alteration, but I did change their crunch to better fit the variant concept.

Monk fluff in RAW has always bothered me. They train to fight without weapons or armor ... but they've got a whole category of weapons? They usually dont care about amassing wealth ... so what do they do with their share of hundreds of GP?

[Matthew]

Good Reasoning isn't the same as people liking the reasoning or if its popular. Good reasoning is just by its very nature sound. Popular is popular.
Sadly, not everybody responds to logic / reasoning logically or reasonably. Good reasoning is often relative to your point of view, not absolute, in my opinion, as it is related to desired outcome.

Oh, to be sure, some of the vikings were excellent swimmers. Swimming was quite popular, both to do and to watch, as we can find from the various stories and legends of that time. It's just that not all of them were necessarily good swimmers. Remember, high ranks in the swim skill represent specialized training. So, transposed to D&D, Beowulf may have had a fair number of ranks (or, as you say, may have gotten along on his prodigious strength alone), but Johnny Beornson probably didn't. So long as he had a fair strength, he could get along in calm waters, which is about all he'd need, since he's only out on the waters part of the year. He doesn't have the time to go out and practice every day, build up those particular muscles, perfect his breast stroke.
'Sides, in some of the stories, it was considered fair game for one person to try to drown another. Perhaps what is needed isn't ranks in swim, but a high grapple modifier...
Yes, indeed. I am not directly opposed to the idea of War Blades and Sword Sages being used to represent 'Vikings', but I am wary of doing so over Fighter in general. What I am propounding is that there are limitations as to how far you can divorce fluff from mechanics before they begin to contradict one another.

Or perhaps, we should all realise that Vikings, like anyone else in the world, were People. With their own set of interest, likes and dislikes, which differs from individual to individual. And that Maybe, we should stop trying to pidgeonhole them
I don't think anybody is seeking to do that.


I can't believe I read through this whole thread. It's insane. I've lost so much sanity reading some of the replies, they might as well lock me away right now.
Interesting.

Actually, that's precisely the kind of stuff I find fun, personally. I can understand other people not liking it, but I do. My mind works in odd ways sometimes.

I have dealt with spellbooks which are collections of colored rocks on strings, a bundle of carved sticks, and similar things. In many cases it was a reaction to a specific attitude. That you can't be a wizard unless you have a robe and a pointy hat. And a paladin always wears mithral full plate, and a barbarian always only has a loincloth, and, and, and, and.

There are two paths I'm seeing here, and they are both perfectly valid paths, but they are not compatable.

One path is from the side of wargames, boardgames, and other highly regulated systems. These are the rules. The rules specify both fluff and crunch. As they are both specified in the rules, fluff and crunch are therefore rules. Divorcing fluff from crunch breaks the rules. When I say 'elf', I want everyone playing the game to have the exact same mental image that I have. Needless variation creates confusion.

The other path is the path of make-believe. I have this fluff I want to model in D&D. Rather than creating brand new crunch to cover this fluff, going through the messy process of balancing and rule-lawyering, can't I just borrow existing crunch from somewhere else? It's just a visual layer on top of the rules, it's not like I'm actually changing *rules*...

Both are perfectly reasonably ways of playing D&D, but they don't get along very well in the same game. In D&D terms, one is Lawful and the other is Chaotic.
Yeah, that sounds about right. However, I have to say I prefer generalised and customisable Base Classes over specific ones, like Knight or Ninja. I would hate, for instance, to see a Viking Base Class.

[Dausuul]

Get the psion, call it a spellcaster, call its powers spells. There ya go.

Are psions prepared casters?

No?

My point stands. Prepared caster crunch is incompatible with magic system fluff that does not require casters to prep specific spells every day.

[Tellah]

My point stands. Prepared caster crunch is incompatible with magic system fluff that does not require casters to prep specific spells every day.

Well, it's difficult to impose spontaneous casting fluff on prepared caster crunch, but it's certainly possible to think of the preparation as something other than the default Vancian model. A Wizard could petition spirits, or demand that the demonic forces that fuel his arcane power submit to his will. How about an illusionist who prepares his spells by adding pigments to a painter's palette? For a lighter-toned campaign, the Wizard could pull magical items from behind his back (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammerspace)--but it he can't always get exactly what he wants.

[Assassinfox]

Are psions prepared casters?

No?

My point stands. Prepared caster crunch is incompatible with magic system fluff that does not require casters to prep specific spells every day.

SO DON'T USE THEM! Geez.

[Ulzgoroth]

Good Reasoning isn't the same as people liking the reasoning or if its popular. Good reasoning is just by its very nature sound. Popular is popular.

Reasoning goes from premises (axioms!:smallbiggrin:). Premises are not universally agreed on, in general. Thus this argument, for instance...it's not a question of reasoning so much as what game you're trying to play.

[Jannex]

Part of me is reluctant to plunge into the middle of such a... heated thread, but I've just read through six pages, and I figure after all that, I'd might as well post.

My opinion on this topic is probably influenced by the fact that I started roleplaying in more heavily story- and setting-oriented systems, where the mechanics and the in-game elements (I strongly dislike the term "fluff," as I feel it trivializes what it is describing) are far more intrinsically tied together. As such, I'm accustomed to thinking of those flavor-elements as just as important as the mechanics elements, if not more so. To me, it seems that if you (the generic "you") want a game in which the mechanics are entirely independent of flavor, then why not play GURPS or BESM or the Hero system, or some other rules-set that exclusively involves mechanics, and allows you to attach whatever flavor you like to it?

D&D, as a game system, provides setting and flavor elements interwoven with the mechanics. Class abilities, spells, maneuvers, and other effects do not only have mechanics results; they also have in-game effects. A standard Fireball, for instance, creates a mote of magical energy that expands into a 40-foot-wide ball of flame. Characters present for the casting of a Fireball witness this effect. If a wizard player wanted to modify the in-game effect of her Fireball to create a cloud of shimmering butterflies that filled the area-of-effect and battered at targets with their wings, but were not hot or bright or flaming, then why would a baatezu's fire resistance protect it from the spell? It doesn't make sense, and as (I believe it was) Saph noted, disrupts suspension of disbelief for many people. Were I running a game and presented with this change, this is not something I would consider appropriate--unless the character had chosen Energy Substitution or something similar. This is because the text describes effects which produce fire as, in fact, producing fire. This is an observable phenomenon within the gameworld, as it is presented in the texts, and deviations from such should be explained if preserving immersion is important to your gaming group. Of course, an individual DM or group may choose to houserule these in-game effects in such a way that this is not the case, but this is just as much a houserule as changing a mechanics element, such as the energy-type produced by a spell. This is not to say that house-ruling in this way is wrong; certainly, whatever yields the most fun for an individual gaming group is a good thing. Still, it is a change to the default settings of the game, and should be given consideration in the same way that one would consider a change in mechanics.

This is likewise true if one chooses to ignore, change, or otherwise modify the descriptive text associated with a given class. If you decide that, within your gameworld, the "Monk" class does not represent ascetic devotees seeking enlightenment, but hardy barroom brawlers, then you are instituting a houserule. If you decide to allow Dragon Shamans (or whatever the class was; I'm not terribly familiar with it) with fey rather than draconic heritage, then you are instituting a houserule (either in deciding that "Shamans" of different heritages exist, or in introducing a new class with near-identical mechanics to the Dragon Shaman). There's nothing wrong with that, but it's no less of a houserule than replacing standard Clerics with the Cloistered Cleric variant, or making Keen and Improved Critical stack.

That's my take on the situation. When I've run D&D games, I've certainly made changes between the setting of my campaign and the default gameworld assumptions, but that isn't the same as starting with the position that the default flavor details are completely irrelevant.

[JoeFredBob]

If you decide that, within your gameworld, the "Monk" class does not represent ascetic devotees seeking enlightenment, but hardy barroom brawlers, then you are instituting a houserule. If you decide to allow Dragon Shamans (or whatever the class was; I'm not terribly familiar with it) with fey rather than draconic heritage, then you are instituting a houserule (either in deciding that "Shamans" of different heritages exist, or in introducing a new class with near-identical mechanics to the Dragon Shaman).

Perhaps I use a different definiton for house rule, but it seems to me that that is more of a campaign setting description than a house rule. Out of curiosity, would you also call it a house rule to say that the legendary thief "Kerral" helped overthrow an oppressive government 500 years ago?

[Assassinfox]

Perhaps I use a different definiton for house rule, but it seems to me that that is more of a campaign setting description than a house rule. Out of curiosity, would you also call it a house rule to say that the legendary thief "Kerral" helped overthrow an oppressive government 500 years ago?

Agreed. The term is houserule. I only consider things like "Sorcerers get Eschew Materials" and "Fighters are surrounded by Antimagic Fields" to be houserules. Things like "Wizards in this culture don't wear pink." or "Fireball is called Summon Lava Lamp and splashes everyone with hot oil." to be just flavor. They don't actually affect gameplay, so how are they "rules" ?

[Jannex]

Perhaps I use a different definiton for house rule, but it seems to me that that is more of a campaign setting description than a house rule. Out of curiosity, would you also call it a house rule to say that the legendary thief "Kerral" helped overthrow an oppressive government 500 years ago?

In this case I'm referring to any DM decision or ruling that directly contradicts the text. Unless you're using a specific printed campaign setting, there's nothing about the historical events of your world printed in the text. There are, however, "default" descriptions for classes, spells, etc. provided in the text--for instance, barbarians must spend skill points in order to become literate, and if they do not do so, they cannot read or write. This is a "rule," even if it doesn't affect numbers. Spells whose descriptions say they produce fire, produce fire; this is a "rule," unless you houserule it away. A Fireball is more than just Xd6 of damage; it is an in-game effect with specific sensory elements. The DM can change that, just as he can change the Xd6, if he wants to do so. That's still a hourserule. Historical events are not houserules unless they contradict some element of text that would otherwise be relevant to your game.

[Bears With Lasers]

For reference, the Spell Thematics feat lets you change what your spells look like. You can make a fireball that is an exploding cloud of butterflies, or a globe of lightning; it will still do fire damage. This feat also has actual mechanical benefits (Spellcraft DC increase to identify your spells; +1 CL to 1 spell per spell level) on top of that.

[Eldritch_Ent]

Such 'translation' isn't too much of a reach. I always had it in mind that each wizard used his own shorthand anyhow, as the fluff for why it takes so long to to copy a scroll or spell. This is just taking that idea a bit further.


Actually, as per the rules in RAW every wizard DOES use a different notation in their spellbook, and one has to make a Spellcraft check to decipher the Wizard's "Modus Operandi" anyway, even if you both use spellbooks or similiar storage tools. Unless of course the other wizard is there to handwalk you through copying it. The rules for this are on page 178 in the 3.5 PHB.


Are psions prepared casters?

No?

My point stands. Prepared caster crunch is incompatible with magic system fluff that does not require casters to prep specific spells every day.

Hey wait- what about Sorcerors? They're spontaneous spellcasters. O_o


Also, I edited my super long-winded post into easier to read "Spoiler chunks".

[Jannex]

For reference, the Spell Thematics feat lets you change what your spells look like. You can make a fireball that is an exploding cloud of butterflies, or a globe of lightning; it will still do fire damage. This feat also has actual mechanical benefits (Spellcraft DC increase to identify your spells; +1 CL to 1 spell per spell level) on top of that.

That sounds nifty; I'd consider taking that, if I could ever manage to convince myself to play a full-caster that had access to damage spells.

I think the fact that there's a feat specifically designed to accomplish this effect (and the fact that the effect has mechanics implications) suggests, though, that this sort of thing isn't something intended to be fiddled with arbitrarily. Making something a feat implies that it requires some sort of training or other investment of time and resources (or, in some rare cases, is an extension of a character's special heritage or some such). It doesn't just "happen."

[Raum]

In this case I'm referring to any DM decision or ruling that directly contradicts the text. Unless you're using a specific printed campaign setting, there's nothing about the historical events of your world printed in the text. Umm, it's a game, not religious cannon. Besides, both the PHB and more recent accessory books encourage changing the flavor text. It's in the initial class descriptions in the PHB. Even better, the PHB2 expands on all the core classes with several different flavor options. The newer accessories all have an "Adaption" section specifically showing different ways of changing the flavor. How did it become "bad" to add different flavor?

[Inyssius Tor]

... I'll leave the comment above to someone who can more ably explain that this is SERIOUS BUSINESS, darn it, and anyone who thinks otherwise had best get the hell out before something bad happens to 'em.


That sounds nifty; I'd consider taking that, if I could ever manage to convince myself to play a full-caster that had access to damage spells.

I think the fact that there's a feat specifically designed to accomplish this effect (and the fact that the effect has mechanics implications) suggests, though, that this sort of thing isn't something intended to be fiddled with arbitrarily. Making something a feat implies that it requires some sort of training or other investment of time and resources (or, in some rare cases, is an extension of a character's special heritage or some such). It doesn't just "happen."

Well yes, but I believe there is a quote in the PHB along the lines of "we heartily recommend you customizing your Magic Missiles, but only to a certain extent; don't do anything so drastic as saying that your magic missile looks like a dragon appearing and belching flame at your opponent."
It seems like this feat would let you do something like that; it would allow you to say "my lightning bolt looks exactly like a chained baleful polymorph which turns anyone it kills into squirrels," instead of just "my lightning bolt looks like an electrified green javelin flying from my hand."

[Raum]

... I'll leave the comment above to someone who can more ably explain that this is SERIOUS BUSINESS, darn it, and anyone who thinks otherwise had best get the hell out before something bad happens to 'em.Oops, forgot. Where's the d20 altar again? I need to atone... :)

[Jannex]

Umm, it's a game, not religious cannon. Besides, both the PHB and more recent accessory books encourage changing the flavor text. It's in the initial class descriptions in the PHB. Even better, the PHB2 expands on all the core classes with several different flavor options. The newer accessories all have an "Adaption" section specifically showing different ways of changing the flavor. How did it become "bad" to add different flavor?

Please point to where I said that it was "bad" to change the flavor, or that the text was sacrosanct. In fact, I believe I said that it was perfectly fine to make such changes, just like it's perfectly fine to make changes to the mechanics of the game; but that one should acknowledge that one is actively making changes to what's presented in the books. This is because I'm of the school of thought that in-game flavor isn't absolutely meaningless, to be altered or discarded at whim.

[Assassinfox]

This is because I'm of the school of thought that in-game flavor isn't absolutely meaningless, to be altered or discarded at whim.

So, it IS religious canon. :smalltongue:

[Bears With Lasers]

Sure, but changing the flavor is like playing Star Wars Monopoly. Changing the crunch is like messing with the rules. This is supposed to be a game about making stuff up, isn't it?

[Jannex]

So, it IS religious canon. :smalltongue:

Is your definition of "religious canon" equivalent to, "has impact on and significance to gameplay, and thus isn't intended to be completely arbitrary"? Because mine isn't, and so I would say no.


Sure, but changing the flavor is like playing Star Wars Monopoly. Changing the crunch is like messing with the rules. This is supposed to be a game about making stuff up, isn't it?

Here's the thing, though: to me, the rules are less important than the gameplay; they serve the story. I consider the flavor more important than the rules. As you presumably know, gameplay in Monopoly is almost (if not actually) 100% rules-based. The flavor doesn't matter in Monopoly. Regardless of what flavor you apply to it, gameplay is functionally identical. That isn't the case in D&D; in-game flavor significantly impacts gameplay, possibly more than the mechanics that simulate those in-game interactions. Hence, I think that decisions about flavor warrant just as much, if not more consideration than decisions about numbers.

[Raum]

Here's the thing, though: to me, the rules are less important than the gameplay; they serve the story. I consider the flavor more important than the rules. I actually agree with you here Jannex. The rules should serve the story...all of the stories. Maybe it's just that I generally prefer to tell my own unique tales and prefer not to be limited to published story lines.


As you presumably know, gameplay in Monopoly is almost (if not actually) 100% rules-based. The flavor doesn't matter in Monopoly. Regardless of what flavor you apply to it, gameplay is functionally identical. That isn't the case in D&D; in-game flavor significantly impacts gameplay, possibly more than the mechanics that simulate those in-game interactions. Hence, I think that decisions about flavor warrant just as much, if not more consideration than decisions about numbers.As I pointed out in an earlier post, this is only partially true. Some flavor is mechanically observable in game play. Other flavor is easily replaceable. Changing a class name, and even much of most classes' backgrounds is usually the latter type. It doesn't effect game play if your sorcerers gain their power from a mystical connection to the spirit world instead of from a dragon or fey ancestry.

You're right, not all flavor can, or should, be easily replaced. But there is still a significant amount of flavor which is easily replaceable. I'm not even sure it should count as "changing the published text" since the text itself often shows examples of changes. The ToB "Adaption" sections show some significant flavor and mechanical changes.

I just don't like saying any change is equivalent to a mechanical change you'd house rule. If it only affects the story, it's far easier to change without unexpected results...even when the story is more important than the mechanics.

[Eldritch_Ent]

That isn't the case in D&D; in-game flavor significantly impacts gameplay, possibly more than the mechanics that simulate those in-game interactions. Hence, I think that decisions about flavor warrant just as much, if not more consideration than decisions about numbers.

I think this is where the big misconnection between you and bears is occuring. As Fhaolan said, this is pretty much an argument of Chaotic VS Lawful interpretation of the rules/fluff connection. Both are quite viable, they're just different ways of looking at things. (With me and Bears being Chaotic, and you being lawful.)

I however disagree- I don't see some vital connection between rules and fluff- "You roll 7! You land on the Death Star/Boardwalk with hotels! Pay me 2000 dollars/Credits!" is seen to us much like "The Kobold/Goblin/Kappa/Evil Teddy Bear/Protoss Zealot with a BaB of +3 and 12 strength hits you with it's longsword/energy blade. Take 1d6 damage." In a lot of places the fluff is completely interchangeable.

In fact, I'm inclined to run an experiment now- Take a basic 10-room dungeon crawl with standard D and D characters as a one shot campaign. Then do it again every three sessions or so, completely editing the flavor (This week it's a Western, now it's a Ninja flick, Space Opera, Pirates, France.) and so on and see how long it takes your players to catch on that it's the same adventure mechanically, just presented radically differently fluffwise.

[Jannex]

I however disagree- I don't see some vital connection between rules and fluff- "You roll 7! You land on the Death Star/Boardwalk with hotels! Pay me 2000 dollars/Credits!" is seen to us much like "The Kobold/Goblin/Kappa/Evil Teddy Bear/Protoss Zealot with a BaB of +3 and 12 strength hits you with it's longsword/energy blade. Take 1d6 damage." In a lot of places the fluff is completely interchangeable.

In fact, I'm inclined to run an experiment now- Take a basic 10-room dungeon crawl with standard D and D characters as a one shot campaign. Then do it again every three sessions or so, completely editing the flavor (This week it's a Western, now it's a Ninja flick, Space Opera, Pirates, France.) and so on and see how long it takes your players to catch on that it's the same adventure mechanically, just presented radically differently fluffwise.

That's... a very different approach to the game than mine. This is probably why we're talking past one another.

[Assassinfox]

In fact, I'm inclined to run an experiment now- Take a basic 10-room dungeon crawl with standard D and D characters as a one shot campaign. Then do it again every three sessions or so, completely editing the flavor (This week it's a Western, now it's a Ninja flick, Space Opera, Pirates, France.) and so on and see how long it takes your players to catch on that it's the same adventure mechanically, just presented radically differently fluffwise.

That sounds like a really fun experiment. You should do that and record the results and the adventures for us. :smallsmile:

[Eldritch_Ent]

That's... a very different approach to the game than mine. This is probably why we're talking past one another.

And thus, alignment conflicts are born. :P

[Starsinger]

That sounds nifty; I'd consider taking that, if I could ever manage to convince myself to play a full-caster that had access to damage spells.

I think the fact that there's a feat specifically designed to accomplish this effect (and the fact that the effect has mechanics implications) suggests, though, that this sort of thing isn't something intended to be fiddled with arbitrarily. Making something a feat implies that it requires some sort of training or other investment of time and resources (or, in some rare cases, is an extension of a character's special heritage or some such). It doesn't just "happen."

But why doesn't it happen? Especially for spells in two different class lists? Why should a fireball from a wizard and a fireball from a wu jen look the same? For that matter why should every wizard's spell look the same if there's no mechanical benefit for them looking different? Why can't my Lightning Bolt spell call a series of lightning bolts straight down from the sky in a five foot line, instead of one bolt from my hand going straight across? Why can't my Flameblade spell look like a sickle if it doesn't change the damage? Would the game be ruined if my Melf's Acid Arrow conjured up a vial of acid that I threw at someone instead of a magic arrow that I aimed?

[Jannex]

But why doesn't it happen? Especially for spells in two different class lists? Why should a fireball from a wizard and a fireball from a wu jen look the same? For that matter why should every wizard's spell look the same if there's no mechanical benefit for them looking different? Why can't my Lightning Bolt spell call a series of lightning bolts straight down from the sky in a five foot line, instead of one bolt from my hand going straight across? Why can't my Flameblade spell look like a sickle if it doesn't change the damage? Would the game be ruined if my Melf's Acid Arrow conjured up a vial of acid that I threw at someone instead of a magic arrow that I aimed?

You're describing variations that are still well within the scope of the spells' intentions and effects. The changes to which I was referring (such as the example I mentioned of a Fireball that manifested as a cloud of butterflies that was not hot, bright, or flaming, and yet somehow still did fire damage) are not.

[Eldritch_Ent]

Y a Fireball that manifested as a cloud of butterflies that was not hot, bright, or flaming, and yet somehow still did fire damage) are not.

On an unrelated note, I'm actually working out a Base-Class of priest (for, like, years- I need it to be perfect) that has Butterflies as the God's "favored animal", with the priests having that as one of their available spell motif's. (IE Flame strike could, say, summon a coloumn of flaming butterflies or the like.)

[Wehrkind]

It's kind of funny, reading this thread reminds me of nothing so much as playing with Castle Legos as a kid. I hated, with the same hatred usually reserved for bees and mean dogs, mixing the Lego men's gear and appearances from what was on the box. It made me nuts when my friend came over, because he was the type to unscrew his GI Joes so that he could blasphemously remix their parts. It just destroyed my sense of order, and how things ought to be. Similarly, as I got older, I clove (is that the past tense of cleave?) to AD&D's representation above all else, and eschewed other fantasy games (I loathed Warhammer and WH40K as wargames in particular).
Oddly though, as I went through highschool and found PC games that showed familier things in a different light, like the Darksun series, and started in on other sorts of pursuits, I gained an appreciation for seeing something used in a different light. Often this was from trying to shoehorn mechanics into some build I wanted to emulate, like taking a 2nd Edition fighter and making him a swashbuckler some how. Sometimes I decided entirely new mechanics or rules systems were needed, but sometimes I figured a clever (to me at the time) answer, such as "Wait, what if he wasn't a fighter, but a theif? And instead of Str to hit and damage, used Dex the same way?"
I also recently found a deep and abiding love for WH40K. I don't pop open blisters and immediately think "Ok, how can I chop this bad boy up?" but I am not uncomfortable modifying things to fit how I want them to work. More over, when someone takes an idea or set of concepts and works it into a completely different mode from what I am used to, I can think "Wow, that's actually pretty cool" as opposed to only thinking "GAH! NOT AS INTENDED!!!"

Yea, ok, auto-biographical splurge there, but I can understand both sides of the argument, just from different parts of my life.

[Ulzgoroth]

Why can't my Lightning Bolt spell call a series of lightning bolts straight down from the sky in a five foot line, instead of one bolt from my hand going straight across?
Some of your changes are innocent things that, essentially, look different but would have the same mechanic if you worked from the new appearance. I have a little trouble with learning Melf's Acid Vial from a spellbook containing Melf's Acid Arrow, but if you picked it up by independent study there's no great problem. This one, not so much. Don't forget, that third dimension isn't just for flavor...by doing this, you've got lightning sweeping through an arbitrarily high wall-shaped area rather than just a line along the ground. And what happens if you shoot it straight up?

[Starsinger]

It would arc around targets that are outside of the spell's mechanical area. Why does it matter, if I don't expect it to affect extra area, where I decide the lightning comes from? I am not Blackmage, I am not Ryu, and I am definately not Goku. I do not want to fire a beam of energy from my hands in a 100 foot line.

[Ulzgoroth]

That fixes the area problem very nicely.

It still seems...not broken, but strange, if you fire the bolt on a trajectory that doesn't touch the ground. A sheaf of lightning bolts strike out of a clear sky...and stop before reaching the ground? Or discharge past the line of effect into the ground, somehow without actually delivering any energy on arrival? What about top cover? Lightning Bolt normally works perfectly well in a sewer pipe. Or normal cover against the caster's position, which gives you a +2 to the reflex save even though the bolts are actually striking from an angle that makes the cover seem irrelevant. For that matter, what about spotting? This version seems like it would be visible for a mile around, even if the actual target area had total cover relative to the viewer.

When you change what I assume looked like a little thing, you're likely to get a mountain of strange side effects like that. If you're not going to touch the dice-roll level mechanics, you've got to either figure out how to get the same behavior out of a different basic effect, or just decline to think about it. I for one can't decline to think about it...

What your statement sounds to me like is that you really just don't like the Lighting Bolt spell at all. Not something I'm prepared to argue with, considering how odd the spell is. If you don't object to other mages with the same sort of powers shooting beams of that sort, I'd suggest just not using Lightning Bolt. If you do mind seeing it at all, maybe (depending on context) look to house-rule it out or house-rule it completely into a form like the one you proposed, with mechanics adapted to fit the form, because magi as beam cannons just doesn't seem right.

[Starsinger]

But part of the problem with your "don't use it" approach is that lightning bolt has the distinction of being the only spell in the Core rules with the line shape. And I honestly don't care if they come from the sky or a couple feet above where I'm aiming.

Part of the reason I like twisting how my spells look is that it makes my spells more personal, they're my spells. The other part is that if everyone's lightning bolt looks the same, there's no point in not just leaving it at, "I cast lightning bolt." instead of "I thrust my hands forward, yell 'Shinkuu Hadouken!!!!' and a beam of electricity shoots out of my hands."

[Eldritch_Ent]

The problem with that houseruling is it changes the "shape" of the spell, which throws mechanics out of wack since the shape is also a mechanic. Most any object that travels forward from the caster would work, but I personally think altering it to a "Bolt from the blue" "Call Lightning" looking effect just fiddles with it too much.

A more reasonable way to do it would be, Say, the wizard Gather's a tiny stormcloud together at the tip of his staff and shoots the cloud, it zapping anything underneath it, that'd work better.)

The trick is one has to be fairly specific to not let a spell escape it's normal bounds. For example, a Wizard could "Shoot" a lightning-arrow from his staff (just pantomiming the bowyer motion), throw an electrified ball, conjure a "bolt" of electric eels, or things like that.

Really the basic rule of thumb for that sort of thing is "Don't inject any fluff outside the spell's mechanical area of effect", as doing more just complicates matters needlessly.

[Starsinger]

I already said above that the lightning bolts wouldn't hit anything not in the normal area for lightning bolt.

[Eldritch_Ent]

I actually hadn't noticed your post until after I'd posted and edited it, sorry. =P

(Please Homebrew Responsibly. This has been a public service announcement brough t to you by Mojotech Incorporated.)

[Artemician]

What difference does it make? I don't care whether it's lasers, masers or atomic heat rays used to destroy Mothra's cocoon, it's all the same to a layman like me. What's the difference between an ion cannon and an antiproton cannon anyway when both can be used to defeat the monster?

Found this while reading The Boredom of Haruhi Suzumiya. All in all, this sums up my feelings about this matter perfectly.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I'm reminded of a thread from ages ago in which I wound up having a long argument with the Logic Ninja about whether it was legitimate to have a weapon which was a rapier in-character but which behaved, game mechanically, like a greataxe (in order to get around the "finesse fighters suck" problem).

Frankly, I think a lot of people on this thread are being rather disingenuous.

Yes, it is true that D&D is not a "perfect simulation". It is true that not everything works the way it works for an ironclad in-character reason. However, the vast majority of the D&D ruleset represents a good faith attempt to produce a system which on some level
simulates the IC events through the mechanics.

Now frequently this attempt fails, but one should not confuse a botched simulation with a deliberate abstraction.

In D&D, whether something is actually, physically on fire matters game mechanically. Things which are on fire cause fire damage, and fire damage is caused by things which are on fire. That's why fire damage exists in the
system in the first place.

Similarly for weapons. Being a rapier, or a greataxe, is a game-mechanical property of rapiers and greataxes respectively. It isn't just "fluff", if it was the system would be arranged differently: you'd just pick an arbitrary set of weapon statistics and apply them to whatever weapon you liked.

D&D is not an abstract system. It is a concrete system. It has some abstractions, but nowhere near enough to justify the kinds of excesses which some people seem to be describing.

[kamikasei]

I'm reminded of a thread from ages ago in which I wound up having a long argument with the Logic Ninja about whether it was legitimate to have a weapon which was a rapier in-character but which behaved, game mechanically, like a greataxe (in order to get around the "finesse fighters suck" problem).

If it was game-mechanically a greataxe, then it would still be unfinessable. I don't see your point.

Mechanical properties of a greataxe:
- slashing damage (not piercing)
- two-handed (not one-handed)
- unfinessable

So while a character could wield a (mechanical) greataxe which he calls a rapier, and which looks rapier-ish, it would still have to be two-handed, unfinessable, and deal slashing damage. Otherwise it's not a matter of altering the fluff, you're giving a guy a mechanical advantage.

[Dan_Hemmens]

If it was game-mechanically a greataxe, then it would still be unfinessable. I don't see your point.

Mechanical properties of a greataxe:
- slashing damage (not piercing)
- two-handed (not one-handed)
- unfinessable

So while a character could wield a (mechanical) greataxe which he calls a rapier, and which looks rapier-ish, it would still have to be two-handed, unfinessable, and deal slashing damage. Otherwise it's not a matter of altering the fluff, you're giving a guy a mechanical advantage.

You misunderstand me. It's not "give a rapier the stats of a Greataxe, and use it with weapon finesse" it's "create a Barbarian with a Strength of 18, Power Attack, Cleave, and a Greataxe - which he wields two handed - then say that in-character you're a lithe, nimble fighter who uses a rapier in one hand."

[The_Werebear]

The main problem here seems to be exactly how much you can alter something before the Fluff affects the crunch

-Rapier fighter that is actually a shock trooper- That is way too far, in my opinion. Everything about you is different.

-Butterfly Fireball- Again, that is a bit too far. It has no ability to deal fire. Now, if the butterflys flew in, landed on everything, and burst into flame...

-Flameless Fire- This is anothe rcase of fire without fire. So long as you can explain it with heat damage somehow...maybe sparking your armor to produce the extra heat.

Really, there can be no hard and fast rule, just what is rational.

[Dan_Hemmens]

The main problem here seems to be exactly how much you can alter something before the Fluff affects the crunch

Ah, whereas I'd say the problem comes from the arbitrary distinction between "fluff" and "crunch" in the first place.

Two-handed weapons and Fire damage are both simple examples of concepts which clearly have both an in-character and a game mechanical manifestation. Skills are another, even more obvious one (in *character* I'm climbing the wall, but game mechanically I'm picking a lock, so can I roll my Open Lock skill to climb this wall?)

[Bears With Lasers]

Just a small note right now.

Here's an example of a fairly common mechanic that iself separates crunch from fluff: Action points. They are a purely OOC resource. Using them is a mechanical decision. You take a look at your roll, and you spend an action point for a mechanical benefit.

[kamikasei]

Two-handed weapons and Fire damage are both simple examples of concepts which clearly have both an in-character and a game mechanical manifestation. Skills are another, even more obvious one (in *character* I'm climbing the wall, but game mechanically I'm picking a lock, so can I roll my Open Lock skill to climb this wall?)

These are not distinctions between "crunch" and "fluff", these are examples of substituting one piece of crunch for another in the name of fluff. A two-handed fighter who describes himself as fighting one-handed could not ever use his free hand for anything, for example. A rogue might use Open Lock by scrambling up a wall to unhitch part of the mechanism, but she can't use it to cover vertical distance in any meaningful way. In these situations rules are already present for the things you're trying to do, and using a different set of rules to represent them breaks consistency. Having a fireball deal cold damage would be similarly inconsistent. Having a fireball deal fire damage exactly as it's supposed to, but by summoning a brief-lived swarm of flaming butterflies, or even just very hot ones, is not inconsistent because it's not replicating some other thing in the game. Having a Desert Wind maneuver deal fire damage because the blades become hot rather than because they're wreathed in flame similarly doesn't step on the toes of something for which a mechanical representation already exists.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Just a small note right now.

Here's an example of a fairly common mechanic that iself separates crunch from fluff: Action points. They are a purely OOC resource. Using them is a mechanical decision. You take a look at your roll, and you spend an action point for a mechanical benefit.

I don't use Action Points, and I'm sketchy on how the work, but since the game mechanical benefit translates into a literal, in-character effect, it's not distinct from "fluff."

Furthermore, Action Points are (as far as I understand) supposed to model the (purely fluff-based) concept of "Heroic" PCs.

[Dan_Hemmens]

These are not distinctions between "crunch" and "fluff", these are examples of substituting one piece of crunch for another in the name of fluff. A two-handed fighter who describes himself as fighting one-handed could not ever use his free hand for anything, for example.

But that's sort of my point. Having a two handed fighter describe himself as fighting one-handed but still become mysteriously incapable of using his off hand is just plain stupid.


A rogue might use Open Lock by scrambling up a wall to unhitch part of the mechanism, but she can't use it to cover vertical distance in any meaningful way. In these situations rules are already present for the things you're trying to do, and using a different set of rules to represent them breaks consistency.

But once again, that "vertical distance" is a "fluff" concept.

The logical extention of "reflavouring" D&D is that your "fluff" actions bear no relationship to your game mechanical actions.


Having a fireball deal cold damage would be similarly inconsistent. Having a fireball deal fire damage exactly as it's supposed to, but by summoning a brief-lived swarm of flaming butterflies, or even just very hot ones, is not inconsistent because it's not replicating some other thing in the game. Having a Desert Wind maneuver deal fire damage because the blades become hot rather than because they're wreathed in flame similarly doesn't step on the toes of something for which a mechanical representation already exists.

We're not talking about a fireball manifesting as a cloud of flaming butterflies, though, we're talking about a fireball manifesting as a cloud of completely ordinary butterflies which are not, in fact, hot and still having them deal Fire damage.

For that matter, you could have a fireball which manifested as a ball of searing cold, or acid, or a sonic pulse, and still have it deal fire damage, by the "reflavouring" logic used in this thread.

[JellyPooga]

You misunderstand me. It's not "give a rapier the stats of a Greataxe, and use it with weapon finesse" it's "create a Barbarian with a Strength of 18, Power Attack, Cleave, and a Greataxe - which he wields two handed - then say that in-character you're a lithe, nimble fighter who uses a rapier in one hand."

I don't see why, particularly, this is a problem. It seems that there are 2 main reasons for it seeming unreasonable. The first is that a rapier is 1-H and a greataxe is 2-H, but this could be explained as the other hand being used for balance or something (and thus can't do anything else with it). The second is that a Greataxe does slashing damage and the Rapier does piercing. I can't explain this, but it's a fairly small point.

Saying that you're a nimble fighter has no bearing on what stat/combat method you use for your attacks. O.k. so there's a whole bunch of feats and abilities that are designed for 'finesse' fighters (like the Combat Expertise feats), but that doesn't preclude those who don't have them from being an agile fighter rather than a thug fighter.

For example: Strength gives you a bonus on your attack rolls and damage. If the Strength statistic was merely brute muscle power, why on earth would it give a bonus to hit? Having a high strength can represent knowing how to use what brute strength you do have to the best advantage as much as it can represent Mr.Universe.

So lets take your example.
1)Barbarian: Abilities - Rage, Full B.A.B/High HP
1a)Rage - gives increased Str and Con at cost of AC. Read this as "Forgoes defence to enhance offence" and tell me why that can apply only to brutal fighters and not finesse fighters.
1b)Full B.A.B/High HP - Good fighter, combat endurance. So only people who are built like brick s*** houses can last a long time in a fight? High HP could simply represent avoiding being hit...a.k.a finesse fighting.

2)Strength 18, Power Attack, Cleave:
2a)See above for Strength - Our guy's not the largest man in the world, but he knows how to apply what strength he does have to the best effect, wether that be to lift a gate, smash a door or run someone through.
2b)Power Attack - See Rage (1a)
2c)Cleave - Upon dropping a foe, make an extra attack. Why does this have to be literally 'cleaving' though foes? Could it not represent a quick blade?

3)Greataxe - See above

O.k. so if you saw the character sheet, you probably wouldn't imagine a finesse rapier fighter, but with explanation (and roleplaying), I see no reason why you could not have those stats represent this character.

[Bears With Lasers]

I don't use Action Points, and I'm sketchy on how the work, but since the game mechanical benefit translates into a literal, in-character effect, it's not distinct from "fluff."

Furthermore, Action Points are (as far as I understand) supposed to model the (purely fluff-based) concept of "Heroic" PCs.

Action Points are a resource that the player, not the character, has. D&D's system (as seen in Eberron) is that you get [Character level/2]+5 of them, I think, and you can spend them to roll 1d6 and add it to any d20 roll. As you level up, you start adding the best of 2d6 and then of 3d6, instead.
You could just as easily have them allow a reroll, or have a house rule that lets you get the maximum value on a damage roll by spending an action point.

Obviously it has in-character effects--that doesn't mean it's not distinct from fluff. It's just not 100% distinct. It also couldhave no in-character effects: let's say we're using that "maximum damage" house rule


Another example of largely separating crunch and fluff is in combat: high-level characters make many attacks per round. A lot of people don't translate this into literal attacks-made-per-six-seconds. A series of four attacks with two successes could be described as one particularily successful attack (just apply the HP damage from each successful attack roll like you normally would), as two swings that both hit and open up wounds, as anywhere between one to four swings that miss but wear your opponent down (what with HP being abstract and all), et cetera. Any of these descriptions is viable as the fluff of "four attack rolls, X successes, doing Y and Z damage."
It's possible to abstract it even further, like Wushu does.


Dan, you seem to be insistent on mechanics that don't have any in-character effect. When we talk about separating crunch and fluff, we mean mechanics that don't represent something IC--you're using it purely as a measure of (degree of) success/failure. If I use an action point to give myself a bonus on my roll, I'm not doing anything any differently, fluff-wise. My odds of success change. Once we resolve success/failure, we add in some fluff. "You hit him and it bounces off." "You hit him and it bounces off, but his magical protective field seems to be weakening." "You stab at him thrice, your weapon forcing its way through his magical protections and giving him bruises." Whatever.
Here, though's a mechanic that has no fluff effect--rolling an individual HP die. Whether you roll a 6 or an 8, you play your character just the same. he can't tell the difference.

[Indon]

Well, specifically regarding action points, it's my experience that D20 games that support it do so by expressing it as 'extra' or 'heroic' effort, much like Willpower in White Wolf games. A good example is Mutants and Masterminds.

Though, the HD is a good example of a mechanic which really is seperate from the game's story in-and-of-itself. But I don't see how this has anything to do with manipulating flavor into something that's, say, ill-modeled by a mechanic.

[SpiderBrigade]

But that's sort of my point. Having a two handed fighter describe himself as fighting one-handed but still become mysteriously incapable of using his off hand is just plain stupid. Unless you say that he needs the other hand for balance, like a fencer, to use that particular technique. It's a stretch, yes, but that's an example of justifying it with flavor. It's more reasonable than "just plain stupid."


But once again, that "vertical distance" is a "fluff" concept.

The logical extention of "reflavouring" D&D is that your "fluff" actions bear no relationship to your game mechanical actions.Explain to me how vertical distance is a fluff concept? Climbing up a wall is very mechanical, when you use the climb skill. The example given is something like "while unlocking the door, you scramble up to reach a clasp at the top." It's part of the description of opening the lock. NO one is saying you should be able to gain the benefit of climbing up a wall by using your Open Lock ranks.

[Tellah]

We're not talking about a fireball manifesting as a cloud of flaming butterflies, though, we're talking about a fireball manifesting as a cloud of completely ordinary butterflies which are not, in fact, hot and still having them deal Fire damage.

Wow. This thread is getting truly and utterly ridiculous.

Some people in this thread want to use all of the fluff presented in the rulebooks as canon and important to the game system. Others of us like to change it. We probably shouldn't all play at the same gaming table. What's with all the passion and italicized proclamations?

[Diggorian]

Some people in this thread want to use all of the fluff presented in the rulebooks as canon and important to the game system. Others of us like to change it. We probably shouldn't all play at the same gaming table. What's with all the passion and italicized proclamations?

Some folks arent the best writers, some arent the best readers; when they meet: misunderstanding and thread pages abound. :smallbiggrin:

I'll change crunch but may not alter it's corresponding fluff, but when I alter fluff I always change the crunch to match. To me, fluff it what defines. Place me on the spectrum wherever I go.

[Wolf_Shade]

Wow. This thread is getting truly and utterly ridiculous.

Some people in this thread want to use all of the fluff presented in the rulebooks as canon and important to the game system. Others of us like to change it. We probably shouldn't all play at the same gaming table. What's with all the passion and italicized proclamations?

Standard argument procedures for online debate. You latch on to what you are arguing for, battle lines get drawn, any middle ground or compromise is right out, and then you start emphasising your points based on those rules.
You are not allowed to admit you were wrong on something, you must continually argue your points.

You end up with extreme examples of insanity that may not seem to make sense to the casual observer.

Fluff is not concrete, but fluff is not wholly abstract either. There are things that can be modified, and things that cannot. It is ultimately up to the DM to decide which is which, and attempting to say someone is a bad DM because they disagree with your asessment of what is or is not allowed is simply an opinion bearing no weight unless you know the DM personally and (s)he has reason to care about your opinion.

As the thread was initially started with a claim that banning particular things in a game, seemingly because of the "fluff", is foolish or inappropriate, and the statement was not made by the DM of said game (why they would call themselves foolish if they had been DM is another consideration entirely) the entire thread was launched by a flawed concept anyway.

[Bears With Lasers]

Um. Digg? If you have Crunch A and Crunch B and Fluff A and Fluff B, and you adjust Fluff A's crunch from A to B without altering its fluff...

How is that any different from chagning Crunch B's fluff from B to A?

[Matthew]

Wow. This thread is getting truly and utterly ridiculous.

Some people in this thread want to use all of the fluff presented in the rulebooks as canon and important to the game system. Others of us like to change it. We probably shouldn't all play at the same gaming table. What's with all the passion and italicized proclamations?
I don't think that's quite the case. That's the two extreme view points, I don't think anybody is arguing for either of those. The question is how far is 'too far', at this point.

Action Points and Hit Dice are related to fluff, as far as I am aware. They represent the 'good fortune', 'fate' or 'divine protection' of the character. I seem to remember that even 3.5 says that about Hit Point, Action Points I'm not so sure, but that's how that sort of mechanic is usually rationalised (at least in the games I'm familiar with).

[Wolf_Shade]

Um. Digg? If you have Crunch A and Crunch B and Fluff A and Fluff B, and you adjust Fluff A's crunch from A to B without altering its fluff...

How is that any different from chagning Crunch B's fluff from B to A?

Player (or DM) decides that Improved Evasion is too powerful at a full resist on succesful roll. Instead he decides it's another half, for 1/4 damage.
Pure Crunch change, no fluff change. Still exceptionaly good at avoiding damage, just the results of that are less stellar.

Fluff change with crunch. The militiaman-monk's resistance to poison might be slightly lower than a standard monk's because there's only so much adapting the body can do (relative to the perceived limitless power of mind over matter). Something along those lines.

IE: Changing Fluff A does not neccessarily mean you have to change it to Fluff B, simply that you have modified it outside of Fluff A so you have Fluff A(x). A direct swap of character mechanics from monk to bard (or what have you) could be seen as a swap of fluff rather than mechanic and be described as a matter of perspective. But if it's not a direct swap, then it is quite possible.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Action Points are a resource that the player, not the character, has. D&D's system (as seen in Eberron) is that you get [Character level/2]+5 of them, I think, and you can spend them to roll 1d6 and add it to any d20 roll. As you level up, you start adding the best of 2d6 and then of 3d6, instead.
You could just as easily have them allow a reroll, or have a house rule that lets you get the maximum value on a damage roll by spending an action point.

And all of these have specific in-character effects, and fairly specific in-character causes. Your character succeeds where he would otherwise have failed, because he is Just That Damned Cool.


Obviously it has in-character effects--that doesn't mean it's not distinct from fluff. It's just not 100% distinct. It also couldhave no in-character effects: let's say we're using that "maximum damage" house rule

The point is that it's desgined to *simulate* something specific.


Another example of largely separating crunch and fluff is in combat: high-level characters make many attacks per round. A lot of people don't translate this into literal attacks-made-per-six-seconds. A series of four attacks with two successes could be described as one particularily successful attack (just apply the HP damage from each successful attack roll like you normally would), as two swings that both hit and open up wounds, as anywhere between one to four swings that miss but wear your opponent down (what with HP being abstract and all), et cetera. Any of these descriptions is viable as the fluff of "four attack rolls, X successes, doing Y and Z damage."

But there is a *world* of difference between that and "fire damage does not have to involve actual fire" or "using a weapon two handed does not have to involve physically holding the weapon in two hands." That strikes me, frankly, as willfully misinterpreting the level of abstraction present in the system.

Furthermore, while treating two attacks as one really good attack doesn't cause many *problems*, it's still clearly the *intent* that an attack should represent an attack, just as it is clearly the intent that a Greataxe should represent a greataxe.


It's possible to abstract it even further, like Wushu does.

But that's rather my point. You seem to be wanting to apply a Wushu level of abstraction to D&D. D&D makes a lot of mechanical distinctions based on in-character decisions. The game is designed so that how your character chooses to hold his weapon has real, game mechanical effects.

[Eldritch_Ent]

We're not talking about a fireball manifesting as a cloud of flaming butterflies, though, we're talking about a fireball manifesting as a cloud of completely ordinary butterflies which are not, in fact, hot and still having them deal Fire damage.

For that matter, you could have a fireball which manifested as a ball of searing cold, or acid, or a sonic pulse, and still have it deal fire damage, by the "reflavouring" logic used in this thread.

What? He was agreeing with you that a cloud of "Plain ol butterflies" shouldn't deal fire damage unless they're somehow hot or flaming, and that one can't have an object that deals elemental damage of one sort when it's fluffed as something of an entirely different nature. =/


On to non-dan related arguments, such as "Multihitattacks as one attack", I personally see no problem with it. It definitely makes sense in some cases, as there are indeed situations where just one hit makes more sense. Such as when a rogue is backstabbing, When a mounted knight skewers a dragon with his lance, and during critical hits/coup de gras...
Wait, I think some of those actions are "one hit" attacks anyway so they might not apply, but I know critical hits happen just as often on full attacks as they do standard action attacks. "I roar with animal ferocity and give it all my strength... I hit the dragon really hard once, my blows deflect harmlessly off it's scales twice, and on my fourth hit I hit him again", just isn't as satisfying as "I swing my greataxe into the nearest squishy spot on the dragon, and hear a bone-smashing crunch as I score a direct hit."

[Ulzgoroth]

On to non-dan related arguments, such as "Multihitattacks as one attack", I personally see no problem with it. It definitely makes sense in some cases, as there are indeed situations where just one hit makes more sense. Such as when a rogue is backstabbing, When a mounted knight skewers a dragon with his lance, and during critical hits/coup de gras...
Wait, I think some of those actions are "one hit" attacks anyway so they might not apply, but I know critical hits happen just as often on full attacks as they do standard action attacks. "I roar with animal ferocity and give it all my strength... I hit the dragon really hard once, my blows deflect harmlessly off it's scales twice, and on my fourth hit I hit him again", just isn't as satisfying as "I swing my greataxe into the nearest squishy spot on the dragon, and hear a bone-smashing crunch as I score a direct hit."
Ok, only the dragon is also a Swordsage, and is using Pearl of Black Doubt stance. Suddenly the misses that have been fluffed out of existence, or at least out of the world perceived by characters, are granting it +4 AC until its next turn. And once again, we're scratching our heads at mechanics that have suddenly lost their basis in consensus gamespace.

And yeah, coup de gras is a single blow as a Full Round Action.

[Wehrkind]

Or, that dragon swordsage, after taking the first mighty hit, pays more attention to the barbarian, deflecting his next two blows off its scaley hide, and Conan only gets one more less strike to tell.

Honestly now, if you can't come up with that on the fly, you might be playing the wrong game, or you just are not giving it an honest try so that you can be "right". The barbarian doesn't know specifically WHY he missed (hell, the player might not), but he knows he didn't hit.


As to the two handing rapier wielder, it is a bit of a stretch, but one could say he needs two hands as he withdraws his rapier from the chest of an enemy, it having become stuck after being driven through his chest plate, body and back plate. Perhaps he switches hands off and on throughout his attack routine. Maybe he throws down a piece of cardboard and break dances while fencing. Who cares? A two handed weapon fighter does not in real life always have both hands on the weapon, so why is it so terribly unreasonable that a one hander might fight in a style that makes his other hand too busy for lovin?

[Eldritch_Ent]

I'm not entirely sure by the fluff behind "Pearl of black doubt" is, so I'm probably not the best qualified to say this but... What? Is there really so much of a distinction between "I miss him twice" and "My blow is greatly off kilter, dealing about half of what I know it can do" in regards to that stance? Some googling only turned up that that feat is available from Tome of Battle... So unless I get my hands on that, I'm gonna have to pass saying anything more on that stance.

In short, That might be the case, but I've never known about that. Of course I'm not going to base my opinions on things I have never heard of before.

[Ulzgoroth]

Or, that dragon swordsage, after taking the first mighty hit, pays more attention to the barbarian, deflecting his next two blows off its scaley hide, and Conan only gets one more less strike to tell.

Honestly now, if you can't come up with that on the fly, you might be playing the wrong game, or you just are not giving it an honest try so that you can be "right". The barbarian doesn't know specifically WHY he missed (hell, the player might not), but he knows he didn't hit.
I'm not sure what you mean. I wasn't saying that the stance caused the 4th attack to miss...it could, but that wouldn't be a consistency problem with folding it out of the description, you just reduce the awesomeness of the single hit described after doing the math to find out what happened in dice-space. That isn't the sticky problem...

If the character who critted, missed, missed, and hit is again taking 4 swings in character, no problem at all. The problem was that after his round, it is harder for anyone to hit the dragon as a direct result of the two failed swings, but no one saw them. Because his 4 swings were rolled, then described as being just one really powerful and successful swing.

EDIT:
Each time someone misses you while you use that stance, you get a cumulative +2 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next round.

[Diggorian]

Player (or DM) decides that Improved Evasion is too powerful at a full resist on succesful roll. Instead he decides it's another half, for 1/4 damage.
Pure Crunch change, no fluff change. Still exceptionaly good at avoiding damage, just the results of that are less stellar.

Fluff change with crunch. The militiaman-monk's resistance to poison might be slightly lower than a standard monk's because there's only so much adapting the body can do (relative to the perceived limitless power of mind over matter). Something along those lines.

IE: Changing Fluff A does not neccessarily mean you have to change it to Fluff B, simply that you have modified it outside of Fluff A so you have Fluff A(x). A direct swap of character mechanics from monk to bard (or what have you) could be seen as a swap of fluff rather than mechanic and be described as a matter of perspective. But if it's not a direct swap, then it is quite possible.

Yeah, that pretty much says it right there. Thanx Wolf Shade.

My new Ascetic base class has changed monk fluff and several alterations to monk crunch to reflect that. Ascetic is a new definition of monk that requires mechanics for the changes.

My variant fighters have the same fluff as core fighters but new crunch. Fighter fluff already includes the concepts for the new special ability the Arts of War -- some homebrew by a poster who's some kind of hibernating forest predator that violates fluff by also shooting highly focused light. :smallwink:

[SpiderBrigade]

...Maybe he throws down a piece of cardboard and break dances while fencing. Who cares?

Win. Very much win.

[Wehrkind]

Win. Very much win.

--Bows--

Actually, what made me think of that was a combination of a video on use of the AK-47 by an ex-Spetznaz guy who moved like that, constantly changing height, direction etc. That and the ubiquitous "Halt: Hammerzeit."

I think someone needs to play that character though :)

[Wehrkind]

If the character who critted, missed, missed, and hit is again taking 4 swings in character, no problem at all. The problem was that after his round, it is harder for anyone to hit the dragon as a direct result of the two failed swings, but no one saw them. Because his 4 swings were rolled, then described as being just one really powerful and successful swing.

EDIT:
Each time someone misses you while you use that stance, you get a cumulative +2 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next round.

The point is that no one knows why he is harder to hit in game, necessarily. The dragon merely does a better job deflecting their blows, frustrating every attacker as they glance off his scales, throwing their weapons far out of line and making recoveries for subsequent attacks much harder. Maybe they think he is fighting defensively? Perhaps the clever oulde wyrm has combat expertise? Who know? All they know, and need to know, is that he is harder to hit, so until they do some divination method to determine what is causing the problem, it should never even come up, much less cause a difference.

[Eldritch_Ent]

If the character who critted, missed, missed, and hit is again taking 4 swings in character, no problem at all. The problem was that after his round, it is harder for anyone to hit the dragon as a direct result of the two failed swings, but no one saw them. Because his 4 swings were rolled, then described as being just one really powerful and successful swing.


As I said, I don't know the fluff behind this "stance", which definitely makes it harder to correctly alter fluff around and against it, (I mean, does the dragon use the missed kinetic energy to form a barrier? Does he feed off of the doubt of the person striking him to grant AC? Or what?) but here's what I think-

As it stands, I don't see how the dragon couldn't get the same bonuses from two arrows missing him, or the barbarian's axe half-glancing off it's scales. (Either for the "Energy Barrier" explanation or the "self doubt consuming" one, since the barbarian puts the same amount of attack energy and confidence into his single blow.)

[Wehrkind]

I kind of like the self doubt theory, now that you mention it.

Every attack that bounces off the beasts scales, strong as tenfold shields, highlights the futility of challenging such a force of nature...

I love this game.

[Diggorian]

Mojotech, without a direct quote that violates Pearl of Black Doubt copyright, yes the more they miss the more an opponent overcompensates granting you an AC bonus.

[Wehrkind]

Yea, if you can't take that idea and apply it with slightly different fluff that makes sense, you aren't trying. It works pretty much as is well enough.
I honestly think that a lot of this argument is due to some people not being willing to make the rules do what they want. In effect, they do not look at the rules as abstract simulation and effects, but rather as the concretes they are written as. Basically I mean they look at it as monolithic D&D, rather than a system you can use to describe many different worlds that are vastly different.

I mean, any system that is used for Greyhawk AND Eberron has some serious flexibility with a little work. We aren't talking GURPS flexibility, but getting wildly different results image wise from the same mechanics is not out of the question.

Maybe playing old TriStat BESM got me out of the monolithic mind set and into the Mechanics = Black Box mindset. No setting, no classes, just spend your points and make what you want, with whatever flavor you want. The only limit are the points and what the DM says is too much. Very breakable, but you could make two identical characters fluff wise, and have them use completely different approaches to achieve it. Very fun.

[Ulzgoroth]

I honestly think that a lot of this argument is due to some people not being willing to make the rules do what they want. In effect, they do not look at the rules as abstract simulation and effects, but rather as the concretes they are written as. Basically I mean they look at it as monolithic D&D, rather than a system you can use to describe many different worlds that are vastly different.
Right off I want to interject that even the most inflexible reading of play mechanics allows for lots of vastly different worlds...it's just anywhere with fireballs, the fireballs look the same, and anywhere you go, if it looks like a greataxe it works like a greataxe. This doesn't actually limit worldbuilding, it just means that if you want to do things not handled by existing rules you have to make rules for them rather than say 'they're kind of like this, we'll play it the same and pretend it's different'.

Also, I am making the rules do what I want...provide a usable, consistent model for describing and determining in-game interactions of all kinds. This is genuinely what I want from the rules more than anything else. Not what you want from the rules, I realize.

You've definitely lost something when you turn the rules-gamespace connection to rubber. Against the dragon in question, there are certain tactics that strike me as potentially useful, due to the way the PoBD works (If I am wrong about the tactics, I don't think it voids the concept). Don't go heavy power attack before the Rogue's initiative, consider forgoing your last iterative attack or two, and for the love of Pelor don't flurry! If the characters know the influence of the stance, they can talk about this. If they can see, and on some level judge, the actual attacks and misses that the game mechanics say are happening, they may be able to get a grips on what's being done to them without knowing any martial lore. If the very basics of what's going on are disguised from them by things like number of attacks observed being divorced from mechanical attacks made, that entire path of reasoning isn't possible in character.

I'm not willing to metagame tactics that are literally meaningless from my character's perspective. Who you try to hit and how is a character decision. If the character doesn't think wizards are dangerous, he won't worry about knocking out the guy in the robes as fast as possible. If he doesn't have the ability to distinguish between one attack action and several, he won't recognize some of the implications.

I mean, any system that is used for Greyhawk AND Eberron has some serious flexibility with a little work. We aren't talking GURPS flexibility, but getting wildly different results image wise from the same mechanics is not out of the question.
I'm less familiar with Eberron than I might be, but I can't think of a single thing of the kind I'm disputing that needs any adjustment between the two settings. When they need something that behaves in a new way, they give mechanics for that new behavior, don't they? Warforged are mechanically supported as sapient quasi-constructs. They don't say 'use PHB half-orc mechanics for warforged, but remember they're really robots'. For example, they aren't living in the usual sense, so healing spells don't work very well on them.

[DarkAngelEpyon]

Or consider the Warlock[1], and a campaign setting that excludes Demons, Devils, and other Evil Outsiders. Sure, you could re-work the flavor of the Warlock to get power from some other source, but then you lose a key to the Warlock class: they make deals with devils for power.

Actually if you read the background in the class description it states that entities other than evil outsiders create warlocks. It even goes as far as saying that the powers can come from either wild or fey sources as well

[Wehrkind]

However, if you are thinking "man, how do I counter PoBD?" you are meta gaming. The dragon in this case is the "black box." You don't know what is going on inside, all you see is a dragon. Take it's breath weapon for example. Sure, it is mechanically some XdX, say 10d8 damage a pop. Well, if you changed it to 15d6 -5, you would have something indistinguishable for one standard deviation or so of rolls. Your players would have literally no idea you changed that mechanic.
Similarly, if it were not a dragon standard, but a wonky classed critter, would they immediately go "Wow, he has 5 levels of psion? Wierd!" Or would they respond to "The dragon concentrates, and your skin errupts in flame, causing 45 damage. Roll ref to save" with "Wow, what spell is that?" (Well, they probably would respond with "lame ass way to spend a turn.")

That's the idea, in game, all characters and events are a black box. The players only metagame what is going on. Everything behind the in character actions is irrelevant to in-game, every bit as irrelevant as you knowing how your eyes work is to your being able to see. To the peoples of your world it is just how things are. They don't know why dragons are so tough, but they know they are. Perhaps some wizards and other academics have done studies into the matter, but they are not exhaustive, and in any case are the goals of quests themselves.

Edit: Eberron attempts to realistically depict what having common magic in the world is like. Greyhawk and most other worlds simply bolt magic onto a medieval world. The difference is much greater than just "oh hey, golems++... I mean warforged".

[Ulzgoroth]

Characters are black boxes, to an extremely limited degree. Even if that were perfectly accurate, it doesn't mean you can't get some idea of how they work...people spend a lot of time fiddling with assorted black boxes to relate inputs to outputs. I generally assume that characters have a rough sense of the quality of their own attack rolls. So, if the Monk flurries at the dragon, and misses every attack, and then the dragon dodges a ranged touch attack from the wizard, even people without the faintest idea how Martial Adepts work might begin to see a pattern. Furthermore, there exists a skill check to allow you to recognize maneuvers, akin to spellcraft (except with some additional capabilities). If a party member makes the check, boom...the dragon isn't altogether a black box. You know what it's using to dodge your attacks...but because you've severed the world as characters see it from the world as mechanics see it, translating that knowledge into something comprehensible in character is blocked.

If the dragon concentrates, and you burst into flame, the uninformed say 'what was that?' (Or, 'oh god, it burns', but eventually they think about it.) The ones with spellcraft say 'I don't know what that is, but it isn't any sort of spell I understand.'. The ones with psicraft recognize it (potentially, at least). The ones who have strong awareness of the general schools of known magic (assuming of course that psionics are something they could be aware of) say 'That isn't a common ability of that kind of dragon...arcane and divine magics alike usually require speech or gestures...not always, but why would it go to the trouble of avoiding them?..this is something else...psionicists usually work with neither. Maybe that's it.' Running into a black box you can't open up isn't a reason to stare in dumbfounded wonder. It means it's time to dust off your character knowledge, observation skill, and logic to come up with a usable theory for how to deal with it. Maybe you get it wrong, and the dragon is really using Silent, Still arcane magic. Maybe the theory fits what you see anyway, and you spend the rest of the campaign convinced you fought a psionic dragon when you didn't. That isn't metagame if you do it from inside the framework of what the character knows and sees. If you see someone with a spell component pouch and a spellbook who calls up Evard's Black Tentacles, it isn't metagame for many characters to conclude that it's a wizard, and assume, rightly or not, a number of other things about that caster.

What you say about Eberron is true, but I don't see how it relates. Yes, Eberron is a very different setting from Greyhawk. What's your point? Most mechanics are exactly the same in both, and where they differ it's generally an extension to handle something that appears in Eberron but not Greyhawk. They differ neither in crunch nor in description.

[Shadow of the Sun]

About how a cloud of butterflies shouldn't deal fire damage unless they are red hot: IT'S GODDAMN MAGIC! Logic doesn't apply! In a world with golems and goblins you shouldn't get so hung up on things that make no sense to us, otherwise you'll never get round to playing the game!

[Dan_Hemmens]

About how a cloud of butterflies shouldn't deal fire damage unless they are red hot: IT'S GODDAMN MAGIC! Logic doesn't apply! In a world with golems and goblins you shouldn't get so hung up on things that make no sense to us, otherwise you'll never get round to playing the game!

Because of course if *magic* exists we don't have to worry about suspension of disbelief, do we.

[Fhaolan]

--Bows--

Actually, what made me think of that was a combination of a video on use of the AK-47 by an ex-Spetznaz guy who moved like that, constantly changing height, direction etc. That and the ubiquitous "Halt: Hammerzeit."

I think someone needs to play that character though :)

I think I need this video. Any idea where I could get one?