When you play "the wrong class".

[Yael]

So my gaming group ended up having a big discussion about how to roleplay a class, I must bold that because it is very different from how to roleplay a character.
One of the players is playing a Warblade, and the discussion began because my character (a ninja*/monk trained in a school where the students are taught the Sublime Way, and the Temple of the Nine Swords has its conections with it) began to make connections about his own party, deducing what represents what, and the only one that he couldn't figure out was the fighter with the flashy maneuvers, after a Martial Lore check, I knew he was using Diamond Heart maneuvers, and so he should be a Swordsage or a Warblade, but again, Swordsages do not wear medium+ armor, so he must be a Warblade (or a fighter with the Martial Study feat, of course). So when my character asks him about it, the warblade says that he is one.

This is where all started...

His character was a big coward, when the cleric power-tanked in Total Defense against five goblins, one being a barbarian and other being a cleric, the warblade was running away because he could've died, leaving me with no help flanking those other goblins. Now, at the end of the battle, where the fighter finished up those clerics after our own cleric's death, I, out of character, stated that his character should be acting different, whereas the Warblades do charge into the heat of battle for those amazing deeds, killing the dragon from the inside, charging toward that formation for the very point of disrupting that tactic. A direct quote from the Tome of Battle:
PLAYING A WARBLADE
Mastering the techniques of blade and shield is important to you, but even more important is the sense of daring, recklessness, and even joy that transports you in the hour of danger. You fight for glory, the thrill of combat, and personal honor. Thus, you approach each encounter as if the bards will sing of it for ages. Every raging bulette that breaks through the cobblestones in the bazaar, every dragon snarling on its pile of coin, and every reth dekala champion still carrying a sword of the Shadow Tiger horde is an opportunity for you to test your skill, prove your heroism, and shine ever brighter. Gold and magic are pleasant tokens, but the real measure of your success is the height of the obelisk commemorating your triumphs.There is stated that you seek glory through the very danger that it has with it, but in more than one battle, he ran away leaving the party when his wounds were grave, and I won't lie here, he was actually in negatives, but neither the Cleric, or the Fighter withdrew when that happened to them, instead they stood in foot with those Fortitude saves to resist the bleeding.

He replied that he was fighting in a "smart and tactical way", of course, that way of thinking was just after I said to my group, when they asked about the class, that Warblades focus Intelligence because fighting in a tactical way is far more effective than just slamming big heads on the ground (even if that works too), that's why Intelligence is such an important stat, not because of the bonuses, but because you can fight in a tactical way and oversmart enemies with your abilities and tactics, but without disregarding that "YOLO" moment, be tactical, but be awesome at least, at least that's my way of thinking about the warblade more than just instinct, that should come up with experience. But that "smart and tactical way" he plays just doesn't include the badass where the bards will sing about it, but to mock about. I, as a monk, am contributing more front-line than him, with my low HD and very high AC (:smallwink:).

Then another player said that he is playing a character with a very low odd of actually existing, that is like playing a barbarian with the class feature that doesn't rage because he is easy-going, or a wizard that does not prepare spells because she wants to smack things with a club. I don't actually agree in everything with that player at all, but he has a point, playing a Bard who does not perform but only battle, or a Rogue that does not use its skills but only his sneak attack, is metagaming at some sort, because you are playing the class for "what it gives" better than "what it is", we are playing a high-roleplay game and no one of us is focusing on martial combat, and even if the class is made for combat, he isn't even doing combat properly, learning things only for the sake of learning other things (he learnt Improved Bull Rush only because he wants to enter Shock Trooper, but has never actually used the feat once, not even bull rushed anything, I'm not actually sure if he knows what a Bull Rush is for...), rushing feats and asking us "feats for a build" like the spiked chain tripper, build that exists and I and my friend (the DM) knows how to bring up with third party, but we won't told him because he would learn more by searching.

Anyway, in the end, my DM and I were talking about him letting the player to take another level of warblade, because he does not play one at all, at least on the concept, and if it is true that a Warblade that does not fight for honor, there is no warblade that does not like battle.

I have this problem with two fellow players, who always play the "same character", they try to play themselves more than an RPG character, whether by playing the wrong alignment or by playing the wrong choices of a character that grew up bullied and when he got the force to be stronger, he wouldn't be bullyed anymore, but he bullies other party members when things does not go his way, but stands down when I or the Barbarian (that comes not that much to play) insult him or bully him anyway (in-character, of course). He (the warblade), and the fighter always end up playing the very same concept, a coward or net-builder that does not play his class (like the Scout/Rogue he played only to get into Dervish but when he was sent to scout, he failed at every possible angle, or the Ranger into Master of Many Forms with a "good" alignment that accepted a quest to blight the whole world [in a diferent plane] knowing what would happen).

Any help? The main reason for this post is to know if you would let a player who does not play a character class to continue in that class for the wrong reasons.

EDIT: I must clarify, I know that there is no "correct way" of playing a class or a character, but wouldn't be metagame for actual play only to enter a class to gain said benefit, disregarding what a class is being entered for and what it represents?

[ZamielVanWeber]

Any help? The main reason for this post is to know if you would let a player who does not play a character class to continue in that class for the wrong reasons.

You mean "play a character class to your specifications." You have no right to tell him he is not playing his class correctly because you disagree with his interpretation of how the class would work. He is allowed to have a more cautious warblade if he wants. Warblade has no mechanics that state they must be glory hounds (and your interpretation of glory hound, to boot) unlike, say, a druid where revering nature is mandatory.

[Vhaidara]

Anyway, in the end, my DM and I were talking about him letting the player to take another level of warblade, because he does not play one at all, at least on the concept, and if it is true that a Warblade that does not fight for honor, there is no warblade that does not like battle.

Absolutely he should be allowed to do so. His character is represented by the mechanical entity that is the warblade class. Fluff means NOTHING as far as the rules go.


EDIT: I must clarify, I know that there is no "correct way" of playing a class or a character, but wouldn't be metagame for actual play only to enter a class to gain said benefit, disregarding what a class is being entered for and what it represents?

There is no other reason for a class. Fluff is mutable. Would you ban someone from taking wizard levels because they didn't RP a nerd? How about the bard if he didn't hit on the waitress? Classes are just the form by which you get your abilities. Most of my barbarians don't even get angry. They basically just have extreme adrenaline rushes, to the point where only parts of their minds are working and their bodies are ignoring their limits.

[IZ42]

I've always wanted to play a druid that essentially dislikes nature, or at least prefers to remain separate from nature, but recognizes it's very important and utterly destroys anyone who dares touch his forests and glades and knows a bunch about it. That seems fun.

EDIT: This was in reaction to Zamiel's comment about druids revering nature. I have nothing much to contribute besides agreeing with Kele and Zamiel.

[Taelas]

So he's playing a bad Warblade. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself. Warblades do not have any mechanics which rely on them being "glory hounds".

That section is only a suggestion, not a hard rule. It would just be boring if every Warblade were like the book describes, anyway.

What does it matter why he chose the class?

As for the feats... there's no requirement to use a feat just because you took it.

If you don't think he should be a Warblade and if that bothers you so much, the best thing you can do is suggest a different class for him to take levels in -- something that fits his character concept better.

[AvatarVecna]

I wasn't aware that a one-dimensional personality was a requirement for taking levels in classes. Now I understand what all these paladin threads are complaining about!

Every class has suggestions for how it's generally played, but these should not be confused with how a class should be played. There are multiple ways to roleplay each class, including the Warblade; if nothing else, their preferred school should say more about their beliefs and tactics than their class does, and even then the character is more important than the build, which is more important than the class. For instance, if a Warblade focused themselves on the Tiger Claw school, heedlessly charging into combat would be a valid portrayal of a Tiger Claw's approach to combat...but you could also prefer the long, stealthy hunt ending in a single round of pouncing, unexpected attacks; conversely, a Warblade focusing on the White Raven School might prefer to hang back, directing their allies as a general would and acting more as support than melee...but they're just as likely to charge into the thick of things.

[Red Fel]

Any help? The main reason for this post is to know if you would let a player who does not play a character class to continue in that class for the wrong reasons.

I'm with Zamiel and Keledrath. There are mechanical components to a class - such as prerequisites and class features - and then there is the fluff. The fluff is mutable. Saying a character doesn't meet your definition of the fluff is telling someone how to play his character.

Your comparisons are not apt comparisons. This isn't a case of a Barbarian refusing to use Rage, or a Wizard refusing to prepare his spells. Those are mechanical components to a bundle of mechanics we call a "class." This is a character who has defined the personality of his character.

Now, admittedly, bailing on the rest of the party is a jerk move, but nothing prevents a PC from being a jerk except for party dynamics.

Consider this: A cowardly Paladin. Now, Paladins are symbols of justice and righteousness. They actually have a class feature that makes them immune to fear. So it's completely absurd and out of character for one to be a coward, right?

Well, no. He can be nervous. He can constantly feel like he is unworthy of his gifts, like he is unable to live up to the burden of embodying virtue incarnate. And while he has a heart of gold and will jump into danger in a pinch, it only takes him a moment before he realizes he's in over his head and starts to panic. That's a personality, and if anything, I think it makes for a wonderful Paladin.

That's the point here. The Warblade is a smart, capable warrior, as embodied by his Int-focused class features. But the stuff in there about being dashing is all fluff. That stuff describes being charming and dashing - that's Charisma stuff. Do you see one Cha-based class feature in the Warblade's mechanics? No. You do not.

A character class is a bundle of mechanical pros and cons. Many of them have prerequisites. Some have alignment prerequisites, or personality prerequisites like "Must have burned down a building just to watch it burn," or "Must have killed an innocent person just to draw the attention of the Assassins." Warblade doesn't have any of these. Stop reading them into the class.


EDIT: I must clarify, I know that there is no "correct way" of playing a class or a character, but wouldn't be metagame for actual play only to enter a class to gain said benefit, disregarding what a class is being entered for and what it represents?

But he isn't disregarding anything. The Warblade is an Int-based initiator class with full BAB and a great recovery mechanic. That's it. Trying to read it as only being played one way is contrary to what's written in the book.

Heck, look at the Samurai class. (CW version, because reasons.) Do you honestly intend to tell me that, even with the Lawful requirement and the fluff, there's only one way to play that? I've seen the Akira Kurosawa movie. I know there are at least seven ways to play a Samurai. And that's a class with substantially more defined fluff than the Warblade. Samurai have centuries of cultural baggage, along with the weight of cinema and literature on their shoulders. The Warblade was invented from whole cloth. If there are more than a half-dozen ways to play something as well-defined as a Samurai, surely there must be more ways to Warblade than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Now, would it be metagame for a character to start by playing one way, then change suddenly and be another way just in time to take levels in a class with changed prerequisites? Probably. A player who starts with an LG Monk, gains the class features he wants, then loudly announces that he has become CE so that he can go Warlock -> Hellfire Warlock will certainly get more than his share of raised eyebrows from me.

But there are levels to that. For example, say my player makes a CE Soulborn specifically because he wants that protection from Str penalties. If he goes on to stick with CE, sure it was a bit of meta to start with, but now it's a legitimate character concept.

And this isn't even that. It's a Warblade, whatever that means (hint: bundle of mechanics), who is a bit of a coward. How can you call that "wrong," when the whole concept of Warblade was invented almost from whole cloth? How can you call that meta when he's not trying to be anything?

[Oberon Kenobi]

Yeah, I'm with the others here, the player isn't doing anything wrong from an RP perspective (though leaving the party to rot when they have the capacity to help may be a jerk move from an OOC perspective).

I will add the following: you do not actually play a class at all; believing so is a fallacy, even when the class is fluff heavy and even when that fluff is mechanically enforced (e.g., The Paladin). You use a class to play a character.

Trying to force players to live up to some immovable platonic ideal of a class is unfun and unproductive; classes are Play-Doh, not cookie cutters.

[Pex]

You were in the wrong to declare a class must be played in a specific way.

The other player was in the wrong to abandon the party and run away from combat leading to a PC death regardless of his class.

[Ellowryn]

Boy, not a lot of love for UrashimaJamez this thread. Dont' worry, i will always at least think of lending you helping hand. Sometimes.

It sounds to me like the problem isnt so much that he is playing a Warblade wrong, its that he is playing his role wrong. Leaving all that random fluff stuff behind, the player decided to make a melee oriented character with the mindset of a squishy coward. The class was created for frontlining with the best of them while being able to do a variety of interesting things in and out of combat but as things look down he repeatedly chooses to run away leaving others behind to die. Now, from your explanation it seems that there is no shortage of melee in the group so its not like he is the only thing standing between the BBEG's and the squishies, but his constant aversion to playing his role is annoying.

I assume he likes playing his initiator class? If so i would suggest him switching to the Swordsage so mechanically it better fits his character concept of being built to be able to get out when things go bad. As for him always abandoning the other players i would talk to him about it (ignore what/how he is playing and just talk metagame to him) as his constant leaving the battle is making challenges more difficult than they should be and the fact that it is just poor sportsmanship.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with playing a coward as long as you communicate this to both the other players AND the Dm about it so everyone can prepare for it, otherwise you are just being an bastard.

[martixy]

EDIT: I must clarify, I know that there is no "correct way" of playing a class or a character, but wouldn't be metagame for actual play only to enter a class to gain said benefit, disregarding what a class is being entered for and what it represents?

I think you are misunderstanding the difference between metagaming and gaming.

We ALL take the classes for the benefits they provide. It's part of what constitutes playing the game.

Let me put it like this, maybe you'd understand better:

This is a game. Some people suck at games. But this is not LoL or Dota or WoW. Don't go running around complaining about noob teammates. It's just as pointless here.
Either the DM helps them in-game or any one of your group help them out of game to optimize better.

Also see above for fluff.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

From my post in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329829-The-Black-Stain-Objection#25) regarding the built-in fluff of classes:

One guy I play with strictly adheres to the fluff of every class, as though it's part of the rules. This particular individual happens to have the least imagination and creativity in my gaming group, hence his stance on class fluff. He also happens to be very poor at optimization, usually sticking to a single-classed character, or sticking to one class aiming for one prestige class (Rogue/Assassin). This is anecdotal of course, but it's a very clear example of why someone would try adhering to the built-in fluff instead of trying to make up their own. His lack of creativity makes him bad at both fluff and mechanics.

Another guy I play with wanted to make a Draconic Human Hexblade/Talon of Tiamat shortly after the Draconomicon was printed. He wanted to try out stuff from a new book, so his character was a warrior witch doctor from an island-dwelling tribe of savages who were descended from a chromatic half-dragon. He threw away every bit of the built-in fluff of Hexblade, and used its mechanics to represent the fluff he wanted his character to have. It worked out perfectly, and he ended up with a very strong character relative to the rest of the party, considering a maximized clinging breath attack could kill an entire encounter in a single shot.


You seem to think that everyone should 1. pick a class, and 2. use that class's fluff for their character. What's wrong with 1. pick your character's fluff, and 2. pick classes whose game mechanics best represent the capabilities your character should have according to that fluff. For example, Warblade is a superb class for representing a Samurai in fluff, because its mechanics are so well suited to it. You need to forget that the built-in fluff for any given class even exists, because that's not what every character of that class is.

[Shackel]

At risk of sounding contrarian, I think that, considering that you're playing a high-roleplay campaign, you were fully in the right to consider it rather odd that the warblade plays the exact opposite of one.

To be honest, though, I think the problem more lies in him metagaming or "rollplaying", rather than being a warblade itself.

[Yael]

GitP uses reason!

It's super effective!

I always saw entering a class like the result of practice, being the best at where you studied/born, that's why you became an adventurer, like all those years at the monastery to become an obviously overpowered monk, or training these years at the thieves guild, we none are playing netbuilds or planning an specific path, just playing and entering whatever class our adventure leads up to, or taking whatever feat our practice gives us, I was always against spontaneous feats, when the setting isn't even appropiate, and taking jotunbrud at level 3rd was such a suspicious move... Anyway, I'll let my DM be the judge on what happens, of course I would link him to this thread so he can share your comments :)

In the end, I think should apologize to my friend and talk it with my DM, I think that I should change my viewpoint of the game, sorry Mr. GitP, still gotta admit that he metagames a lot lol.

Well, I still think that X player should see more into what his prodigy at fighting character does or represents, and I would be more lenient about how others play their characters, but that does not have anything to do with the second part of the OP, the "same character" thingy. Does that happen often? It is really that difficult to play a diferent "being"? X's characters always are named the same (literally), and Y's characters always act Neutral Evil even if his sheet names any other alignment.

[Lerondiel]

This forum may not be the best place to get the support for your argument you're looking for.

True, the game would become very stale very quickly if all the classes had a set way of being played, but it's also very two dimensional to focus on game mechanics to the extent that everything else written in the books by WotC is meaningless fluff or padding.

Countless prestige classes were written like the warblade in clear English with a very defined roleplaying theme, so if you do play them contrary to that you are indeed going against the source 'illegally'.

But the biggest thing WotC are very clear on is that D&D is a framework for groups to include, exclude and add to as their enjoyment dictates.


So yes, you're absolutely 'correct' but talk through with the player and DM for what will work best for the fun of your whole group over accuracy.

[AvatarVecna]

Don't get me wrong: running away like a pansy isn't any better for a fighting-focused character, even though cowardice can be a decently interesting character trait. But saying that a Warblade can only be played as a "charging in guns blazing" style character is just as limited and boring and potentially unhelpful.

[Nifft]

Any help? The main reason for this post is to know if you would let a player who does not play a character class to continue in that class for the wrong reasons.

EDIT: I must clarify, I know that there is no "correct way" of playing a class or a character, but wouldn't be metagame for actual play only to enter a class to gain said benefit, disregarding what a class is being entered for and what it represents?

IMHO a class is a toolkit, not a straitjacket.

A Rogue may be a charming diplomat who is fat and clumsy, and who cannot sneak around. Or he may be an acrobat who can't talk to save his life. Both are valid uses for the class.

The characterization write-ups are intended to inspire players. IMHO they're NOT intended to limit players.

So like, if it's your first character, and you're new to this D&D thing, and for whatever reason you're playing a Warblade, then that section gives you a decent default outline of how to have fun with the class. But when Conan the Warbladebarian the Third dies ("stupid snake-priests"), and you're on your fourth Warblade, maybe you feel like not playing the exact same cookie-cutter character again. So, you use the tool in some other way. And that's great.

[Forrestfire]

The problem actually lies with the OP metagaming and rollplaying, by paying attention entirely to the class and not caring about the actual roleplaying going on. Classes are entirely metagame constructs, and are, in fact, called out as such in the DMG when it discusses changing how classes work. :smalltongue:

Whether or not the player metagames a lot doesn't come into it. He's playing a character and the class does not define, or even come into, how a character is or should be played unless the player chooses so.


In any case, I'd like to raise some counterexamples to the point about class fluff being something that has to be followed. The Fighter, and the Monk. These are intetionally ridiculous examples because the fluff on these classes does not match their mechanics whatsoever, but if the position on class fluff isn't consistent, then it should be reexamined.

Here we have the Fighter's class fluff:

Of all classes, fighters have the best all-around fighting capabilities (hence the name). Fighters are familiar with all the standard weapons and armors. In addition to general fighting prowess, each fighter develops particular specialties of his own. A given fighter may be especially capable with certain weapons,
another might be trained to execute specific fancy maneuvers. As fighters gain experience, they get more opportunities to develop their fighting skills. Thanks to their focus on combat maneuvers, they can master the most difficult ones relatively quickly.

Fighters do nothave the best all-around fighting capabilities. They are familiar with all the standard weapons and armors, but they are not nearly the best at any of them. They do not necessarily focus on combat maneuvers, and do not master the most difficult ones relatively quickly.

Would you say that a fighter who takes levels in the Fighter class is not a fighter, by virtue of contradicting his fluff? What about one who doesn't focus on combat maneuvers, and never disarms, trips, grapples, feints, or otherwise uses things other than attacks? Does this mean that he should not be able to take more Fighter levels, as he is obviously not playing a fighter? If he has to multiclass out of Fighter after 2 levels, does he then become more qualified to take more of them, as it made him a better fighter by not taking the dead level?
And here's the Monk's fluff:

They train themselves to be versatile warriors skilled at fighting without weapons or armor. The inhabitants of monasteries headed by good masters serve as protectors of the people. Ready for battle even when barefoot and dressed in peasant clothes, monks can travel unnoticed among the populace, catching bandits, warlords, and corrupt nobles unawares. In contrast, the residents of monasteries headed by evil masters rule the surrounding lands through fear, as an evil warlord and his entourage might. Evil monks make ideal spies, infiltrators, and assassins.

Monks are not versatile warriors, although I will grant that they can be skilled at fighting without weapons and armor (although a standard Barbarian is more skilled at fighting without weapons). However, Monks do not have bluff or disguise, so they are unlikely to travel unnoticed among the populace. They also do not have gather information and are not amazing in a fight, and their reliance on many stats means they're unlikely to make ideal spies, infiltrators, or assassins. Does this mean that an evil monk should be unable to take more levels in monk?


Well, I still think that X player should see more into what his prodigy at fighting character does or represents, and I would be more lenient about how others play their characters, but that does not have anything to do with the second part of the OP, the "same character" thingy. Does that happen often? It is really that difficult to play a diferent "being"? X's characters always are named the same (literally), and Y's characters always act Neutral Evil even if his sheet names any other alignment.

That's something that should be discussed with the player. If he enjoys playing the same character over and over, I guess that's what's he enjoys. If it's disrupting the group, then that's something to bring up OoC. For some people, the fun comes from hanging out at the table with friends, rather than building unique and varied characters. However, it has nothing to do with metagaming or class in the end.

[Yael]

But when Conan the Warbladebarian the Third dies ("stupid snake-priests"), and you're on your fourth Warblade, maybe you feel like not playing the exact same cookie-cutter character again.
I am not intending to take less seriousness into your comment as on any other, but may I sig this? Even if I'm all kinds serious at the moment, it made me laugh a lot.

Back on topic, I was wrong at viewing the description as a whole guideline instead of a simple aidee for the players to take on their characters, again, I apologize. :smallfrown:

Though, I'm actually speaking with my DM right now (we both live in the same house), so he sees this post.

[Nifft]

I am not intending to take less seriousness into your comment as on any other, but may I sig this? Even if I'm all kinds serious at the moment, it made me laugh a lot.
"Sig what thou wilt" is the whole of mine law.


Back on topic, I was wrong at viewing the description as a whole guideline instead of a simple aidee for the players to take on their characters, again, I apologize. :smallfrown:

Though, I'm actually speaking with my DM right now (we both live in the same house), so he sees this post.
Cool. Hope things work out for the best.

I was thinking about communication, too, and how you all ought to discuss when running away is a valid tactical option. It sounds like you've got a couple of suicidal very stoic characters who look Death in the eyes and mutter, "Take me, bonehead." And then this other guy, who runs away when one goblin knife might end him. That seems to be the actual point of conflict, and you're trying to solve it via flavor-lawyering about his class behavior.

The flavor-lawyering won't work, but the underlying issue is legit, and you ought to have a conversation about when running away is valid from the perspective of the party as a whole. This isn't about playing any class "correctly", it's about allies who need to trust each other with their lives.

[SwordChucks]

There's is a possibility that the player is trying to have a character arc by being cowardly now and braver later, but you would know the player better than I. Also, maybe suggest a crusader dip for some healing or something.

[Hrugner]

... but that does not have anything to do with the second part of the OP, the "same character" thingy. Does that happen often? It is really that difficult to play a diferent "being"? X's characters always are named the same (literally), and Y's characters always act Neutral Evil even if his sheet names any other alignment.

This is something I find pretty common with people who either don't play much, or are interested in socializing more than playing the game. I don't think it's exactly a bad thing, unless you have a table crowded with people there who do take the extra effort to play new types of characters losing spots to people who don't, but it isn't my favorite thing. I play with a broad group, there's one guy who is always a sneaky trigger happy jackass, another who always plays the character as the class fluff as you propose, another who just waits for fights to start then charges in only paying attention to anything else if he thinks he's not getting his cut of the loot. There's all sorts really. I personally secretly roleplay one of our mutual friends, which can be funny if they later join the game.

[Troacctid]

Can I also point out that the writers of Tome of Battle seriously screwed up the Warblade fluff? They wrote it all like the Warblade was supposed to be Charisma-based, with tons of references to them being bold, brash, dashing glory hounds who fight with flair and panache and never use the same move twice. Then they turned around and made the class depend on Intelligence instead. Does the fluff mention their brilliant tactics or keen strategic minds? Nope.

You have to think some wires got crossed at some point.

[BWR]

I'm going to have to disagree with a number of other posters here. Fluff is mutable, sure, but so are mechanics. If you as the GM like something, that's the way it will be in the game. If you want to change something, it will be changed; it doesn't matter if we're talking fluff or mechanics. So if you want the fluff aspects of a class to be specific and respected (and I especially enforce this wrt PrCs), so be it. However, make this known ahead of time so people don't think they are ok doing something then get a reprimand from you for playing their class wrong.

[Hrugner]

I'm going to have to disagree with a number of other posters here. Fluff is mutable, sure, but so are mechanics. If you as the GM like something, that's the way it will be in the game. If you want to change something, it will be changed; it doesn't matter if we're talking fluff or mechanics. So if you want the fluff aspects of a class to be specific and respected (and I especially enforce this wrt PrCs), so be it. However, make this known ahead of time so people don't think they are ok doing something then get a reprimand from you for playing their class wrong.

Giving players strict guidelines, based on what their personality can be with the class they chose, seems like a recipe for annoyed players more than good roleplaying or fun gameplay.

[Lerondiel]

Can I also point out that the writers of Tome of Battle seriously screwed up the Warblade fluff? They wrote it all like the Warblade was supposed to be Charisma-based, with tons of references to them being bold, brash, dashing glory hounds who fight with flair and panache and never use the same move twice. Then they turned around and made the class depend on Intelligence instead. Does the fluff mention their brilliant tactics or keen strategic minds? Nope.

You have to think some wires got crossed at some point.

Yes, serious mismatch. Also not a great idea to create such a defined persona for a base class.


That said, it was handy for me a few games ago. Most of my characters are opposite to that personality type so the last warblade I played with the big matching ego was a lot of fun and forced me out of my rut :)

[AvatarVecna]

I'm going to have to disagree with a number of other posters here. Fluff is mutable, sure, but so are mechanics. If you as the GM like something, that's the way it will be in the game. If you want to change something, it will be changed; it doesn't matter if we're talking fluff or mechanics. So if you want the fluff aspects of a class to be specific and respected (and I especially enforce this wrt PrCs), so be it. However, make this known ahead of time so people don't think they are ok doing something then get a reprimand from you for playing their class wrong.

For some PrCs, I'll grant you that the fluff is important, maybe even a majority; a fanatically theistic Ur-Priest has some 'splainin' to do, as does an Apostle of Peace who uses the power of the Abyss (Dark Chaos Shuffle) to barter away their divine blessings for power. For some though, the fluff is more mutable and open to interpretation: what, exactly, is the assumed outlook and personality of a Rage Mage, or an Order of the Bow Initiate? The religious preferences of a Shining Blade of Heironeous seem obvious, but what about the Void Disciple, or the Alienist?

I guess I'm just trying to say that pigeon-holing a character's personality based on their mechanical stats leaves a lot of interesting characterizations by the wayside.

[TiaC]

a fanatically theistic Ur-Priest has some 'splainin' to do.

I've seen one of these. He was a devout follower of a god that didn't exist. His belief was strong enough to slowly draw power from other gods and begin to shape it into the god he worshiped. If the campaign had gotten there, the DM eventually planned to have the god come into being.

[Ellowryn]

I've seen one of these. He was a devout follower of a god that didn't exist. His belief was strong enough to slowly draw power from other gods and begin to shape it into the god he worshiped. If the campaign had gotten there, the DM eventually planned to have the god come into being.

And its name would have been Zoamelgustar right?

[Chronos]

Wait, so you have no problem with a class called a "ninja" that somehow ends up with ToB maneuvers, but you do have a problem with a guy called a "warblade" who tries not to get himself killed?

[Nifft]

Can I also point out that the writers of Tome of Battle seriously screwed up the Warblade fluff? They wrote it all like the Warblade was supposed to be Charisma-based, with tons of references to them being bold, brash, dashing glory hounds who fight with flair and panache and never use the same move twice. Then they turned around and made the class depend on Intelligence instead. Does the fluff mention their brilliant tactics or keen strategic minds? Nope.

You have to think some wires got crossed at some point.

My theory is that the Warblade was originally based more heavily on White Raven.

Then the mechanics changed a bit, and the flavor text didn't change to match.

[Yael]

Wait, so you have no problem with a class called a "ninja" that somehow ends up with ToB maneuvers, but you do have a problem with a guy called a "warblade" who tries not to get himself killed?

Err, not quite, my character has no ToB maneuvers, what I said on the OPost was that my character "comes from a school where students are taught the Sublime Way", so they get the Martial Lore skill as class skill, but still a class retains its class features, and I'm no diferent from another class that could learn any martial maneuver by taking the Martial Study feat.

Anyway, we already talked with the player and he said he will try to not be "always the same", as it gets boring both for him and for us when we interact.

[gadren]

This reminds me of when I played a swashbuckling rogue way back in the Living Greyhawk days and picked up two levels of barbarian for the extra speed, improved uncanny dodge, hit points, BAB, and weapon proficiencies.

So many players got hung up on me being a "barbarian", even though I was roleplaying the exact opposite of a barbarian: a low strength, rapier-wielding fop who always lived as cushy a lifestyle as possible. I started telling them "pretend I'm a fighter/rogue" and refused to tell them my actual class make-up.

[Nifft]

So many players got hung up on me being a "barbarian", even though I was roleplaying the exact opposite of a barbarian: a low strength, rapier-wielding fop who always lived as cushy a lifestyle as possible.

That is 100% accurate Conan.

Fafhrd would not turn down a nice cushy vacation, either.

The soft life doesn't actually soften them, because they've got too much Vitamin P (for protagonist), but getting a bunch of gold to spend on their own pleasure is a significant part of why they go on adventures.

[danzibr]

Don't get me wrong: running away like a pansy isn't any better for a fighting-focused character, even though cowardice can be a decently interesting character trait.
Made me laugh.

Anyway, to contribute to the conversation, imagine a cool, smart dude who spent years training to be a Warblade, but when he actually gets in combat (well, a combat that's not going well) he chickens out.

[RolkFlameraven]

Made me laugh.

Anyway, to contribute to the conversation, imagine a cool, smart dude who spent years training to be a Warblade, but when he actually gets in combat (well, a combat that's not going well) he chickens out.

As I'm a horrible, horrible person I am going to do this, and name him 'Sir Robin' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8).

[atemu1234]

So many players got hung up on me being a "barbarian", even though I was roleplaying the exact opposite of a barbarian: a low strength, rapier-wielding fop who always lived as cushy a lifestyle as possible. I started telling them "pretend I'm a fighter/rogue" and refused to tell them my actual class make-up.

Were you a Whirling Frenzy Barbarian?

Anyway, back to the point:

Do not tell others how to roleplay. Ever. It ends badly.

Do not tell others how to roleplay a class especially. Those descriptions are the baseline, and they are by no means representative of the population. If I say most humans have brown eyes (which is true), then do people with green eyes not exist?

[Yael]

Do not tell others how to roleplay a class especially. Those descriptions are the baseline, and they are by no means representative of the population. If I say most humans have brown eyes (which is true), then do people with green eyes not exist?

Those have either the Aberration type or the Mutation subtype.

[ahenobarbi]

Any help? The main reason for this post is to know if you would let a player who does not play a character class to continue in that class for the wrong reasons.

EDIT: I must clarify, I know that there is no "correct way" of playing a class or a character, but wouldn't be metagame for actual play only to enter a class to gain said benefit, disregarding what a class is being entered for and what it represents?

Please don't. It's their characters and if they want to play one-in-a-million cowardly swordsage they should be allowed to. If you do you're unlikely to get the player to act like you want them to. And even IF you do succeed it's likely to severly limit their enjoyment.

I once almost left a game which I enjoyed a lot, but which had one player who complained about how I play my cleric all the time (luckily for me the player left before I decided to, so I was able to enjoy the game).

[Ruslan]

It seems to me it should be less about "playing a warblade incorrectly" than it is about the very legitimate annoyance at a non-contributing party member. If most party members shed blood and spill guts in hard fight against a formidable enemy, while one chooses to run, that's not tactics. That's plain cowardice. The other party members have full right to be peeved, both IC and OOC.

And "I'm playing my character the way I want" should not be a defense. If he's a member of an adventuring party, he should at least make an honest effort to mesh with the party strategies and tactics, and contribute. If he doesn't exhibit any kind of fit with the party, he can roleplay his character the way he wants in a solo game.

[Barstro]

Then another player said that he is playing a character with a very low odd of actually existing,

So, your friend admits that the character can exist. Good; we have a place to start from.

All PCs are anomalies. Even human fighters are well above a standard city guard (and city guards are well above the common man).

The very heart of all min/maxers is creating a character that is even LESS likely to exist than a "normal" PC.

Maybe the person in question needs to appease you and the other player by concocting a sufficient backstory for why he behaves a certain way. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe the next cowardly action will result in him running into another group ready to kill him. Maybe your PC (in character) will oust him from the group for not behaving the way the party's contract states. (Your PCs did draw up a party contract, right?)


And "I'm playing my character the way I want" should not be a defense.
Sure it should. It is the perfect defense. BUT, everyone else gets that defense as well. If another player feels that his character would be irked by the actions, then that character can react accordingly ("the way that player wants"). A PC in my group was acting like a jerk, so my character turned her into a newt (but was kind enough to dispel it). She still acted like a jerk, so my character put her under a compulsion to stop acting that way.

Rules (and defenses) are for everyone, not just a single person.

[Crake]

taking jotunbrud at level 3rd was such a suspicious move

I feel like it's worth mentioning that feats like jotunbrud, being a racial feat, and thus representing a racial feature, can only be taken at level 1 for a reason, precisely because people don't randomly inherit racial traits mid-life. So yeah, it was suspicious because it was actually not a legal feat choice

[Necroticplague]

I feel like it's worth mentioning that feats like jotunbrud, being a racial feat, and thus representing a racial feature, can only be taken at level 1 for a reason, precisely because people don't randomly inherit racial traits mid-life. So yeah, it was suspicious because it was actually not a legal feat choice

Actually, it's a regional feat, not a racial one (though it does have a racial requirement). The point about how it specifically says "Special: You may only take this feat as a 1st-level character. " still stands, though

[Nifft]

(...) precisely because people don't randomly inherit racial traits mid-life.

Depending on the specific midpoint of your life, either puberty or baldness would like to differ.

"I just had my growth spurt, my people call it Jotunbrud."

[Crake]

Depending on the specific midpoint of your life, either puberty or baldness would like to differ.

"I just had my growth spurt, my people call it Jotunbrud."

I suppose you could argue that, but again, the feat can only be taken as a 1st level character, so still an illegal pick

[Nifft]

I suppose you could argue that, but again, the feat can only be taken as a 1st level character, so still an illegal pick

Indeed, the rules as written make it illegal.

Nothing to do with your particular "flavor" justification, since people obviously do undergo physical changes at several points in life.

A DM would be within her rights to allow it, though IMHO it'd be rather unusual to see an adolescent character out stabbing orcs with the grown-ups.

[Yael]

The whole mention of the Jotenbrud feat was because he was adding up to +11 to his Strength check and no one of us knew why at 4th level, we assumed +4 from Improved Trip but a +8 Strength bonus? When we asked, he said:

"Yeah, it's +12... It's +4 from Improved Trip, +3 from my Strength modifier and +4 from that feat that gives powerful build."

So, eh... Yeah, he didn't have it at level 1st, per our DM.

[Forrestfire]

Then you need to figure out where the miscommunication was, because Jotenbrud can only be taken at 1st level.