Class aesthetic [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Gallowglass

2016-06-20, 02:11 PM

Flickerdart

2016-06-20, 02:26 PM

The thing is, I couldnt tell you, because its based on pure opinion and subjectivity.

It feels like a Paladin because thats how I feel when I am one.

I cant just slap a paladins backstory on a non paladin, it wouldnt feel right to me.

Why can a character with only fighter levels not be a paladin?

Dragolord

2016-06-20, 02:27 PM

Paladins don't even get their powers from gods.

And monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes. Neither of these facts are terribly relevant, right now.

Flickerdart

2016-06-20, 02:41 PM

And monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes. Neither of these facts are terribly relevant, right now.
The monk thing isn't. The paladin thing is, because it's fluff. Just like the aesthetic issue is fluff. The mechanics aren't important, but paladins just straight-up have nothing to do with gods outside of the Forgotten Realms.

OldTrees1

2016-06-20, 02:57 PM

Red Fel

2016-06-20, 03:00 PM

Respectfully disagree. Hearing that call is about the character, not about the mechanics. To put it another way, if a Paladin woke up one day with a permanent antimagic field around him, unable to turn undead, cut off from his mount, unable to cast spells, Lay On Hands, Smite Evil, or even Detect Evil ... would he still be a Paladin? The class's mechanics support the concept, they don't define it.

Going to agree with this one.

With the exception of classes with the fluff hard-baked in (such as Paladin), any class can be designed to fill any concept, at least fluff-wise. Think back to 8-Bit Theater: Fighter was actually divinely inspired by the God of Swords. (It's a sword with glasses.)

Most classes that can do a better job of Monking or Paladining than the Monk or Paladin (to use those examples) don't have attendant fluff. So there is absolutely nothing stopping you from playing, say, a Crusader identically to a Paladin, or a Swordsage identically to a Monk. The only difference is a mechanical one.

Smite Evil is not a personality trait. Flurry of Blows is not a backstory. These are mechanics, not character. "Class aesthetic" is a superficial way to refer to a bundle of class features.

digiman619

2016-06-20, 03:01 PM

With respect, I must disagree. Let's ignore monks and paladins for a second, and let's talk character concept. Let's say I'm playing a Pathfinder game in a setting with Wild West feel, and I want to play a mysterious stranger who's a dead shot with a rifle. There's an archetype for the Gunslinger class, appropriately called Mysterious Stranger, that aims toward that, but I could easily build a Sorcerer with true strike and Exotic Weapon Proficiency that fills the same concept.

I know what you're saying, that's a dumb argument and a corner case. Fair enough, but I feel that the true reason for your argument is simple- you want to see the word "monk" or "paladin" on your character sheet. Having that word there makes you feel that your concept is truly being implemented correctly. I have a one-word counter-argument: "Samurai". The Samurai class was infamously bad, but that doesn't mean that a Samurai is a bad character concept, you just need a better chassis to build it on.

LTwerewolf

2016-06-20, 03:11 PM

The test I always use is if you remove the names of the classes, do they support the concept?

With a paladin, what specifically about the mechanics (not the name, mind you, just the mechanics) screams this is required to be a paladin. Is it the code? The knight also gets that. So does the prestige paladin/cleric. The crusader does in a way as well, except you're not being horribly punished for putting a toe out of line.

Is it the ability to smite? Loh? What is it about that specific chassis that is 100% required to be a paladin? If another class has those things and are good at it, then why can they not fulfill the "is a paladin" fluff? There are classes that are explicitly designed to fulfill the same roleplay but with slightly different mechanics. Champion of Corellion is basically an elven paladin. If you were an elf, why would that not suffice to be a paladin over the paladin class? On more than one occasion, the classes were only named what they were because the name they would have used was already taken.

This is why to me the "play an unarmed swordsage" works for monk. The things monk is supposed to be good at, the unarmed swordsage is good at. The unchained monk as well. People don't have so much resistance with the unchained monk because it still has monk in the name. If swordsage had some variation of monk as the name, you can be assured no one would bat an eye at playing it instead of the monk. I've found it's not even about the mechanics but people's obsession with relying on the name of the class for 100% of their roleplaying. They're a crusader, so they're not allowed to act like a paladin, which in turn cannot act like a monk, regardless of the fact that all three are lawful good followers of heironeous that hail from the same church, and use unarmed strikes as a weapon. It's a very "inside the box" view of roleplay that I'm not a fan of, but some people are. I don't think that those people are having the wrong fun, because fun is fun. It's just not for me.

Necroticplague

2016-06-20, 03:25 PM

Gildedragon

2016-06-20, 03:27 PM

My immediate reaction was to disagree with the concept of class aesthetic; I do like classes being only part of both the build and character, not the sum of it.
And I still disagree in regards to monk and unarmed swordsage.

But I think I get it in the paladin
The alignment restriction makes it so that all folk you meet with the same abilities as you are of a particular mindset, with similar goals. You know you can fall if you do things wrong.

Still the paladin's key features: their goodness and honor are based on how one plays the character. I would rather play with a fighter that acts like a paladin, than a paladin-in-class-only. What Good is detect evil if it is used constantly and as an excuse for violence; what honor is in using lay-on-hands to keep a suspect alive through information extracting torture...

Red Fel

2016-06-20, 03:30 PM

For example, let's focus on your monk example. All monks get the same abilities from their training. You talk about knowing 18 ways to kill a man, but the monk only really knows 2 at most (quivering palm, unarmed strike). However, the swordsage's maneuvers actually set them apart from each other in flavorful ways. Some walk a path of learning iron-body techniques, strike with the force of hammers, and are as immovable as rock. Some are as fast as the wind, and can disappear if you take your eyes off for a second. Some can punch you so hard your ice freezes in your veins, some can do the opposite, punching you so hard you burst into flames. And possibly most relevantly, their journeys don't all lead them down the exact same path. So I think the swordsage actually captures the concept the monk was going for better than the monk actually does.

So much this. And here's a point I come back to frequently.

Suppose that the books weren't published in the order in which they were published. Suppose that Monk never became a thing until after Swordsage. Would anybody advocate that you need to play a Monk "for fluff reasons?" (Or for any reason, for that matter?) If Swordsage were the established class, and its mechanics taken as baseline instead of splatbook, would anyone actually claim that the Monk is somehow more "authentic" or "aesthetic" or something? I'm not convinced that they would.

Similarly, if Paladins had never become a thing, but martial Clerics absolutely were, do you feel that anyone would say, "You know, there's just something lacking in the LG martial divine servant area," or would we just play Clerics?

That's my point. Part of the reason we cling to these classes and their "aesthetics" is tradition - the fact that these things are so ingrained into the game and culture. But there's nothing intrinsic to the classes themselves to justify that.

Gildedragon

2016-06-20, 03:36 PM

So much this. And here's a point I come back to frequently.

Suppose that the books weren't published in the order in which they were published. Suppose that Monk never became a thing until after Swordsage. Would anybody advocate that you need to play a Monk "for fluff reasons?" (Or for any reason, for that matter?) If Swordsage were the established class, and its mechanics taken as baseline instead of splatbook, would anyone actually claim that the Monk is somehow more "authentic" or "aesthetic" or something? I'm not convinced that they would.

Similarly, if Paladins had never become a thing, but martial Clerics absolutely were, do you feel that anyone would say, "You know, there's just something lacking in the LG martial divine servant area," or would we just play Clerics?

>.> they sorta did that with favored souls' holy warrior thing; it didn't stick too well.

the_david

2016-06-20, 03:40 PM

This is part of why I dislike class based RPGs. Some people have a hard time letting go of the assumption that your class = role.

Unfortunately, it's either Pathfinder or no roleplaying for me...

GrayDeath

2016-06-20, 05:03 PM

When playing class-based RPG`s with at least SOME inWorld Class Relevance I tend to go Fluff before anything else (unless its a Game with a different, set target or a oneshot).

Why? Because thats the ONLY valid reason to play class based RPG`s.
Anything else classless Rulesets can do better. More flexibility, more personalization, less hassle. ^^

So yes, I agree that the Class Aesthetic, the Fluff (inWorld) are cool and important (or in some cases at least important^^).

ILM

2016-06-20, 05:11 PM

If any beatstick with a decent choice of feats can be better at punching things unarmed and unarmored than a Monk, while also being better at more things than a Monk, then I would argue that the Monk class is pretty undeserving of its aesthetic, and that it would be fair to seek a better way to achieve the same aesthetic. What does it say about the Fighter, who's supposed to be a paragon of hitting things with pointy sticks, that an accidental Cleric can hit things better with all manners of pointy sticks?

Also, sometimes you don't want to be the archetype. Sure, the Paladin class is nice if you want to play a holy, mounted warrior wielding a badass greatsword, healing people with a touch, armored with faith and steel, capable of minor miracles and bound to an iron code. But if you want something just a little different... there are better options. Use them or don't; the point is that on these forums, when you say 'I want to play a monk' people hear 'I want to play an unarmored, gentle guy who can do acrobatics and also punch things', and they try to help as best they can. If you can't see a monk without the Monk class, then these options aren't for you - no biggie!

Troacctid

2016-06-20, 06:06 PM

You shouldn't underestimate the power of aesthetics. Names are powerful, and resonant concepts are almost always more popular than made-up words nobody's ever heard of.

In Magic: The Gathering, the card Akroan Horse scored very highly in Wizards of the Coast's internal rare polls. But when the creative team tried renaming it to Akroan Lion to give it a more unique flavor, its ratings plummeted, because nobody recognized the Trojan Horse trope anymore, and now they were scratching their heads trying to figure out why your opponent gained control of it and why it was making soldier tokens. So they changed it back.

Of course, some classes obviously do a pretty **** job of representing the concepts they're supposed to, cough swashbuckler cough monk cough cough. And then you just have a massive trap for players to fall into, which is obviously bad, and speaks to the many design failures of this edition.

Suppose that the books weren't published in the order in which they were published. Suppose that Monk never became a thing until after Swordsage. Would anybody advocate that you need to play a Monk "for fluff reasons?" (Or for any reason, for that matter?) If Swordsage were the established class, and its mechanics taken as baseline instead of splatbook, would anyone actually claim that the Monk is somehow more "authentic" or "aesthetic" or something? I'm not convinced that they would.
I guarantee they would. The situation you're describing has already happened both in 3.5e and 4e.

Anlashok

2016-06-20, 06:19 PM

Personally I never really understood the appeal of letting some guy in Wisconsin or wherever over 40 years ago dictate how I roleplay characters, but to each their own I guess.

Tuvarkz

2016-06-20, 06:21 PM

Eh, I generally don't stick particularly much to the concept of a class thematically. Half of my Warlords are more by far skilled swordsmen than leaders of men, only one of my three Zealot builds was of the 'dedicated' type. Heck, one of my paladins should have been a rogue by his background and personality.

Milo v3

2016-06-20, 07:30 PM

.... Crusaders and Paladins have the same aesthetics though, as do Monks and Unarmed Swordsages, that's why they are suggested as alternatives.

Sure, we could just take the cleric levels and "pretend" to be a paladin with the code of honor, but it feels like a hollow shell. It doesnt feel like a real paladin, it feels like you're masquerading as one.
You don't need to pretend to have a code of honour, clerics have to follow the tenants of their god so.... just worship a god/concept that would require you to be honourable.

When you take a level in Paladin, you feel like one, you feel like god himself has choose you to be his right hand, his judge and jury.

Then you have misread the class, since that's an aesthetic of the crusader and Not an aesthetic of the Paladin.

Prime32

2016-06-20, 08:01 PM

Sure, we could just take the cleric levels and "pretend" to be a paladin with the code of honor, but it feels like a hollow shell. It doesnt feel like a real paladin, it feels like you're masquerading as one.

See, its not the class features, its not the code, its the class aesthetic.

When you take a level in Paladin, you feel like one, you feel like god himself has choose you to be his right hand, his judge and jury.

Any Joe Schmue can enter a church and study and become a Cleric, but to be a Paladin you need to hear the Call.
:smallconfused: But that's not true. If you just enter a church and study you become an Adept. And paladins don't get their powers from deities, but from being just and heroic. Clerics are the ones who hear the Call from their deity.

Clerics lose their powers if they go against their deity. A paladin can lose their powers for obeying their deity, if said deity is unjust.

What you're doing is taking the cleric aesthetic and applying it to the paladin class. Most characters your PC meets won't be able to tell the difference (it's not like it's unusual for a cleric to run around with a sword). But if your character's ideals clash with their deity's wishes, or if their deity dies for that matter, then you will no longer be able to play the character you want.

EDIT:

Then you have misread the class, since that's an aesthetic of the crusader and Not an aesthetic of the Paladin.No, crusaders are warriors who have more zeal than technical skill. They throw themselves to their instincts, fighting for their beliefs through bursts of inspiration of vaguely divine origin (that is, they may have a god guiding their hand, or they may just be getting a glimpse into "the ways of the heavens"). They don't need a patron deity, just a cause to fight for.

martixy

2016-06-20, 09:02 PM

It can go either way really.
With an accomodating DM, you can totally do Swordsage = monk aesthetic.

In the absence of such external validation, you are left with what's already baked in, where the most expressive features are the class' mechanics, in which case I do agree with you.

Hecuba

2016-06-20, 09:25 PM

To turn away from the paladin discussion in particular and to the generalized topic instead, the core of questions like this always boils down to a seemingly simple question: How, and how deeply, do you expect class fluff to be integrated into the in-game world?

If classes are loose collections of abilities, a druid and a cleric revering the concept of nature might seem fairly similar. If Druid is explucitly recognizable as something like a profession in-game, then trying to equate the two should fall flat.

The caveat is that, at this point, the player base of 3.5 as a whole is interested more in its emergent trends (where it behaves as much like a classless system as it is probably possible for a class based system to do) than in its roots (where it is very strongly class based).

This near-classless play style has benefits but and drawbacks: classes become a less powerful tool for world building, while allowing a variety of character concepts that would otherwise require homebrew.

My preference is to use the near-classless model as a gateway to homebrew: it's the best of both worlds. If you can represent a character concept using a build of the right power level that has 10 different classes, you're almost certainly capable of smoothing the build out over 20 levels of progression and presenting it as a class.

OldTrees1

2016-06-20, 09:39 PM

HammeredWharf

2016-06-21, 06:24 AM

To turn away from the paladin discussion in particular and to the generalized topic instead, the core of questions like this always boils down to a seemingly simple question: How, and how deeply, do you expect class fluff to be integrated into the in-game world?

The caveat is that, at this point, the player base of 3.5 as a whole is interested more in its emergent trends (where it behaves as much like a classless system as it is probably possible for a class based system to do) than in its roots (where it is very strongly class based).

If classes are loose collections of abilities, a druid and a cleric revering the concept of nature might seem fairly similar. If Druid is explucitly recognizable as something like a profession in-game, then trying to equate the two should fall flat.

This near-classless play style has benefits but and drawbacks: classes become a less powerful tool for world building, while allowing a variety of character concepts that would otherwise require homebrew.

I don't think it boils down to that. See, nothing in the Swordsages' fluff prevents them from being monks. In fact, the premise that all monks are Monks is ridiculous world building wise. Monks are specifically eastern-themed guys with martial powers. Unless every monastery in your world is full of wushu, the Monk class doesn't represent an average monk. An average monk would be an Expert, or maybe a Cloistered Cleric or an Archivist if he's an adventurer.

Due to all of this, I'd say it makes absolutely no sense to treat the Monk class as the only in-game definition of a monk. If it's not, why can't a Swordsage be a monk? Why can't a Warblade? Why can't a Paladin? It makes no sense. Of course they can all be monks. They've just got different abilities than a Monk monk.

Troacctid

2016-06-21, 06:46 AM

Of course not all monks are Monks, but all Monks have to be monks, as far as I'm aware.

Milo v3

2016-06-21, 07:00 AM

Of course not all monks are Monks, but all Monks have to be monks, as far as I'm aware.
Show me where the class has prerequisites on lifestyle outside of alignment :smalltongue:
PF fluff doesn't even mention any backstory aside from "they adhere to ancient philosophies and strict martial disciplines" and says they can be self-taught, and the 3.5e fluff says that they are "typically" taught in monasteries, meaning they do not have to be monks to be Monks, just that most 3.5e Monks are monks.

Jay R

2016-06-21, 07:06 AM

The things that appeal to me aren't the things that appeal to you. That doesn't make either of us wrong. It merely means that we are different.

To the OP: Play the way that you find most enjoyable. Don't object to other people finding joy differently, but also, ignore them when they object to you finding joy where you find it.

Red Fel

2016-06-21, 09:05 AM

:smallconfused: But that's not true. If you just enter a church and study you become an Adept. And paladins don't get their powers from deities, but from being just and heroic. Clerics are the ones who hear the Call from their deity.

Clerics lose their powers if they go against their deity. A paladin can lose their powers for obeying their deity, if said deity is unjust.

Except when you have a Cleric of an Ideal, instead of a Cleric of a deity. In which case you can have a Cleric of Justice, or Righteousness, or Honor, or Retribution, or... You know, any number of Paladin values.

What you're doing is taking the cleric aesthetic and applying it to the paladin class. Most characters your PC meets won't be able to tell the difference (it's not like it's unusual for a cleric to run around with a sword). But if your character's ideals clash with their deity's wishes, or if their deity dies for that matter, then you will no longer be able to play the character you want.

What "Cleric aesthetic?"

Also, let's not forget that, originally originally, the Paladin was just a PrC for Clerics - a fusion of the Cleric and the Fightin' Man, if memory serves. This tradition was continued in UA, which included a Paladin PrC (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigePaladin) for divine spellcasters. The entire premise of the Prestige Paladin is to take an LG divine caster (generally a Cleric) and turn him into a more martially-oriented champion of justice and righteousness, with all of the class features that apparently entails. Given that a PrC exists that mechanically turns a Cleric into a Paladin, this further illustrates the fact that it's a distinction without a difference - if a Cleric can be a Paladin, then what is a Paladin, independently?

EDIT:
No, crusaders are warriors who have more zeal than technical skill. They throw themselves to their instincts, fighting for their beliefs through bursts of inspiration of vaguely divine origin (that is, they may have a god guiding their hand, or they may just be getting a glimpse into "the ways of the heavens"). They don't need a patron deity, just a cause to fight for.

Paladins don't need patron deities, and they have a cause to fight for. And nobody says that a Paladin has any "technical skill." Frankly, most of the phrases you used there can apply to Paladins just as easily. There is absolutely nothing in what you've described to distinguish the two, and no reason you can't make a Crusader and simply play him as you would a Paladin.

Psyren

2016-06-21, 09:12 AM

I actually agree with you, it's best when a person's fluff matches their crunch. The thing is, many of the alternatives are not only better mechanically, but, at least to me, can actually do a better job of capturing the feel of the concept because of what makes them mechanically better.

For example, let's focus on your monk example. All monks get the same abilities from their training. You talk about knowing 18 ways to kill a man, but the monk only really knows 2 at most (quivering palm, unarmed strike). However, the swordsage's maneuvers actually set them apart from each other in flavorful ways. Some walk a path of learning iron-body techniques, strike with the force of hammers, and are as immovable as rock. Some are as fast as the wind, and can disappear if you take your eyes off for a second. Some can punch you so hard your ice freezes in your veins, some can do the opposite, punching you so hard you burst into flames. And possibly most relevantly, their journeys don't all lead them down the exact same path. So I think the swordsage actually captures the concept the monk was going for better than the monk actually does.

I agree with this but you're also skipping over the downsides; Swordsages have plenty of mechanics that don't feel like a monk. The light armor thing for instance, or being proficient with non-monk weapons, needing feats or an ACF to use unarmed strike, weak fortitude save and no immunities or SR, being much slower etc.

I think that between the Swordsage, Stalker and the Unchained Monk we have the potential to make something that can capture any monklike concept imaginable. But none of them are quite there individually.

Red Fel

2016-06-21, 09:45 AM

I agree with this but you're also skipping over the downsides; Swordsages have plenty of mechanics that don't feel like a monk. The light armor thing for instance, or being proficient with non-monk weapons, needing feats or an ACF to use unarmed strike, weak fortitude save and no immunities or SR, being much slower etc.

I think that between the Swordsage, Stalker and the Unchained Monk we have the potential to make something that can capture any monklike concept imaginable. But none of them are quite there individually.

Here's the thing about those aspects, though. Those are aspects of Monk the class, but not monk the concept.

Given that, when we say "monk" as a concept, we're not talking about a tonsured clergyman living a life of peaceful contemplation and prayer, but a figure from wuxia story and film (who may or may not be a tonsured clergyman living a life of peaceful contemplation and prayer), it seems fair to point out that these latter characters weren't all bare-chested bare-fisted brawlers. Some wore leather padding into battle. Some wielded weapons, such as swords, spears, knives, darts, or staves. Some were fast and precise, others were massive, slow, and powerful. Some had exploitable vulnerabilities, others were simply brutal. They were highly diverse, but most importantly, they were warriors as well as mystics, and the latter only sometimes.

So, yes. While it's true that the Swordsage, Stalker, and UnMonk have certain tendencies that separate them from Monk-the-class, that doesn't mean that they fail to embrace the "aesthetic" of monk-the-concept.

Psyren

2016-06-21, 10:00 AM

I am talking about concept. First, a quick note on history vs. aesthetic - some aspects of a given portrayal survive to permeate the public consciousness and become associated with that concept, even if history was different or more varied. So yeah, you can point out that historically some monks wore leather padding or maybe even used a shield occasionally, but that just didn't survive to the fantasy portrayal we commonly see today - just as elves in some cultures mend shoes and bake cookies, but nowadays when you say elf in an RPG concept, the Tolkien aesthetic dominates, with only minor subversions a la Dragon Age.

Ergo, the concept of monk is being unarmored, which Swordsages are not. The concept of monk is using nontraditional weapons, based on the popular notion that traditional weapon study was forbidden to them; Swordsage does not have that limitation. The concept of monk is preternatural speed, which Swordsage can at best do in short bursts.

And for the mystic part - Swordsage doesn't have a whole lot to let them do that either. Compare to the PF Monk, which can see the future, receive visions from their ancestors, pacify creatures with a touch, speak with anything, halt deterioration from aging, shout down a wall, and more. Swordsage is awesome, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's a perfect fit.

Milo v3

2016-06-21, 10:11 AM

Ergo, the concept of monk is being unarmored, which Swordsages are not.
Except the unarmed swordsage is unarmoured.

And for the mystic part - Swordsage doesn't have a whole lot to let them do that either.
They get supernatural disciplines and can potentially get spells in place of maneuvers. They can do a decent amount of supernatural stuff. More than a 3.5e monk does.

Compare to the PF Monk, which can see the future, receive visions from their ancestors, pacify creatures with a touch, speak with anything, halt deterioration from aging, shout down a wall, and more.
Rather unfair comparison. Swordsage should be compared to 3.5e monk, not PF monk. If you want to use the PF monk for comparison you should be discussing the PF equivalents to the swordsage (Stalkers and Mystics).

Swordsage is awesome, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's a perfect fit.
Better fit than the Monk though.

Elricaltovilla

2016-06-21, 10:20 AM

Ergo, the concept of monk is being unarmored, which Swordsages are not.

Who says a swordsage has to wear armor, just because they can?

The concept of monk is using nontraditional weapons, based on the popular notion that traditional weapon study was forbidden to them; Swordsage does not have that limitation.

Who says a swordsage has to wield traditional weapons, just because they can?

The concept of monk is preternatural speed, which Swordsage can at best do in short bursts.

Where are you even getting that? The idea of monks being supernaturally fast in anything more than short bursts is strictly a D&D/PF thing. Even if that wasn't the case, the nature of maneuvers enables the kind of flash stepping and supernatural speed that is commonly associated with speedy characters, and because of the mechanics of maneuvers, can be repeated all day long for effectively the same result as just having a speed bonus.

The fact is, the monk as a class does nothing special. Just because you can wear armor doesn't mean you need, or even want, to do so. That the monk can't wear armor is not a point in its favor of fulfilling the concept of spiritually enlightened unarmed martial artist, it's entirely neutral in that aspect because anyone else can do it too.

And for the mystic part - Swordsage doesn't have a whole lot to let them do that either. Compare to the PF Monk, which can see the future, receive visions from their ancestors, pacify creatures with a touch, speak with anything, halt deterioration from aging, shout down a wall, and more. Swordsage is awesome, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's a perfect fit.

And the swordsage can teleport, manipulate the elements, sense the invisible, move between the ticks of a clock, walk on air, punch through stone, steel or even adamantine, and so much more. Saying the swordsage can't achieve mystic enlightenment is pretty faulty logic. All of those things a swordsage does is because of their mysticism.

Prime32

2016-06-21, 10:33 AM

What "Cleric aesthetic?"The aesthetic of being granted your powers from a god. OP has been refluffing paladins to follow this aesthetic, while also saying that they would never refluff a class because it wouldn't feel right.

Paladins don't need patron deities, and they have a cause to fight for. And nobody says that a Paladin has any "technical skill." Frankly, most of the phrases you used there can apply to Paladins just as easily. There is absolutely nothing in what you've described to distinguish the two, and no reason you can't make a Crusader and simply play him as you would a Paladin.Yes, that's right. What's the problem? :smallconfused: Milo said that crusaders are always chosen by a god, I said they weren't. I never said anything about the difference between crusaders and paladins.

LTwerewolf

2016-06-21, 10:45 AM

The aesthetic of being granted your powers from a god. OP has been refluffing paladins to follow this aesthetic, while also saying that they would never refluff a class because it wouldn't feel right.

That's the thing though: clerics aren't even chosen by gods. That's favored souls, which most people seem to hate.

LoyalPaladin

2016-06-21, 10:51 AM

Thats my take on it at any rate, what do you guys think?
Oh, friend. While some agree with your stance (myself included), the majority of this board is going to find this opinion unpopular. You do how you do, friend. But most of the playgrounders here don't play nice with this concept haha.

Psyren

2016-06-21, 10:51 AM

Except the unarmed swordsage is unarmoured.

As written they get no AC bonus without armor though.

That bit of bad editing aside, that's still an ACF, not a class - a couple of sentences, like an afterthought. I dunno, it just feels different.

They get supernatural disciplines and can potentially get spells in place of maneuvers. They can do a decent amount of supernatural stuff. More than a 3.5e monk does.

I don't want spells at all, even if the Arcane Swordsage wasn't a complete embarrassment to copy editors and designers everywhere. If I wanted spells I'd be a spellcaster.

Supernatural disciplines and other non-spell magic I'm totally fine with, but the scope of the swordsage's abilities there is quite lacking as I listed above.

Rather unfair comparison. Swordsage should be compared to 3.5e monk, not PF monk. If you want to use the PF monk for comparison you should be discussing the PF equivalents to the swordsage (Stalkers and Mystics).

We're talking concept in this topic, so I'm well within my rights to cross edition lines. I could talk about the 5e Monk if I wanted, or at least the things it can do that I would want an "ideal monk" to be capable of.

As for PoW, maybe it's a better fit than both of them. I wouldn't know, I haven't really read it.

Better fit than the Monk though.

At fighting, maybe, but a monk should be more than that.

Look, I'm not saying that the Swordsage doesn't have anything that I would leverage. Again, awesome class overall. But still lacking on its own.

Who says a swordsage has to wear armor, just because they can?

Who says a swordsage has to wield traditional weapons, just because they can?

Class identity to me is as much about what you can't do as much as what you can. Simply restricting my individual swordsage to not use some of its abilities isn't enough for me.

I don't expect everyone to agree with this mindset, I'm just trying to convey where I'm coming from.

And the swordsage can teleport, manipulate the elements, sense the invisible, move between the ticks of a clock, walk on air, punch through stone, steel or even adamantine, and so much more. Saying the swordsage can't achieve mystic enlightenment is pretty faulty logic. All of those things a swordsage does is because of their mysticism.

A PF monk can also do every single one of those things, and then gets even more mystic things like divinations, universal language and ignoring aging besides.

My perfect monk would use a combination of maneuvers and ki. It would also be able to use ki to repeat maneuvers without having to go through the ready-expend cycle that other initiators do - trading a longer-term daily resource for a shorter-term cooldown based one if needed. And of course it would have ki powers to do things that no other initiator could do, like divinations.

Elricaltovilla

2016-06-21, 11:08 AM

A PF monk can also do every single one of those things, and then gets even more mystic things like divinations, universal language and ignoring aging besides.

No, a PF monk might be able to do those things, maybe. Occasionally. And you've still ignored the fact that those are mystical abilities. For some reason, you seem to be under the impression that if it's monk, it's mystical and if it has any other name in the "class" slot, then its not mystical.

The monk's supernatural abilities do not invalidate the existence of other classes supernatural abilities.

My perfect monk would use a combination of maneuvers and ki. It would also be able to use ki to repeat maneuvers without having to go through the ready-expend cycle that other initiators do - trading a longer-term daily resource for a shorter-term cooldown based one if needed. And of course it would have ki powers to do things that no other initiator could do, like divinations.

We're not talking about your hypothetical "perfect" monk though, because that class doesn't exist. If that's the comparison point you're using, then there's no point in continuing this discussion

Psyren

2016-06-21, 11:11 AM

No, a PF monk might be able to do those things, maybe. Occasionally. And you've still ignored the fact that those are mystical abilities. For some reason, you seem to be under the impression that if it's monk, it's mystical and if it has any other name in the "class" slot, then its not mystical.

The monk's supernatural abilities do not invalidate the existence of other classes supernatural abilities.

I don't see where I've done that. I even said I was totally fine with the Swordsage's supernatural abilities being supernatural.

We're not talking about your hypothetical "perfect" monk though, because that class doesn't exist. If that's the comparison point you're using, then there's no point in continuing this discussion

How else are we going to talk about where I find a class lacking if I can't point to what I want to see? :smallconfused:

You seem to be saying that I have no right to point out any flaws with Swordsage at all. Which - yeah, we indeed wouldn't have anything to talk about.

Florian

2016-06-21, 11:33 AM

For me, "Class Aestethic" boils down to well known archetypes and archetypical moves and behavior in-game. It helps me get the mood and feeling right, and it is a very great tool for communication with fellow players, as least as long as they know the same background material as I do. Less talking, more action, as a common, shared knowledge base leads to better integration into the Shared Imagination.

I don´t actually care if a Swordsage or something with PoW moves comes close to the image in _my imagination_ and performs well mechanically, I want to share that with my fellow players, a thing that is very important to me, that´s why what I play must also reach them. The same, naturally, holds true the other way around.

Elricaltovilla

2016-06-21, 12:22 PM

I don't see where I've done that. I even said I was totally fine with the Swordsage's supernatural abilities being supernatural.

You said the swordsage's abilities aren't monkish or mystical, when I pointed out the mystical abilities of the swordsage, you countered with monks being able to do those same things, yet maintain that swordsages aren't capable of fulfilling the aesthetic of the unarmed/unarmored mystical fighter.

How else are we going to talk about where I find a class lacking if I can't point to what I want to see? :smallconfused:

Because any hypothetical class will be able to better fulfill any given role or aesthetic simply by the fact that enough of it is undefined as to be easily tailored to perfectly match the necessary goal. Just like you can't argue against Schrodinger's wizard, you can't argue about Schrodinger's monk.

I don't know what your monk is capable of, but I do know what the PF and 3.5 monks are capable of and I know that they aren't the best choice for fulfilling the aesthetic over which we are currently arguing.

You seem to be saying that I have no right to point out any flaws with Swordsage at all. Which - yeah, we indeed wouldn't have anything to talk about.

If I believed that any of the flaws you pointed out were actually flaws in its ability to portray the aesthetic of a mystical unarmed/unarmored fighter then I wouldn't have argued against them, because you would have been correct.

Psyren

2016-06-21, 01:13 PM

You said the swordsage's abilities aren't monkish or mystical, when I pointed out the mystical abilities of the swordsage, you countered with monks being able to do those same things, yet maintain that swordsages aren't capable of fulfilling the aesthetic of the unarmed/unarmored mystical fighter.

No, that's still not what I said. I said that they do have monkish abilities, but they also have some (e.g. armor proficiency) that are not. Ergo, someone who wants a monk class fantasy may feel put off or let down by them. It's a visceral reaction, even if you can then manually make your swordsage more monkish by pretending these qualities don't exist.

Because any hypothetical class will be able to better fulfill any given role or aesthetic simply by the fact that enough of it is undefined as to be easily tailored to perfectly match the necessary goal. Just like you can't argue against Schrodinger's wizard, you can't argue about Schrodinger's monk.

Except I'm not tailoring anything; it's all-inclusive. I want maneuvers, ki powers, passives like Diamond Soul, and restrictions like no armor at all. That would not change based on goal.

I don't know what your monk is capable of, but I do know what the PF and 3.5 monks are capable of and I know that they aren't the best choice for fulfilling the aesthetic over which we are currently arguing.

Right, I agree with that. I'm saying none of the classes currently attain that ideal, even if some come closer than others.

If I believed that any of the flaws you pointed out were actually flaws in its ability to portray the aesthetic of a mystical unarmed/unarmored fighter then I wouldn't have argued against them, because you would have been correct.

That works for you and that's fine. What I'm trying to explain is why "be an unarmed swordsage" is not a satisfying answer for some. It's perhaps a futile endeavor on my part, but I thought I'd make the attempt anyway.

NecessaryWeevil

2016-06-21, 03:24 PM

I wonder if the OP's discomfort could be phrased like this:

Two things that the monk and paladin have in common are discipline and sacrifice: you subject yourself to unpleasant training regimes and harsh masters and take vows that objectively limit your effectiveness ("yes, I could kill you much more easily with a sword, but I have sworn to use nothing but my fists and repurposed farm implements!") because it seems right to you, the character. It reflects some truth you have glimpsed and devoted yourself to.

Which is why saying, as a player, "I could get roughly the same aesthetic and be much more effective if I took this class instead" actually loses what was, for you, the core aesthetic: sacrifice. Taking the easy way is antithetical to the concept.

Am I close?

Flickerdart

2016-06-21, 05:02 PM

Commoner is the ultimate sacrifice.

digiman619

2016-06-21, 05:28 PM

Commoner is the ultimate sacrifice.

Only if it's not your first level. Otherwise you're just a shmuck.

Hecuba

2016-06-21, 08:05 PM

In fact, the premise that all monks are Monks is ridiculous world building wise. Monks are specifically eastern-themed guys with martial powers. Unless every monastery in your world is full of wushu, the Monk class doesn't represent an average monk.

If I am playing in a strongly class-based setting, the monk class should absolutely represent the abilities of a Monk in the game world. Under such an outlook, the abilities of the "Monk" class are not a loose collection of abilities that happen to have the heading "Monk." They are the set of abilities that one achieves in the game world by living their life as a monk. (Caveat: For Monk in particular, this is somewhat complicated by different narrative traditions correlating to Eastern and Western monastic traditions: I probably would expect the two to be distinguished if they are to co-exist in setting, but that's because they are very different narrative ideas.)

Likewise, under such a system, someone who makes a deliberate and intellectually-driven study of the arcane is a Wizard- and has the abilities associated with that class.

Consider the central question: what is a class? If it is merely mechanical, then there is no reason to include fluff at all. And yet it is always there.
Class fluff exists to tie the mechanical elements of the class into the narrative concepts of the setting. You can choose make that tie tighter or looser or forgo it altogether: all are valid options.

But the fact that "Monk" ties onto something broader than, say, "Red Wizard of Thay" or "Cloud Anchorite" serves only to indicate that PRCs are deliberately more narrow than base classes. It does not make the ties that "Monk" has somehow invalid or non-existent.

This is not to say that I think re-fluffing or loosening the fluff are bad things: the closest I will come to that is to say that it is too often used when re-crunching (i.e. homebrew) would provide a more elegant solution. But the fluff is still part of the class. You are still changing something.

Yes, you are encouraged to change it at many points in the rulebooks. But you are also encouraged by the rulebook to do homebrew as well - they even go so far as giving a primer on it in the DMG. In both cases, you are still changing something.

digiman619

2016-06-21, 09:33 PM

If you really think that the "class aesthetic" of a Paladin only works on a paladin, you are implying that there is only a narrow way to play a paladin; if your paladin isn't a radiant paragon of virtue that can do no wrong; if instead your paladin is a grizzled, no-nonsense warrior against evil, or is a motherly wise woman with a will of adamantine, you are "playing {it} wrong".

That is inherently close-minded, it says that there is no point in roleplaying, as there is only one way to play any given archetype. It takes the past time that takes the most imagination and tells it that said imagination is a waste; you might as well hand out scripts rather than character sheets at that point.

One last thing; if giving a <Class A> a <Class B> background "just feels off" and won't work, how would you differentiate the backgrounds of a Druid who venerates a Nature God, a Cleric of said Nature God, a Favored Soul of said Nature God, a PF Warpriest of said Nature God. and a Divine Mind of said Nature God? Because it seems to me that the same background could work for all of them; the power of that deity just manifested in different ways.

TheCrowing1432

2016-06-21, 10:04 PM

The aesthetic of being granted your powers from a god. OP has been refluffing paladins to follow this aesthetic, while also saying that they would never refluff a class because it wouldn't feel right.

:smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused::smal lconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconf used:

I...what? What are you talking about? Paladins are holy knights given their divine power by gods to destroy evil.

Gildedragon

2016-06-21, 10:16 PM

:smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused::smal lconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconf used:

I...what? What are you talking about? Paladins are holy knights given their divine power by gods to destroy evil.

Not Gods, Good.
Paladins are not god-affiliated (some setting restrictions may apply) they are empowered by pure Good; like the good that powers Sanctified spells, Archons, Eladrin, Guardinals and Angels (some restrictions may apply), and shapes the vast infinite upper planes

TheCrowing1432

2016-06-21, 10:20 PM

Not Gods, Good.
Paladins are not god-affiliated (some setting restrictions may apply) they are empowered by pure Good; like the good that powers Sanctified spells, Archons, Eladrin, Guardinals and Angels (some restrictions may apply), and shapes the vast infinite upper planes

Then how do they get spells and why do a lot of paladin PRC's revolve around gods?

digiman619

2016-06-21, 10:30 PM

:smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused::smal lconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconf used:

I...what? What are you talking about? Paladins are holy knights given their divine power by gods to destroy evil.

Depends on the edition. 3.5 says...
"> Religion: Paladins need not devote themselves to a
single deity—devotion to righteousness is enough. Those
who align themselves with particular religions prefer
Heironeous (god of valor) over all others, but some paladins
follow Pelor (the sun god). Paladins devoted to a god are
scrupulous in observing religious duties and are welcome in
every associated temple.

Likewise 5th Edition says...(emphasis added)
A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness. Different paladins focus on various aspects of the cause of righteousness, but all are bound by the oath that grants them their power to do their sacred work

But Pathfinder definitely seems to imply directly being chosen by some divine agency
Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.

Necroticplague

2016-06-21, 10:45 PM

Then how do they get spells and why do a lot of paladin PRC's revolve around gods?

The first question: the same way that clerics of ideals do.

Secundus: because a paladin can devote themselves to a god, as well as to Good. It's not required, but they can do it. Especially since good gods act as proxies or paragons of the force the paladin ultimately serves.

Gildedragon

2016-06-21, 10:48 PM

Then how do they get spells and why do a lot of paladin PRC's revolve around gods?
Godless clerics, arcane casters, rangers, druids, and divine bards get spells. None of those are god-affiliated either and get spells nonetheless

And not dependent on gods doesn't mean they can't work with gods.

mabriss lethe

2016-06-21, 10:51 PM

I sometimes prefer to play the trash classes like monks (or my personal favorite, soulknives) because I find the challenge of it to be aesthetically pleasing, especially in games where the other players aren't particularly skilled optimizers or in games where power isn't a top priority. I find it fun to be able to wring out every bit of potential a sub par class has to offer.

Milo v3

2016-06-21, 11:34 PM

As written they get no AC bonus without armor though.

That bit of bad editing aside, that's still an ACF, not a class - a couple of sentences, like an afterthought. I dunno, it just feels different.
I love how your saying an ACF isn't valid for this discussion when your examples come from an alternate version of the monk class rather than the monk class.

I don't want spells at all, even if the Arcane Swordsage wasn't a complete embarrassment to copy editors and designers everywhere. If I wanted spells I'd be a spellcaster.
Just because Arcane Swordsage is an abomination that should have never been written doesn't mean it isn't a way to get more supernatural power onto a swordsage. :smalltongue:

Supernatural disciplines and other non-spell magic I'm totally fine with, but the scope of the swordsage's abilities there is quite lacking as I listed above.
Definitely lacking compared to what you listed (I do wish ToB came out before the very end of 3.5e so it can actually get a wider number of supernatural disciplines), but still able to do more supernatural stuff than the monk it was designed to replace, which only had teleport, heal self, ethereal, and talk to things as it's supernatural powers.

We're talking concept in this topic, so I'm well within my rights to cross edition lines. I could talk about the 5e Monk if I wanted, or at least the things it can do that I would want an "ideal monk" to be capable of.
It is still an unfair comparison to compare the unchained monk to swordsage to a degree in my opinion, but in this case I will discuss the stalker abit.

As for PoW, maybe it's a better fit than both of them. I wouldn't know, I haven't really read it.
Well, stalker is an initiator who also gets ki. It get's:

Can center himself to increase his perceptions and get better at dodging
Can use ki to increase their perceptions and to feel out the vibrations of others and
their hidden motives.
Can use ki to read and comprehend opponents movements to know the perfect places to strike
Can use the postive energy in ki to strengthen their fortitude.
Can use ki to increase their reflexes.
Can use ki to strengthen their mind's resolve.
Can get flashbacks from either their own memory or from their mentors reminding them of techniques they didn't actually prepare.
Superhuman reflexes and awareness.
React before her senses would normally allow her to do so.
Rip ki out of his foes.
Sense the world around him perfectly, even if blind and deaf because of his comprehension and understanding of the flow of ki around him.
Faster, better balanced, better at jumping than a normal individual, and can spend ki to increase his speed further for a minute.
Can see into the future or predict where his opponents are going to attack.
Can fade from the world by having his ki match the surroundings.
Can use ki to influence a creatures thoughts.
Can be profient in all monk weapons (so you don't have to worry about having to get ACF or exotic proficiency for all your wuxia weapons like swordsage did thankfully)
Can create tulpa from ki to attack for you.

That's from class, with initiating they can get access to abilities such as:

Many many many many over the top combat things like repositioning/dealing giant damage/debuffs/buffs/combat manuevers/etc., allowing them to be considerable more wuxia with their monk weapons and unarmed strikes than an unchained monk could.
Scare those he strikes
Feed on an opponents fear to restore yourself
Channel the energies of fiends into your fists and martial arts weapons
Have such a powerful presence that enemies are too afraid to attempt to strike you
Condense his darkest energies in your hands and launch it at your enemies
Protect yourself from possession
Punch into the air and cause dozens of needles of dark energy to fall from the sky and impale your enemies
Radiate darkness and see through the darkness
Gain health by slaying the living
Gain flight and increased speed in eviserating groups of enemies
Attack peoples sense of self.
Treat his palms as shields
Can destroy walls with a kick/poke/punch/headbutt
Increase the spirits/morale of his allies
Can track by scent and move faster.
Ignore enemies armour with your precise strikes
Iron Heart Surge! (limited to a list of conditions, so you can't IHS the sun... but you can do badass'ry such as ignoring that your meant to be blind or moving while paralyzed.
Super speed to the extent your a blur when you move
Heal yourself or allies
Can sense evil's presence
Punch (or use a monk weapon on) incorporeal creatures
Exorcise creatures possessing others via unarmed strike or monk weapon without harming the host (I like the describe the unarmed strike as shoving my hand into the person and ripping the shadow demon out of the person's chest)
Strike with blinding energy around your strikes allowing you to blind the enemy
Infuse your attacks with holy energies
Project wings from your ki and radiate light
Gain a halo and fast healing
Teleport
Make shuriken go around cover
Can create shuriken from shadows/light/fire/acid/cold/lightning
Create a field of phantom caltrops
Make their shuriken flaming/corrosive/electrified/frosted
Throw shuriken without trouble during a tornado or through a wind wall
Throw shuriken to deflect attacks
Throw shuriken with a burst of wind around them knocking enemies away
Creates mirages tricking the enemies perceptions
Throw shuriken so they reflect and hit many individuals
Throw a shuriken at the enemy and surround them in a mini-tornado
Throw one shuriken, and split it into hundreds of phantom shurikens
Throw a shuriken into the sky to cause fire to rain down from the sky
Use ki to hide yourself
Use your knowledge of pressure points and chakras to corrupt enemy ki to poison and deblitate them physically and mentally
Screw with the ki in a persons head to remove their sight
Taint the ki in your blood as it sprays onto enemies to turn it into acid
Turn invisible
Remove enemies voices with a strike
Paralyze enemies with a strike by corrupting their ki
Focus the ki in your eyes, giving you a paralysis gaze
Can sense ethereal creatures
Become incorporeal to dodge attacks
Teleport and leave an illusion behind when you would be attacked
Make your strikes phase to ignore armour
See the invisible and be constantly obscured
Become temporarily incorporeal
Cause your victims to go mad
Attune to spiritual energies to heal
Concentrates spiritual energy into his hands and tears appart the barriers between the astral and the material
Strike an incorporeal creature, and in doing so steal it's incorporeality
Kick or punch an enemy through the astral causing them to teleport where you desire
Become incorporeal for as long as you desire and be able to stop others from teleporting
Switch positions with attackers causing them to strike themselves
Punch someone into the astral and leave them stranded

and that's the first book. Allow them to use the other books and they get disciplines based around:

Cursed Razor - Cursing enemies
Elemental Flux - Elemental powers
Mithral Current - Iajustu so skilled you can cut the air with your punches or when you draw your katana
Riven Hourglass - Time controlling powers
Shattered Mirror - Copy enemy techniques
Sleeping Goddess - Perfecting your mind and ideals psionically
Unquiet Grave - Undead powers
Chimera Soul - Shapechanging powers
Fool's Errand - Like grappling but works, letting you drag elephants around and toss them into the air or to be able to leap around wuxia style

You can.... do a lot with stalkers.

At fighting, maybe, but a monk should be more than that.

Look, I'm not saying that the Swordsage doesn't have anything that I would leverage. Again, awesome class overall. But still lacking on its own.
I was not just meaning fighting. It is better at portraying a monk thematically in my opinion (though to be clear I was referring to the 3.5e monk because of my earlier statement (thank god paizo made Qinggong)).

Afgncaap5

2016-06-22, 01:18 AM

There is a large group of DND players who like playing Monk's and Paladins and what have you, myself included. Because we like to play these classes we look for builds for them and post them here and invariably we get the same old "Oh play an unarmed swordsage instead of monk" or "Play a crusader/cleric instead of paladin"

But, no we dont want to play these classes.

Sure, we could just take the cleric levels and "pretend" to be a paladin with the code of honor, but it feels like a hollow shell. It doesnt feel like a real paladin, it feels like you're masquerading as one.

See, its not the class features, its not the code, its the class aesthetic.

When you take a level in Paladin, you feel like one, you feel like god himself has choose you to be his right hand, his judge and jury.

Any Joe Schmue can enter a church and study and become a Cleric, but to be a Paladin you need to hear the Call.

*Snippity snip snip edits*

You cant just say "Be a swordsage"

Thats my take on it at any rate, what do you guys think?

I agree with this but you're also skipping over the downsides; Swordsages have plenty of mechanics that don't feel like a monk. The light armor thing for instance, or being proficient with non-monk weapons, needing feats or an ACF to use unarmed strike, weak fortitude save and no immunities or SR, being much slower etc.

I totally get this. When a person builds a character concept, often it feels like you're cheating or hurting the premise if a class or feature or whatever offers you lots of extra options that don't actually fit. I think we can all agree that The Fighter would feel different as a class if, at every level, it gained one free use of the Wish spell with no XP penalty as a supernatural ability per day, to a total of 20 by the twentieth level of Fighter. Sure, there's nothing preventing this Fighter from still donning armor and taking Power Attack and Cleave and what have you, but the fact that the Fighter still has what amounts to an insta-win *right there* is going to make the rough-and-tumble, victory through the skin of the teeth feeling of the class be a bit... tarnished, I guess.

It sorta reminds me of the book Invisible Cities. Marco Polo and the Emperor of China are used as a framing device in this book (each chapter is the description of some new, fanciful city). There are little mini-scenes featuring the continuing conversations between Marco Polo and the Emperor where they discuss things, and in one you have one of them say that they can imagine every city because they start by imagining a blank slate and then adding the things that a city can have until they get a finished picture. The other one then says that he can imagine any possible city as well by imagining a massive, platonic ideal of a city that has every possible feature a city can possibly have, and then he just removes features until he's left with a city that he finds satisfactory.

I think classes are the same way, and I'm definitely in the "add things until you get to the concept" camp rather than the "ignore elements until it looks like your concept" camp. And it's *so* frustrating to have three or four people ignore your protestations that you don't want to take X option, just as I'm sure they'd be annoyed if I suggested unfavorable options in similar threads that they ran. If I make a thread asking how to do V and get a lot of people saying that I should do W instead because it's basically V and then another V, well... I'm not really going to feel like people are actually addressing what I want to have addressed. I don't think they're wrong for thinking that W is a reasonable option for themselves, but I do feel like my own thoughts on the issue are being ignored.

I think of this as "the Pyromancer problem." Generally, to really make a pyromancer in 3.5, I have to take something like a sorcerer or wizard or other caster, and then WILLFULLY IGNORE all the obviously better spells in favor of the fire spells. There's no counter-class option that says "Okay, here are all of your fire spells, plus new spells that let you compete while still using your theme." Theoretically things like the Elemental Savant or Pyrokineticist can help out sometimes, but still maintain the problem that the character taking them, at their core, isn't some mage with a preternatural understanding of fire and how fire works, but is just a regular spellcaster who, for some reason, chose nothing but fire spells in their career. They're no more adept at performing a spellcraft check on a magical stream of lava than Iggy the Ice Mage or Jerry the Generalist.

Now... I *personally* think that the swordsage is a good variation on Fighters or Monks, depending on how it's played, but I can also see why a person who comes to a message board to talk Monk talk might not want Swordsage talk. It's valid concern.

(Semi-related: didn't WotC once say that they didn't want a Ninja class because they wanted any class to potentially be a Ninja if the character wanted them to be one? We got a few different Ninja classes anyway after the fact, of course, but I like the thought. Paladin, Barbarian, Monk, Ranger, and maybe even Bard and Druid all feel like they might've benefited from a similar hands off approach, even if I'm glad that I got most of them.)

digiman619

2016-06-22, 02:58 AM

HammeredWharf

2016-06-22, 03:02 AM

If I am playing in a strongly class-based setting, the monk class should absolutely represent the abilities of a Monk in the game world. Under such an outlook, the abilities of the "Monk" class are not a loose collection of abilities that happen to have the heading "Monk." They are the set of abilities that one achieves in the game world by living their life as a monk.

This assumes that all monasteries offer the exact same basic training. That LG monks have the same abilities as LE ones. It's fine in a simple adventuring setting, but usually things are more diverse in the real world.

Consider the central question: what is a class? If it is merely mechanical, then there is no reason to include fluff at all. And yet it is always there.
Class fluff exists to tie the mechanical elements of the class into the narrative concepts of the setting. You can choose make that tie tighter or looser or forgo it altogether: all are valid options.

I'm not suggesting going against the fluff in any way. I'm only saying that the fluff isn't as rigid as it's commonly believed to be and classes don't get exclusive rights to their fluff. Let's look at the Paladin. What does the PHB say about them?

Most paladins answer the call and begin training as adolescents. Typically, they become squires or assistants to experienced paladins, train for years, and finally set off on their own to further the causes of good and law.

That's the only description of a paladin's training I can find. Why can't this guy be a monk? Actually, I'd assume that a paladin's training is very similar to that of a LG monk. They could even train in the same monastery and spar with each other. In that case, wouldn't it make sense for the paladin to be called a monk, too, because of his life style and convictions? Can he not be a monk just because he likes heavier armor and doesn't punch as well?

This is not to say that I think re-fluffing or loosening the fluff are bad things: the closest I will come to that is to say that it is too often used when re-crunching (i.e. homebrew) would provide a more elegant solution. But the fluff is still part of the class. You are still changing something.

Writing your character's background isn't homebrew. It's role-playing. The paladin I described above adheres perfectly to the fluff of his class.

I can't imagine the following being said in any reasonable setting:

A fighter? Hah! No, I'm not a fighter. I'm a warrior. You see, Bob there, he's a fighter. He's like me, except more capable. Oh, and Amelia isn't an aristocrat. She was born in an aristocratic family, is a natural diplomat, plays the piano, likes fencing and so on, but she's a rogue. Jason is an aristocrat. Amelia beats him up every day in training.
It doesn't make any sense. It would make some sense if D&D didn't use extremely broad terms in its class names, like Rogue, Scout, Fighter, Barbarian, Aristocrat and so on. If Ghurb and Frump come from the same tribe, either one of them is a barbarian or neither is, no matter what their builds are like. Or are you saying that every single member of a barbarian tribe has a level of Barbarian in your setting? They don't have any pure Experts or Druids or Spirit Shamans among them? They don't have any scouts, because they're barbarians?

Troacctid

2016-06-22, 03:06 AM

Writing your character's background isn't homebrew. It's role-playing. The paladin I described above adheres perfectly to the fluff of his class.

I can't imagine the following being said in any reasonable setting:

It doesn't make any sense. It would make some sense if D&D didn't use extremely broad terms in its class names, like Rogue, Scout, Fighter, Barbarian, Aristocrat and so on. If Ghurb and Frump come from the same tribe, either one of them is a barbarian or neither is, no matter what their builds are like. Or are you saying that every single member of a barbarian tribe has a level of Barbarian in your setting? They don't have any pure Experts or Druids or Spirit Shamans among them? They don't have any scouts, because they're barbarians?
You have it completely backwards. Just because all Fighters are fighters doesn't mean all fighters are fighters. Some fighters are Fighters. All Fighters are fighters. What doesn't make sense here?

digiman619

2016-06-22, 03:18 AM

You have it completely backwards. Just because all Fighters are fighters doesn't mean all fighters are fighters. Some fighters are Fighters. All Fighters are fighters. What doesn't make sense here?

"Fighters" doesn't even sound like a word anymore! ARGH!

HammeredWharf

2016-06-22, 03:19 AM

What doesn't make sense here?

A class representing its game world counterpart "absolutely", which is what I responded to.

Afgncaap5

2016-06-22, 03:27 AM

*cough*SpheresOfPower (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/start)*cough*

Aye, I love that system. I've got a villain in my game world who used to be a crazy custom monster with spells from the wizard, cleric, and bard classes prepared along with some custom abilities. When I read the book for that I just said "Oh, so he's a level twelvish Eliciter, then." It was so refreshing.

Randomthom

2016-06-22, 03:54 AM

Personally I find it helpful to consider my character as if I were writing a novel about them, ignoring the rules for a moment. Think about what they can/would do, how they would fight, how they would interact with others, and then find the in-game elements that match that.

A recent character of mine started out in the Celestial armies as an archer, became an advanced scout, was captured & tortured by demons, escaped & lived in hiding in the abyss for years before escaping to the material plane where he took it on himself to defend a small town while remaining out of sight in the woods. Eventually he decided that his role in the world was larger than dealing with the occasional goblin attack and presented himself to the Priests of Tyr (FR campaign) and asked to be brought into the paladinhood where he has been since.

Mechanically he is a Fighter/Ranger/Paladin. Fighter/Rogue/Paladin would also have worked well as would a few other combinations but the mechanics do not inform the character, they echo it.

Having Paladin on your character sheet means nothing if you're not acting like a Paladin. I once had a lot of fun playing a Cleric 1/Fighter X who was convinced he was a "true Paladin" despite the order never accepting him.

Florian

2016-06-22, 07:24 AM

I think of this as "the Pyromancer problem." Generally, to really make a pyromancer in 3.5, I have to take something like a sorcerer or wizard or other caster, and then WILLFULLY IGNORE all the obviously better spells in favor of the fire spells. There's no counter-class option that says "Okay, here are all of your fire spells, plus new spells that let you compete while still using your theme." Theoretically things like the Elemental Savant or Pyrokineticist can help out sometimes, but still maintain the problem that the character taking them, at their core, isn't some mage with a preternatural understanding of fire and how fire works, but is just a regular spellcaster who, for some reason, chose nothing but fire spells in their career. They're no more adept at performing a spellcraft check on a magical stream of lava than Iggy the Ice Mage or Jerry the Generalist.

This is actually a very good example for the whole topic.

We deal with a very complex and interconnected system here. A lot of archetypes simply don´t function because their basics are not covered by the system or are so limited in scope, they would´t even make a working class if you base something on them. Part of that is the fact that these archetypes never change due to their very narrow and limited focus. That also happens when trying to recreate a character from a video game or other related media with a very narrow band of moves, combos or other available actions.

D&D/PF offers a lot of very concrete archetypes to play and support that playing style over the levels, but we´ll run into the problem of recreating something very special by adding certain rules elements together to achieve that end result.

So no, the "Pyromancer" is not an archetype that is well-supported as it is too narrow to fit into the system at any point beyond low-levels.

And that leads us back to the "aesthetic": Either you can do it from level one up onward, which is fine, or you try to (re)create something that at a certain point will hit your needs and will have to change after that, which is not fine IMO.

Psyren

2016-06-22, 08:34 AM

I love how your saying an ACF isn't valid for this discussion when your examples come from an alternate version of the monk class rather than the monk class.

Because it's not an ACF or adaptation; Unchained Monk is a fully-realized, self-contained class. I can print it out, put it in front of even an inexperienced player or GM, and say "try that" - without any of the flipping back and forth or memorizing changes that Unarmed Swordsage would require.

Which is not to say that Unarmed Swordsage isn't worth it (at least, once you fix the bugs from ToB's poor editing.) It's just different, that's all.

Just because Arcane Swordsage is an abomination that should have never been written doesn't mean it isn't a way to get more supernatural power onto a swordsage. :smalltongue:

No, it gets spells onto a Swordsage. Complete with breakdancing, chanting, and bat poo. Big difference.

*snip*
You can.... do a lot with stalkers.

I have no doubt of that. As soon as I have time and a group willing to try PoW then I'll invest the energy needed to get appropriately excited about it.

Florian

2016-06-22, 08:55 AM

@Psyren:

Compare "starting position" with "eventual final result" on that matter.

Milo v3

2016-06-22, 08:55 AM

Because it's not an ACF or adaptation; Unchained Monk is a fully-realized, self-contained class. I can print it out, put it in front of even an inexperienced player or GM, and say "try that" - without any of the flipping back and forth or memorizing changes that Unarmed Swordsage would require.
Unarmed swordsage isn't exactly many pages away since it's within the swordsage section of the book.

No, it gets spells onto a Swordsage. Complete with breakdancing, chanting, and bat poo. Big difference.
Which is magical power.... So... yes it is a "a way to get more supernatural power onto a swordsage". The fact that it's a stupid concept is irrelevant to that statement especially since I prefaced it by saying it's abomination that should have never been written.

I have no doubt of that. As soon as I have time and a group willing to try PoW then I'll invest the energy needed to get appropriately excited about it.
I mainly gave that list to show that it's abit of an unfair comparison comparing swordsage to unchained monk, PF versions of stuff are nearly always so more varied than their 3.5e versions (I do wish the cleric would get more of that, they're still all so similar to each other).

Psyren

2016-06-22, 09:15 AM

Unarmed swordsage isn't exactly many pages away since it's within the swordsage section of the book.

Even so.

Which is magical power.... So... yes it is a "a way to get more supernatural power onto a swordsage". The fact that it's a stupid concept is irrelevant to that statement especially since I prefaced it by saying it's abomination that should have never been written.

Spells aren't supernatural though unless you're intentionally avoiding the mechanical meaning of the term. It's relevant here because, again, if people had wanted to be spellcasters they are less convoluted ways to do that (e.g. Duskblade and Magus.) There are mechanics unique to spellcasting that can interfere with the class aesthetic, like spell components, that I don't have to worry about with ki powers.

I mainly gave that list to show that it's abit of an unfair comparison comparing swordsage to unchained monk, PF versions of stuff are nearly always so more varied than their 3.5e versions (I do wish the cleric would get more of that, they're still all so similar to each other).

I agree it's not exactly fair, but I already gave my rationale for crossing edition lines above; to get to the ideal concept, I need to be able to freely cherry-pick well-realized mechanics from any source I can find. Again, I'd even bring in aspects of the 4e and 5e monk if I knew more about them.

OldTrees1

2016-06-22, 10:24 AM

One last thing; if giving a <Class A> a <Class B> background "just feels off" and won't work, how would you differentiate the backgrounds of a Druid who venerates a Nature God, a Cleric of said Nature God, a Favored Soul of said Nature God, a PF Warpriest of said Nature God. and a Divine Mind of said Nature God? Because it seems to me that the same background could work for all of them; the power of that deity just manifested in different ways.

You could use that backstory for each of them. But you are not the person in question are you?

I could differentiate those options based upon how the fluff of the flow of power* would impact the character. But I am not the person in question am I?
*(Nature->Druid, Cleric request->Nature God->Cleric, Nature God->Favored Soul, Divine Mind->Divine Mind)

Class aesthetic is something that some people may feel. Just as ignoring mechanical texture would be a waste of time when offering me advice, ignoring class aesthetics would be a waste of time when offering people like the OP advice.

At its root it boils down to:
Person asks for advice for something they will use
Someone gives an answer that is unhelpful due to the tastes of the person asking for advice
That someone continues to insist the non-answer is the only answer (often by trying to assert the tastes the person has are not real/valid)

LTwerewolf

2016-06-22, 10:48 AM

I agree it's not exactly fair, but I already gave my rationale for crossing edition lines above;

If you're going to do that, you can't outright dismiss the stalker just because you haven't played one yet.

Psyren

2016-06-22, 11:04 AM

If you're going to do that, you can't outright dismiss the stalker just because you haven't played one yet.

I didn't dismiss the Stalker at all. It might be an even better fit than the US or UM.

Class aesthetic is something that some people may feel. Just as ignoring mechanical texture would be a waste of time when offering me advice, ignoring class aesthetics would be a waste of time when offering people like the OP advice.

At its root it boils down to:
Person asks for advice for something they will use
Someone gives an answer that is unhelpful due to the tastes of the person asking for advice
That someone continues to insist the non-answer is the only answer (often by trying to assert the tastes the person has are not real/valid)

Indeed.

Elricaltovilla

2016-06-22, 11:07 AM

I agree it's not exactly fair, but I already gave my rationale for crossing edition lines above; to get to the ideal concept, I need to be able to freely cherry-pick well-realized mechanics from any source I can find. Again, I'd even bring in aspects of the 4e and 5e monk if I knew more about them.

Which is flawed logic. You can't show up to a table playing PF with a 4e or 5e monk and expect it to run... at all. The concepts presented by the monks in those editions don't apply to 3.5 or PF because they are different systems. Even 3.5 and PF have moved away from each other to such an extent that you have to put in a significant amount of work to balance the two against each other. Crossing edition lines doesn't work, because the mechanics don't map. And that you then refuse to acknowledge crossing edition lines on the other side of the argument only makes it worse.

digiman619

2016-06-22, 12:04 PM

You could use that backstory for each of them. But you are not the person in question are you?

No, I'm not. I'm also not a black-hearted villain with no redeeming qualities if I take a level in antipaladin. My character (in the game) has virtually no influence or representation of my character (as a human being).

I could differentiate those options based upon how the fluff of the flow of power* would impact the character. But I am not the person in question am I?
*(Nature->Druid, Cleric request->Nature God->Cleric, Nature God->Favored Soul, Divine Mind->Divine Mind)

No. Background and roleplay is who your character is. Class and feats and such are how they do it

Class aesthetic is something that some people may feel. Just as ignoring mechanical texture would be a waste of time when offering me advice, ignoring class aesthetics would be a waste of time when offering people like the OP advice.

In every D&D Player's handbook I have ever seen and in the core rulebook for Pathfinder, when it lists the process of creating a new character, Step 1 is almost always "choose a character concept"; choosing a class is usually Step 3 or 4.
Class =/= concept. The Truenamer is an infamously horrible class, but the concept of using the words of creation to do your magic is a really interesting idea. Granted, the only ways to do this in a way that represents it well is with the Words of Power alternate magic system from Ultimate Magic or the aforementioned Spheres of Power, but the point stands.

At its root it boils down to:
Person asks for advice for something they will use
Someone gives an answer that is unhelpful due to the tastes of the person asking for advice
That someone continues to insist the non-answer is the only answer (often by trying to assert the tastes the person has are not real/valid)

Arguing to me that my noble, honorable woodsman, who works tirelessly to save out-of-the-way villages from monsters from the woods isn't a real/valid background because he has Ranger levels rather than Paladin levels is just as stupid. A while back, I argued that a "mysterious gunman" character could be played by a Sorcerer with true strike. If I posted such a character here, I'd be lambasted because I'm not playing that character to his strengths in order to make a silly theme work, but at the end of the day, it'd be my character to plays as I saw fit.

So yes, you have the right and are entirely in the right to only play monks for your unarmed/unarmored martials or only play Paladins for your honorable warriors. But telling me that my unarmed/unarmored character "isn't really a monk" because I don't have Monk levels, or my noble warrior is "faking" by not having Paladin levels is wrong.

Florian

2016-06-22, 12:06 PM

@Elric:

Now you´re the one showing flawed logic. Either something meshes with a pre-conceived image or it doesn´t. Simple as that.

Elricaltovilla

2016-06-22, 12:27 PM

@Elric:

Now you´re the one showing flawed logic. Either something meshes with a pre-conceived image or it doesn´t. Simple as that.

No I'm not.

D&D 3.5, 4e, 5e and PF are all different games. Each of their monk classes is different, with different mechanics, flavors and base assumptions. Having played each of those systems to greater and lesser degrees, I can say with absolute certainty that the monk represented by each of those editions of the game are completely different.

In 4th edition, the Monk class is the best mechanical representation of the mystical unarmed/unarmored warrior aesthetic, because it is the only class that can function unarmored and unarmed. In 5e, the monk is in a similar position, other classes can't replicate the monk's unarmed attacks, although the monk is one of the classes that ends up replicating other classes' abilities instead.

In 3.5, anyone can be unarmed and unarmored and be largely as effective at it as the monk. In fact, there's quite a few classes that are more effective at it than the monk. The same holds true for Pathfinder. They are different games.

Citing the 4e or 5e monk as evidence that the 3.5 or Pathfinder monk are the best choice to represent the mystical unarmed/unarmored warrior aesthetic in 3.5 and Pathfinder is like saying that oranges are the most delicious melons because the edible parts of oranges and cantaloupes are both orange.

Psyren

2016-06-22, 12:39 PM

Which is flawed logic. You can't show up to a table playing PF with a 4e or 5e monk and expect it to run... at all.

No, but I can still take ideas for abilities from it, then convert the mechanics to the system I want to use. That's what good designers do.

The concepts presented by the monks in those editions don't apply to 3.5 or PF because they are different systems. Even 3.5 and PF have moved away from each other to such an extent that you have to put in a significant amount of work to balance the two against each other. Crossing edition lines doesn't work, because the mechanics don't map. And that you then refuse to acknowledge crossing edition lines on the other side of the argument only makes it worse.

Systems are mechanics. Concepts are not mechanics. Ideas are not mechanics. An idea like "infinite cantrips" may be implemented differently in PF, 4e and 5e, but the concept itself is still something that can be realized in all three.

Red Fel

2016-06-22, 12:46 PM

Systems are mechanics. Concepts are not mechanics. Ideas are not mechanics.

Quite true. Concepts, ideas, and aesthetics are not mechanics - the two are independent.

What it boils down to, ultimately, is that there are some people for whom the concept, the idea, the aesthetic of a given class is found in mechanics - the two are inextricably linked. For those people, a Swordsage is not mechanically equal to a Monk, and therefore can never be aesthetically equal to a Monk. Likewise, Crusader and Paladin, and any other class comparison.

I happen to disagree with that. Like you, I see a divide between systems and concepts, between mechanics and aesthetics. The former are - and should be - distinct from the latter. It is only, to my mind, when one cannot distinguish between the two that one contends that a class that is mechanically distinct but conceptually similar is simply too different to be accepted.

zergling.exe

2016-06-22, 12:50 PM

No. Background and roleplay is who your character is. Class and feats and such are how they do it
To some people (as clearly evidenced in this thread), the mechanical abilities of their character are entirely part of who their character is. To seperate the two would be to cleave the character in half. This is a perfectly legitimate way to play, even if you do not subscribe to it yourself.

In every D&D Player's handbook I have ever seen and in the core rulebook for Pathfinder, when it lists the process of creating a new character, Step 1 is almost always "choose a character concept"; choosing a class is usually Step 3 or 4.
Class =/= concept. The Truenamer is an infamously horrible class, but the concept of using the words of creation to do your magic is a really interesting idea. Granted, the only ways to do this in a way that represents it well is with the Words of Power alternate magic system from Ultimate Magic or the aforementioned Spheres of Power, but the point stands.
Again, to some people Class does equal Concept. The Warblade is a glory hog, the Cleric a devout servant of a God, Barbarian's delight in bashing in skulls and Monk's rigourously train their body. It may be more narrow and less nuanced, but it is an entirely legitimate way to play.

Arguing to me that my noble, honorable woodsman, who works tirelessly to save out-of-the-way villages from monsters from the woods isn't a real/valid background because he has Ranger levels rather than Paladin levels is just as stupid. A while back, I argued that a "mysterious gunman" character could be played by a Sorcerer with true strike. If I posted such a character here, I'd be lambasted because I'm not playing that character to his strengths in order to make a silly theme work, but at the end of the day, it'd be my character to plays as I saw fit.

So yes, you have the right and are entirely in the right to only play monks for your unarmed/unarmored martials or only play Paladins for your honorable warriors. But telling me that my unarmed/unarmored character "isn't really a monk" because I don't have Monk levels, or my noble warrior is "faking" by not having Paladin levels is wrong.

This is falling into the trap of insisting a nonanswer MUST be an answer. Some people will disagree with you, saying that if a character is not played (or has certain class levels) in a specific way, they are not able to claim a title or class. Others will agree with you, that woodswoman can totally be a Paladin ranger. There is no way to change some people's minds about this. They play the game the way they want to, and you play the way you want to.

Elricaltovilla

2016-06-22, 01:00 PM

No, but I can still take ideas for abilities from it, then convert the mechanics to the system I want to use. That's what good designers do.

And we're back to your monk. I have no idea what your monk does, but I know what 3.5 and PF monks do. I cannot argue against an unknown. But as best I can tell, you don't consider the PF or 3.5 monk to be able to fulfill the needs of the concept you want it to play either, or you wouldn't have to turn to homebrew, would you?

Systems are mechanics. Concepts are not mechanics. Ideas are not mechanics. An idea like "infinite cantrips" may be implemented differently in PF, 4e and 5e, but the concept itself is still something that can be realized in all three.

Mechanics are the means by which concepts are realized within a system of rules. The mechanics of a class define how and how effectively it portrays a concept. If one class's mechanics portray the same concept as well or better than another class's mechanics, then that first class is as good or better as a choice to portray that given concept.

digiman619

2016-06-22, 01:36 PM

To some people (as clearly evidenced in this thread), the mechanical abilities of their character are entirely part of who their character is. To seperate the two would be to cleave the character in half. This is a perfectly legitimate way to play, even if you do not subscribe to it yourself.

Again, to some people Class does equal Concept. The Warblade is a glory hog, the Cleric a devout servant of a God, Barbarian's delight in bashing in skulls and Monk's rigourously train their body. It may be more narrow and less nuanced, but it is an entirely legitimate way to play.

This is falling into the trap of insisting a nonanswer MUST be an answer. Some people will disagree with you, saying that if a character is not played (or has certain class levels) in a specific way, they are not able to claim a title or class. Others will agree with you, that woodswoman can totally be a Paladin ranger. There is no way to change some people's minds about this. They play the game the way they want to, and you play the way you want to.

Dude, I never said that the classic archetype is the wrong way to pay a character; to wit:

So yes, you have the right and are entirely in the right to only play monks for your unarmed/unarmored martials or only play Paladins for your honorable warriors.
What I did say is that playing against type, or with a different focus than the standard archetype, is an equally valid choice. That my follower of a Lawful Good nature goddess that gets their powers from her, can just as easily be a Cleric as a Druid, or a Favored Soul or PF Warpriest for that matter. And likewise telling me that I'm wrong for doing so is objectively wrong. To wit:

But telling me that my unarmed/unarmored character "isn't really a monk" because I don't have Monk levels, or my noble warrior is "faking" by not having Paladin levels is wrong.

OldTrees1

2016-06-22, 02:11 PM

No, I'm not. I'm also not a black-hearted villain with no redeeming qualities if I take a level in antipaladin. My character (in the game) has virtually no influence or representation of my character (as a human being).

Correct on both accounts.

You are not the person in question (so it is rational to be open to there being relevant differences between you and the person in question).

And your tastes are not wrong/invalid merely for having different tastes that the person in question.

No. Background and roleplay is who your character is. Class and feats and such are how they do it

Interesting. Are you telepathic? How do you claim know that the fluff of the flow of power does not influence the background and roleplay of my characters? Never conflict how you do something with how everyone else must do that something.

Arguing to me that my noble, honorable woodsman, who works tirelessly to save out-of-the-way villages from monsters from the woods isn't a real/valid background because he has Ranger levels rather than Paladin levels is just as stupid. A while back, I argued that a "mysterious gunman" character could be played by a Sorcerer with true strike. If I posted such a character here, I'd be lambasted because I'm not playing that character to his strengths in order to make a silly theme work, but at the end of the day, it'd be my character to plays as I saw fit.

So yes, you have the right and are entirely in the right to only play monks for your unarmed/unarmored martials or only play Paladins for your honorable warriors. But telling me that my unarmed/unarmored character "isn't really a monk" because I don't have Monk levels, or my noble warrior is "faking" by not having Paladin levels is wrong.

You are replying to when I said

At its root it boils down to:
Person asks for advice for something they will use
Someone gives an answer that is unhelpful due to the tastes of the person asking for advice
That someone continues to insist the non-answer is the only answer (often by trying to assert the tastes the person has are not real/valid)

Where in here did you see anything other than support for _insert_person_ playing characters according to their tastes? If You were "Person" and someone was insisting your woodsman needed Ranger levels, that someone would be doing the exact same **** move that I am criticizing. The exact same **** move as insisting the OP must play a Swordsage when they want to play a Monk. Would you please join me in promoting everyone get helpful answers and not **** moves? Class aesthetics might not matter to you just like mechanical texture probably doesn't matter to the OP, but we can all promote respect and criticize blind insistence in the face of differing tastes.

Obviously if this is true then while your Druids, Clerics, Favored Souls, & Divine Minds might all be eligible for the same backstory, you will respect the minor backstory differences the flow of power causes for mine and the even larger differences that class aesthetics causes the OP has for theirs. Are we on the same page?

Psyren

2016-06-22, 02:39 PM

And we're back to your monk. I have no idea what your monk does, but I know what 3.5 and PF monks do. I cannot argue against an unknown. But as best I can tell, you don't consider the PF or 3.5 monk to be able to fulfill the needs of the concept you want it to play either, or you wouldn't have to turn to homebrew, would you?

I'm pretty sure I've made this point repeatedly :smallconfused: Examples:

I think that between the Swordsage, Stalker and the Unchained Monk we have the potential to make something that can capture any monklike concept imaginable. But none of them are quite there individually.

Right, I agree with that. I'm saying none of the classes currently attain that ideal, even if some come closer than others.

Mechanics are the means by which concepts are realized within a system of rules. The mechanics of a class define how and how effectively it portrays a concept. If one class's mechanics portray the same concept as well or better than another class's mechanics, then that first class is as good or better as a choice to portray that given concept.

Right, but just because another system realizes a given concept differently, doesn't mean we can't still learn from it. 4e and Legend both learned from ToB for instance.

Lvl 2 Expert

2016-06-22, 02:51 PM

Then how do they get spells?

Paladins are such a shining example for all of humanity that the primal force of good itself reaches out to and envelops them and grants them extraordinary abilities with which to continue their work.

Good may be a mindless entity and even sometimes an "uncaring" force, but if you're good enough like will attract like.

digiman619

2016-06-22, 02:53 PM

Correct on both accounts.

You are not the person in question (so it is rational to be open to there being relevant differences between you and the person in question).

And your tastes are not wrong/invalid merely for having different tastes that the person in question.
There is no person; there is only the character I'm creating. I can have a CG Dwarf Sorcerer in one campaign and a LE Monk in another. Neither of them are me, neither of them are real, neither of them have any existence outside the game.

Interesting. Are you telepathic? How do you claim know that the fluff of the flow of power does not influence the background and roleplay of my characters? Never conflict how you do something with how everyone else must do that something.

Paladins don't have a monopoly on virtue. Your paladin is no more virtuous than my CG Sorcerer unless you roleplay it that way. Paladins can very easily become a Knight Templar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar) if taken too far, while the Chaotic Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScrewTheRulesImDoingWhatsRight) Rogue might be the voice of reason. I know, that's what the falling mechanic is supposed to prevent, but it's so poorly worded that Ive seen it treated as everything from "As long as you're following your church, feel free to burn that orphanage" to "You have a hobby that isn't completely selfless? You've clearly Fallen"

You are replying to when I said

Where in here did you see anything other than support for _insert_person_ playing characters according to their tastes? If You were "Person" and someone was insisting your woodsman needed Ranger levels, that someone would be doing the exact same **** move that I am criticizing. The exact same **** move as insisting the OP must play a Swordsage when they want to play a Monk. Would you please join me in promoting everyone get helpful answers and not **** moves? Class aesthetics might not matter to you just like mechanical texture probably doesn't matter to the OP, but we can all promote respect and criticize blind insistence in the face of differing tastes.

Obviously if this is true then while your Druids, Clerics, Favored Souls, & Divine Minds might all be eligible for the same backstory, you will respect the minor backstory differences the flow of power causes for mine and the even larger differences that class aesthetics causes the OP has for theirs. Are we on the same page?

I explicitly said you have every right to play a Paladin/Monk/Whatever, but when you say that any other attempt to do the same concept "just doesn't feel right" or is "faking it", that is a problem. Though I do agree that some asks for help with their Monk, then people should answer that question, not just say "use X instead".

OldTrees1

2016-06-22, 03:25 PM

There is no person; there is only the character I'm creating. I can have a CG Dwarf Sorcerer in one campaign and a LE Monk in another. Neither of them are me, neither of them are real, neither of them have any existence outside the game.

Paladins don't have a monopoly on virtue. Your paladin is no more virtuous than my CG Sorcerer unless you roleplay it that way. Paladins can very easily become a Knight Templar (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar) if taken too far, while the Chaotic Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScrewTheRulesImDoingWhatsRight) Rogue might be the voice of reason. I know, that's what the falling mechanic is supposed to prevent, but it's so poorly worded that Ive seen it treated as everything from "As long as you're following your church, feel free to burn that orphanage" to "You have a hobby that isn't completely selfless? You've clearly Fallen"

I explicitly said you have every right to play a Paladin/Monk/Whatever, but when you say that any other attempt to do the same concept "just doesn't feel right" or is "faking it", that is a problem. Though I do agree that some asks for help with their Monk, then people should answer that question, not just say "use X instead".

Please stop contradicting yourself. Is your way the only right way for the OP to play or are you willing to acknowledge that others have other right ways to play (including that what is valid for you and yours might not be valid for them and theirs)?

You play your characters. Thus it is your tastes that matter in the construction of your characters. But neither you nor your characters are the person in question. So rather than blindly insisting that other people are wrong about their tastes, take a leaf out of how you would react to someone blindly insisting your woodsmen conform to their tastes and recognize that what are valid answers when you are making characters can be non-answers for someone else.

So when Swordsage does not feel right for the OP when the OP is making their character, who are you to blindly insist that the Swordsage is a valid answer for the OP's character?

digiman619

2016-06-22, 04:18 PM

Please stop contradicting yourself. Is your way the only right way for the OP to play or are you willing to acknowledge that others have other right ways to play (including that what is valid for you and yours might not be valid for them and theirs)?

You play your characters. Thus it is your tastes that matter in the construction of your characters. But neither you nor your characters are the person in question. So rather than blindly insisting that other people are wrong about their tastes, take a leaf out of how you would react to someone blindly insisting your woodsmen conform to their tastes and recognize that what are valid answers when you are making characters can be non-answers for someone else.

So when Swordsage does not feel right for the OP when the OP is making their character, who are you to blindly insist that the Swordsage is a valid answer for the OP's character?

I explicitly said that you can make your honorable knight with the Paladin class. To wit:

So yes, you have the right and are entirely in the right to only play monks for your unarmed/unarmored martials or only play Paladins for your honorable warriors.
But the OP clearly said:

Sure, we could just take the cleric levels and "pretend" to be a paladin with the code of honor, but it feels like a hollow shell. It doesnt feel like a real paladin, it feels like you're masquerading as one.
So yeah, he's literally telling me that if I make the noble woodsman Ranger from before, I'm doing it wrong. While yes, the mechanics should definitely support the concept, but that doesn't mean that said class is the only way to do the concept. and I just said that people should respond questions about Class X with answers about Class X, not Class Y or a Class Z/Class N multiclass.

Though I do agree that some asks for help with their Monk, then people should answer that question, not just say "use X instead".

OldTrees1

2016-06-22, 04:52 PM

I explicitly said that you can make your honorable knight with the Paladin class. To wit:
No, you explicitly said

I explicitly said you have every right to play a Paladin/Monk/Whatever, but when you say that any other attempt to do the same concept "just doesn't feel right" or is "faking it", that is a problem. Though I do agree that some asks for help with their Monk, then people should answer that question, not just say "use X instead".
Aka "You can use Monk for your Monk but I still get to insist that Swordsage is a valid option for you(OP) and your insistence that it is not a valid option for yourself(OP's self) is a problem."

Maybe you did not mean that statement. However your constant contrarian responses to my statements (which were "what is and is not a non-answer depends on who is asking the question" + "one should not blindly insist a non-answer is a answer") suggested otherwise.

But the OP clearly said:
As for what the OP said, have you ever heard of inclusive vs exclusive "we"? Are you digiman619 included in the "we" in the OP's statement? I don't read it as such. I read it as "... we (myself and people like me) ...". So no the OP is not criticizing your playstyle.

digiman619

2016-06-22, 05:08 PM

@OldTrees1:Let's just agree that to say that I think that class does not equal concept, and that I feel that the OP has an unnecessarily narrow definition of what a Paladin or Monk can be. He has every right to play what he likes, but he the asked everyone's opinion on said character choices and I gave mine.

OldTrees1

2016-06-22, 05:22 PM

digiman619

2016-06-22, 05:33 PM

Close enough.

Then we're good. Everyone else, continue to talk about this as you will without the two of us bickering.

The Insanity

2016-06-22, 05:43 PM

I had that same issue some time ago.
At first I solved it by mentally replacing Swordsage with Monk.
Later, as a DM, I just made Monk and Swordsage one class, partially to create a stronger class, partially because I don't like wasting potential (why ignore or replace Monk when you can use its abilties with Swordsage?).

Seppo87

2016-06-22, 05:47 PM

Thats my take on it at any rate, what do you guys think?
Would you consider " a good pick" a race that the fluff describes as strong, but has mechanically a penalty to Strength?

In short: The designer's work is not perfect and when they decided how mechanics should reflect the fluff, sometimes something goes wrong. Sometimes, most of an entire class goes wrong.

Now, simply, here's the deal: Just because somebody in some office thought that giving X aesthetics to Y mechanics was appropriate, this does not mean it's the only way of doing it, and certainly does not mean it's the best.

If you feel that the decision of someone who most probably didn't know what they were doing should decide wether you can call your crusader "a paladin" imho you're abiding by an arbitrary decision that should not really be that important, because at stake there is your own self-expression.
You're basically saying "a Paladin can only be what Jim Smith thought a Paladin should be in this game, because that day he wrote that on this book, and therefore I am forbidden from ever thinking he was sorely wrong and provide my own definition of what a paladin should be from a more informed perspective I developed in decades of fiddling with the rules, playtesting, general experience and forum discussions. because Jim Smith's opinion, who didn't notice Monks are not proficient with Unarmed Strikes, and thought Frenzied Berserker was balanced with Reaping Mauler, is the only righ way of seeing things. Monks can only ever be what Jim Smith decided."
Can I say no?

The association between fluff and mechanics is not a law, is not set in stone, and is not above being discussed and questioned. And changed.

Milo v3

2016-06-22, 05:57 PM

Hecuba

2016-06-22, 06:17 PM

Edit:

Writing your character's background isn't homebrew. It's role-playing.
The default class fluff is just as much a part of a class as the crunch. There is certainly some flexibility built in, but if you write a background story that is incompatible with the default fluff than you are indeed changing something about that class in order to use it. It's not a change that would generally be called homebrew, but it is still a change and it is still a change to a part of the class that was deliberately designed. There is no inherent reason to give it any less deference than is given to the crunchier rules (or any more, for that matter).

This provides a good way for me to make the distinction I'm aiming at: the question isn't whether or not changing class fluff is homebrew. The distinction is I'm trying to make is that, if the class-based aesthetic is strong enough, class fluff is not the provenance role-playing but rather of world-building.

This assumes that all monasteries offer the exact same basic training. That LG monks have the same abilities as LE ones. It's fine in a simple adventuring setting, but usually things are more diverse in the real world.

That is perfectly valid, but if you change that then you are changing what a class means. It is possible to make such a change without moving away from a strong class-based aesthetic, simply by having the class monk map to something more specific than just living in a monastery.

But if you have Monk map to in-game element A (perhaps a specific order or tradition of monks) and A does not always map back to Monk, then are moving away from a strongly class-based aesthetic.

It is still possible to keep some thematic ties rather than going all the way to to a classless aesthetic: to still focus on a class aesthetic but not have it be as strong.
That is a great way to play, and 3.5 is a great system for it.

I'm not suggesting going against the fluff in any way. I'm only saying that the fluff isn't as rigid as it's commonly believed to be and classes don't get exclusive rights to their fluff.
[...]
That's the only description of a paladin's training I can find. Why can't this guy be a monk? Actually, I'd assume that a paladin's training is very similar to that of a LG monk. They could even train in the same monastery and spar with each other. In that case, wouldn't it make sense for the paladin to be called a monk, too, because of his life style and convictions? Can he not be a monk just because he likes heavier armor and doesn't punch as well?
[...]
The paladin I described above adheres perfectly to the fluff of his class.

I agree that fluff is not generally as rigid as it is often made out to be. If, however, you are pursuing a strongly class-driven aesthetic then your aim should be for the classes to have exclusive rights to their fluff (though that does not mean that the classes cannot have exclusive rights to more than one set of class fluff). Under such an aesthetic, if 2 characters spent time training at the same monastery in the same way (and gain levels at the same rate), they should get both end up with the same class levels as a result (perhaps, say, monk 2).

I can't imagine the following being said in any reasonable setting:

A fighter? Hah! No, I'm not a fighter. I'm a warrior. You see, Bob there, he's a fighter. He's like me, except more capable. Oh, and Amelia isn't an aristocrat. She was born in an aristocratic family, is a natural diplomat, plays the piano, likes fencing and so on, but she's a rogue. Jason is an aristocrat. Amelia beats him up every day in training.

It doesn't make any sense. It would make some sense if D&D didn't use extremely broad terms in its class names, like Rogue, Scout, Fighter, Barbarian, Aristocrat and so on. If Ghurb and Frump come from the same tribe, either one of them is a barbarian or neither is, no matter what their builds are like. Or are you saying that every single member of a barbarian tribe has a level of Barbarian in your setting? They don't have any pure Experts or Druids or Spirit Shamans among them? They don't have any scouts, because they're barbarians?
Really? Consider, what if you were simply to (for example) simply decide in game that all fighters would instead be called Super Soldiers and that that term was reserved for the Fighter class?
I'm certainly not claiming that the names are well chosen: Monk is an issue because of the distinction about how we narratively treat eastern and western monastic traditions. Fighter and Warrior are an issue because the demarcation is ill-defined (something that could be fixed by simply choosing a more precise name). Barbarian is an issue because what it actually means is closer to Berzerker or Brave.

But setting that aside, a strong class-based aesthetic means that your are setting an ideal of the class reliably representing a specific and recognizable avocation for the in-game world. Characters in world will make call Clerics "Prophets" or "Revered Brothers" or "Shepherds" or something else, but there is still something that the people in the game can recognize that maps to the class cleric.

Berzerkers and Braves can both be represented by the class Barbarian, but if you a character does not have levels in Barbarian then they are clearly not a Berzerker or a Brave.

I'll also readily agree that 3.5 is probably not the best place to play if your goal is a strong class-aesthetic. The emergent elements of the system design veered away from it in the mid-to-late 3.0 period, which means the majority of what is made for the system is not designed with that in mind. That's why I am so liberal in prefacing my statements here with phrases like "Under such a system" and "If, however, you are pursuing[...]."
But it is a valid way to 3.5 and a valid game design aesthetic. Moreover, it is a way that was clearly a significant consideration in the initial design (likely because it was inherited from prior versions): things like the Multi-class XP penalties and the cross-class skill schedule attest to that. It's likewise reflected in much of the game narrative and fiction surrounding D&D.

Psyren

2016-06-22, 06:30 PM

With the Psyren thing, I want to be clear that I wasn't saying it was unfair for him to take concepts from non-3.5e editions, just that it was unfair comparison to say that swordsage doesn't have much supernatural power compared to a PF monk. If we can't take ideas from non-3.5e sources, then I don't know how this discussion would go since I'd imagine a large amount of our opinions on what a Monk/Paladin/Ranger/etc. would be based on media like movies, books and videogames.

My only problem with Swordsage is that its supernatural power is largely limited to combat or movement. Arcane Swordsage obviously is much broader, but even putting the terrible editing aside, spellcasting has a different aesthetic to something more innate like SLA and Su abilities (e.g. ki powers and maneuvers.) Yes, "spells can do everything" is a true statement, but it's also likely to be a boring one; if spells are an acceptable answer, the player in question likely wouldn't be looking at Monk or Swordsage in the first place.

digiman619

2016-06-22, 06:53 PM

I think the best way to look at this is simple: Do you allow archetypes or ACFs? Because a standard Pathfinder Bard and a Archaeologist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/archaeologist) play and feel very differently.

Honest Tiefling

2016-06-22, 06:53 PM

Thats my take on it at any rate, what do you guys think?

I...Basically disagree with everything you said. There needs to be a coherent compromise between what my character is, and what my character sheet says. I usually want my characters to have a particular aesthetic, and the classes are the way to get what I want. If I want to build a mystical barehanded fighter who calls themselves a monk, then by golly, I'm going with the class that supports that, not the one made of failure. Why does it matter what is written on my sheet?

I don't think fluff should be thrown out of the window entirely (spells are probably spells with most people), but a lot of classes can be explained with alternative backstories or a bit of tweaking. Who says my character didn't answer the Call of Goodness and Purity and decided to become a monk, anyway? Well, the DM who is playing without alignments can, but that's a different issue.

And I think pretty much that the last few pages of this thread basically prove that everyone has different ideas what the archetypes are. Glad to see I am not the only one who gets ticked off when the paladin character declares themselves the absolute authority of morality and paragon of virtue and everyone else is inferior. Goodness, that is a pet peeve of mine. For me, the paladin is not the end all of goodness, but the guy who decided that goodness would be best served by whacking things in the face with a sword.

I'd also like to point out that Forgotten Realms is the setting with the restriction that all divine spell casters must have a god, including paladins and rangers. I'm betting that a lot of confusion either stems from playing in that, or a DM deciding to lift that rule from that campaign setting. A LOT of people get confused either going from other settings into Forgotten Realms or vice versa because of that rule.

Aegis013

2016-06-22, 08:55 PM

Classes are Legos. Sometimes things work together perfectly, you have all the right bricks you need in the colors you want and the instructions are clear. Other times, you have all the right bricks you need, but the colors are a little off, so you need to use a little imagination, but it still does the job.

Sometimes, you just don't have the right bricks paired with the building instructions the developers gave you. It's OK to utilize other bricks to try to improve your experience. Even using the standard bricks takes some imagination, using a little more shouldn't hurt you (If it does, stop use immediately and consult a doctor).

TheCrowing1432

2016-06-22, 11:14 PM

Definitely a lot of interesting points of view on here, and a bit of flaming, can we tone that down, yeah?

Someone else said this earlier and ill reiterate.

"Names are powerful things"

its not what a class is its what a class means. Its entirely subjective what classes mean to you.

You can take a million different alternatives to the classes I mentioned earlier and give them better mechanics and have them do better at their jobs then Paladins or Monks could ever do and you could call yourself a paladin or monk despite never having actually taken any levels in those classes, thats fine.

Others cannot because we attach so much aesthetic/fluff to the name "Paladin" or "Monk" because of what it means to us as....well as people.

Milo v3

2016-06-23, 12:21 AM

its not what a class is its what a class means.
I wish. The name isn't what the class means, it's what the writer thought the class means. Which while sounds like only a small difference, in some peoples minds that a very big difference.

Florian

2016-06-23, 04:17 AM

I wish. The name isn't what the class means, it's what the writer thought the class means. Which while sounds like only a small difference, in some peoples minds that a very big difference.

You seem to have difficulty accepting that for some people, they buy into the whole package and see it as complete while for others, you break it down into individual actions and want to reach the point those mesh.

Seppo87

2016-06-23, 04:18 AM

we attach so much aesthetic/fluff to the name "Paladin" or "Monk" because of what it means to usActually it's not you.
You let a game designer, somewhere in some WOTC office, back in time, decide what you can or cannot imagine.
It's his decision, not yours.

The name isn't what the class means, it's what the writer thought the class means
*

Milo v3

2016-06-23, 04:31 AM

You seem to have difficulty accepting that for some people, they buy into the whole package and see it as complete while for others.
Nope. Not that hard to accept, just because I don't agree doesn't mean I am unable to understand (that would make this discussion rather pointless). That doesn't actually have anything to do with what I said though.... Are you quoting the wrong person?

You break it down into individual actions and want to reach the point those mesh.
I disagree, and would prefer you didn't tell me how I personally view things in future.

Troacctid

2016-06-23, 04:59 AM

Actually it's not you.
You let a game designer, somewhere in some WOTC office, back in time, decide what you can or cannot imagine.
It's his decision, not yours.
Yeah, don't let Wizards of the Coast decide how you play your game! Throw away your D&D books and just play freeform. Those game designers don't control you!

Most players want to play the game that the game designers built for them, because the default assumption is that that game will be fun. There's a certain level of trust in the relationship between player and game designer.

Of course, a lot of people forget that the rules do actually explicitly grant the DM the power to modify how classes fit into a setting—see DMG 144.

Florian

2016-06-23, 05:14 AM

Nope. Not that hard to accept, just because I don't agree doesn't mean I am unable to understand (that would make this discussion rather pointless). That doesn't actually have anything to do with what I said though.... Are you quoting the wrong person?

I disagree, and would prefer you didn't tell me how I personally view things in future.

This actually goes back to your former post regarding Psyren. What you propose is taking outside sources and incorporating them into the game. A "class" is a package that should actually represent something and that simply doesn´t mesh well with outside sources besides creating a new class from the ground up.

Seppo87

2016-06-23, 05:21 AM

Most players want to play the game that the game designers built for them, because the default assumption is that that game will be fun
And we know this is not the case with 3rd edition. The game played by the rules can be horrifically broken in a plethora of ways, and almost invariably will produce an unsatisfactory experience for new players who, on the basis of this trust, choose trap options while their friends don't.
While not everybody might feel the same, it's unquestionable that this is a recurring and very popular issue that has emerged multiple times in roleplaying communities, to the point of becoming a key factor in designing further edition AND variants of D&D.

There's a certain level of trust in the relationship between player and game designer
When game designers assure that classes and options in general are balanced between each other, and then they are not, a person with a critical sense should acknowledge that such trust was misplaced.

Florian

2016-06-23, 05:31 AM

When game designers assure that classes and options in general are balanced between each other, and then they are not, a person with a critical sense should acknowledge that such trust was misplaced.

Not really relevant unless you come up with a fool-proof definition of what "game" and "balance" means in this context.

Seppo87

2016-06-23, 05:35 AM

Not really relevant unless you come up with a fool-proof definition of what "game" and "balance" means in this context.Not really relevant unless you come up with a fool proof explanation of why and how my words could be misinterpreted when they are crystal clear.

Also, I assume you're familiar with the subject, and have at least some degree of competency and expertise in 3.5 system AND the meta discussion and how it evolved in the years.
If you don't it's no wonder we're not on the same page.

Florian

2016-06-23, 05:38 AM

Not really relevant unless you come up with a fool proof explanation of what "definition" means and why and how my words could be misinterpreted when they are clear as the sun.

Ouch, that´s a cheap one.

And no, you´re words aren´t "clear as the sun". You have something on your mind as on how things should behave, but you don´t actually manage to bring this across.

Seppo87

2016-06-23, 05:44 AM

And no, you´re words aren´t "clear as the sun". You have something on your mind as on how things should behave, but you don´t actually manage to bring this across.
You seem to have something on your mind on how I should make my points, but you don't actually manage to bring this across.

Are we done hairsplitting now and can we go back to facts, please?

It's 2016, I don't really see how anybody could still be oblivious of the balance issues of this game, unless they lived under a rock.
If you still think Monk and 3.5 in general are balanced, at this point, it's as if you were arguing that the earth is flat.

We should be way past that point now.

tadkins

2016-06-23, 06:25 AM

If you feel more comfortable choosing the class "monk" instead of "unarmed swordsage" there's nothing wrong with that, imo. It's not like Monk20 is completely unplayable; play what you enjoy and feel comfortable with.

Necroticplague

2016-06-23, 08:22 AM

ExLibrisMortis

2016-06-23, 09:47 AM

Name's aren't powerful at all. They only have the meaning you ascribe to them. To quote Romeo "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Names are ultimately just arbitrary. To let a mere name get in the way is to miss the forest for the trees. In a different forest.
This is true.

I would also like to point out that if your character were to refuse to call a fellow character a paladin, on the grounds that they are a crusader/cleric/ordained champion of Heironeous, you would be metagaming in the worst way. A character sheet is in principle unaccessible to your character, and there is no in-universe way to distinguish a paladin from a cleric*. As a result, your personal opinion can never really make a difference in-game, and it already couldn't OOC, so I really don't see the point in arguing about it. Let's consider this thread more of an inventarization of preferences than a discussion.

*The strength of the aura of good would vary a bit, but paladins can multiclass too (in monk, for example), so that's not exactly telling.

Hecuba

2016-06-23, 10:53 AM

It's 2016, I don't really see how anybody could still be oblivious of the balance issues of this game, unless they lived under a rock.
If you still think Monk and 3.5 in general are balanced, at this point, it's as if you were arguing that the earth is flat.

We should be way past that point now.

I still play regularly with groups where:
We still use 3.5 (because it is the system they started with and most of the table sees no reason to change)
Seldom to never use any books outside core (because if we want a class not present we'll go with the route described for the "Witch" in the DMG)
I am the only person on the table who regularly visits online materials for D&D, and the only person who has examined the mechanics of the game in enough detail to have a strong opinion about balance
Multiclassing for mechanical reasons is considered gauche (otherwise there "obviously wouldn't be multi-class XP penalties in the rules" -- to quote the response the last time it came up).

There are still people playing 3.5 the way it was presented in the initial 3 books. It's not the likely what most 3.5 games are at this point and it especially isn't likely to be the most discussed kind of 3.5 game on an internet forum like this, but they are still around and it is still a valid option.

As point of fact, I'll be playing in such a game tomorrow afternoon. I would not suggest such 3.5 as a good system if that group were just getting started, but it's been running once a month for now over a decade now. For some of the people involved, it is their only exposure to tabletop and they explicitly have no interest in learning a new system or enhancing their rules knowledge of 3.5.

To insist that that game is not D&D 3.5 or is somehow "lesser" than the "real" D&D 3.5 is tantamount to saying they those people are not really a part of the tabletop gaming community.

I would also like to point out that if your character were to refuse to call a fellow character a paladin, on the grounds that they are a crusader/cleric/ordained champion of Heironeous, you would be metagaming in the worst way.

That is only true if classes are treated as meta-game constructs and not recognizable things inside the game world that happen to map to a specific set of abilities.

ExLibrisMortis

2016-06-23, 11:26 AM

That is only true if classes are treated as meta-game constructs and not recognizable things inside the game world that happen to map to a specific set of abilities.
The abilities that allow you to determine accurately what class someone is are very rare, and chances are that all characters at your table do not have access to them, or do not employ them. In general, nothing in the class descriptions suggests that you can just tell what people are (or even what you are, yourself), in terms of class: there are no Spot checks to recognize a barbarian, for example, and abilities in that vein are extremely rare or nonexistant. I think it's obvious that the designers never intended these stats to be used in-universe (and most people don't), and it's explicitly called out in the case of multipliers stacking differently and so on.

On the other hand, if you have a campaign where people discuss their next level-up in character ("Those undead really effed me up, I'm taking me some cleric levels next!" "Joe, don't, you're going to ruin your fighter feat progression!", I guess that works. I think I remember a webcomic like that :smallconfused:.

Hecuba

2016-06-23, 11:48 AM

On the other hand, if you have a campaign where people discuss their next level-up in character ("Those undead really effed me up, I'm taking me some cleric levels next!" "Joe, don't, you're going to ruin your fighter feat progression!", I guess that works. I think I remember a webcomic like that :smallconfused:.

There's more than just the webcomic. There are also options presented for the leveling process that involve explicit training.

Moreover, even if you gloss over the minutia of XP and levels, you can still have the class mapped to something discussed in game. If for example, the job "priest" always mapped to the class cleric in your setting (with, perhaps, adept instead mapping to lay ministers of some kind or shamans or what have you), then a character who was a priest would have the abilities of a cleric as a result of being a priest.

It would certainly be possible for someone with a different class to replicate those abilities in a different way. But under such an outlook, a character doing so in an attempt to represent themselves as a priest would be actively misrepresenting themselves in the game world.

That kind of setup is what it means for classes to represent in-story concepts that are part of the game world rather than being simple meta-game constructs. The mechanical abilities of the class, rather than being the defining features of the class, are merely an abstraction of the abilities such class has in the given setting.

Necroticplague

2016-06-23, 12:16 PM

To insist that that game is not D&D 3.5 or is somehow "lesser" than the "real" D&D 3.5 is tantamount to saying they those people are not really a part of the tabletop gaming community.Er, I'm not one to dismiss anyone's gamestyle, and would never say the former part of that statement (that it's not real dnd), but the latter part seems to be true. If they don't interact with other people who share the hobby outside of their small group, they can't really be said to be a part of a community that they actively are avoiding becoming a part of (by not participating in discussion or learning of such). So I would agree, they aren't, but it's more for the fact.

That is only true if classes are treated as meta-game constructs and not recognizable things inside the game world that happen to map to a specific set of abilities.
Which, given how much overlap their is between abilities, is a far more sensible way to go about it.

Honest Tiefling

2016-06-23, 12:40 PM

I'm pretty sure the names are pretty meaningless. Rangers don't have to range, rogues don't work well alone, druids have nothing to do with the real-life druidic faith, and paladins have nothing to do with a hill in Italy. Neither Beguilers nor Archivists have to do what's on the tin if they don't particularly want to. Dread Necromancers can well, be less dreadful if desired.

Given that rogue got named rogue in later editions to claim that the game wasn't teaching kids to steal, the names aren't even descriptive. They are picked because they distinguish the class from similar classes for ease of use, got past moral guardians, and sounded like it would sell.

Seppo87

2016-06-23, 12:46 PM

and paladins have nothing to do with a hill in Italy
Sir, now I have a quest: to roleplay a Paladin on the Palatino hill.
(it's, like, 20 minutes from my home anyway)

Troacctid

2016-06-23, 12:49 PM

Names are demonstrably not meaningless, and have a major effect on player expectation. That's basically just a fact of psychology and game design.

Seppo87

2016-06-23, 12:53 PM

Names are demonstrably not meaningless, and have a major effect on player expectation. That's basically just a fact of psychology and game design.
Sure. And being willing to realize that they are also arbitrary and might be the result of poor decision making or flawed design is sign of an open mind and critical thinking.

Note that I'm saying willing as opposed to able, because while everybody can understand it, some people prefer to pretend the game is less flawed than it is, in order to validate their choice of playing it and getting invested into it.

Red Fel

2016-06-23, 01:12 PM

Moreover, even if you gloss over the minutia of XP and levels,

Which we don't, because they're vital mechanical functions of the system.

If you're not using D&D mechanics, you're not actually playing D&D. You're playing a game, sure, but when you ignore the level-based system that is D&D, you're not playing that game.

you can still have the class mapped to something discussed in game. If for example, the job "priest" always mapped to the class cleric in your setting (with, perhaps, adept instead mapping to lay ministers of some kind or shamans or what have you), then a character who was a priest would have the abilities of a cleric as a result of being a priest.

Right. So people described as "X" in your setting have a particular class. I get that. But that's a function of this setting, not a function of the game.

For instance, if I ran a campaign where only those with inborn, spontaneous magical talent qualified for the role of Royal Magisters, then anyone with the title Royal Magister would have to be a spontaneous caster. But again, that's a function of my setting, not of the game. Nowhere does it say that every Knight in Shining Armor must be a Paladin.

It would certainly be possible for someone with a different class to replicate those abilities in a different way.

In fact, we've pretty much established that it happens.

But under such an outlook, a character doing so in an attempt to represent themselves as a priest would be actively misrepresenting themselves in the game world.

Only if, again in your setting, only people with Cleric levels could claim to be Priests.

As an aside, how does one measure that? Does anybody ask what they took their last level in? Is there some sort of test? "Perform a number of Turn Undead checks for me?" How can they measure Cleric levels in order to confirm one's qualification for Priest?

That kind of setup is what it means for classes to represent in-story concepts that are part of the game world rather than being simple meta-game constructs.

But classes are simple meta-game constructs. Yes, there's some fluff attached, but their primary function is to serve as a bundle of abilities. "Take 1 Paladin level and receive the following bits." "Take another three and receive the following bits." That's what a "class" is.

The mechanical abilities of the class, rather than being the defining features of the class, are merely an abstraction of the abilities such class has in the given setting.

No. A class has no "abilities . . . in the given setting." The mechanical abilities of the class are not an abstraction - the fluff is the abstraction. The mechanical abilities are concrete. The mechanics say, "Look, this is what you can do. Here are the four corners of your abilities." The flavor then gives them shape.

The mechanical abilities are the defining features of the class. Without them, you're playing a freeform RPG. Which isn't a bad thing; you can certainly play a game that entails saying things like, "My guy channels holy power, right? Well, I want to punch the ghost right out of the possessed guy. Can I do that?" The mechanical abilities tell you whether you can; without them, anybody can be any concept in any combination. The term "class" becomes meaningless when there are no mechanics attached.

Troacctid

2016-06-23, 01:17 PM

Sure. And being willing to realize that they are also arbitrary and might be the result of poor decision making or flawed design is sign of an open mind and critical thinking.
They're not arbitrary. You think the designers just flipped a coin to decide which classes they were going to call "wizard" and "barbarian"?

Seppo87

2016-06-23, 01:29 PM

They're not arbitrary. You think the designers just flipped a coin to decide which classes they were going to call "wizard" and "barbarian"?
Arbitrary does not mean random - objection overruled.

Arbitrary is stuff like Half Orcs stats.
While the fluff is pretty much the same in all editions, they have different stats in 3.5 (+str, -int, -cha) in PF (+2 of your choice) in 4E (+2str and dex) and in 5E (+2 and +1 to either str or con)

While they are always described as having excellent physique, you can see how different designers can interpret this in different ways, so that the same concept is translated into different mechanics.

Arbitrary is stuff like "being on opposite sides of an enemy makes it flanked".
If you read the Rules Compendium, there's an anecdote about how the Flanking mechanics was born, and I can assure, that was arbitrary.
There could have been many different ways of "ganging up on an enemy so he cannot defend well" but flanking appeared like an elegant solution and was compatible with no-facing rules so it was integrated in the system.

Being a designer means making arbitrary choices when converting ideas into mechanics.

Necroticplague

2016-06-23, 01:38 PM

They're not arbitrary. You think the designers just flipped a coin to decide which classes they were going to call "wizard" and "barbarian"?

All words are inherently arbitrary. As made patently obvious by the fact we have a lot of different languages that have different words for the same thing. The names of classes are only useful in so far as it's way more convenient to say "swordmage" than "The Arcane Defender class with a mark that let's them teleport all over the place."

Troacctid

2016-06-23, 02:03 PM

Arbitrary does not mean random - objection overruled.
"Arbitrary (adj): based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

If names were arbitrary, then you could reassign them at random and it wouldn't matter. That's not the case.

All words are inherently arbitrary. As made patently obvious by the fact we have a lot of different languages that have different words for the same thing. The names of classes are only useful in so far as it's way more convenient to say "swordmage" than "The Arcane Defender class with a mark that let's them teleport all over the place."
I mean, I guess that's accurate if you ignore the fact that words also have meanings.

Seppo87

2016-06-23, 02:05 PM

If names were arbitrary, then you could reassign them at random and it wouldn't matter. That's not the case.

adjective
1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion:
an arbitrary decision.
2.
decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.

It can have multiple meanings, INCLUDING random. I didn't mean Random, and I spelled that out clearly. Why insist when it's clearly a preposterous stance?

----

I provided examples, too. Real, verifieable design choices that are arbitrary.

Without doubt, my point was made.

Now let's move on: rules are arbitrary, this much was proven.

Troacctid

2016-06-23, 02:18 PM

adjective
1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion:
an arbitrary decision.
2.
decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.

It can have multiple meanings, INCLUDING random. I didn't mean Random, and I spelled that out clearly. Why insist when it's clearly a preposterous stance?

----

I provided examples, too. Real, verifieable design choices that are arbitrary.

Without doubt, my point was made.

Now let's move on: rules are arbitrary, this much was proven.
They're not arbitrary in any sense of the word. Classes have the names they have for specific reasons in order to evoke a particular flavor. Your examples are not arbitrary either—different versions of the Half-Orc race play up different aspects of the flavor in varying degrees, but they all follow a deliberate, consistent theme.

Seppo87

2016-06-23, 02:28 PM

different versions of the Half-Orc race play up different aspects of the flavor in varying degrees, but they all follow a deliberate, consistent theme.
...and deciding wether the mechanics should reflect strength, constitution, dexterity or the human inherited versatility, and at which degree of power, is arbitrary.

It's a fact.
Deal with it.

Red Fel

2016-06-23, 02:36 PM

I mean, I guess that's accurate if you ignore the fact that words also have meanings.

To be both fair and pedantic, "words also have meanings" because we gave those words those meanings, until and unless we redefine the word or reassign its meaning. Words are hardly immortal, and have changed (often dramatically), been invented (often by dramatists), and have fallen into disuse (generally unmourned).

And if anyone doubts this position, I will give you a perfect illustration.

In 2005, comedian and satirist Stephen Colbert coined the use of the word "truthiness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness)," which he defined as the tendency of a concept to feel true, even if it is not actually or provably true.1 That word, in its modern definition, has achieved widespread recognition, including winning Merriam-Webster's 2006 "Word of the Year," and can be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/truthiness).

Words have what meanings we, as a society, ascribe to them, until such time as we decide to change them, is what I'm pedantring about.

1 As it happens, the word already existed, but for a different reason - it was simply a rare or dialectic version of "truthfulness" or "faithfulness."

Troacctid

2016-06-23, 02:47 PM

...and deciding wether the mechanics should reflect strength, constitution, dexterity or the human inherited versatility, and at which degree of power, is arbitrary.

It's a fact.
Deal with it.
Okay, some arbitrary decisions exist. But if that's the kind of arbitrariness you're talking about, then I really don't see what your point is. Clearly the name and aesthetics of a class are important, even if it's not a big deal whether "Orc" is spelled with a C or a K.

Seppo87

2016-06-23, 02:49 PM

Okay, some arbitrary decisions exist. But if that's the kind of arbitrariness you're talking about, then I really don't see what your point is. Clearly the name and aesthetics of a class are important, even if it's not a big deal whether "Orc" is spelled with a C or a K.

My point is that the decision of a designer when designing mechanics are not necessarily the best to reflect the fluff,

and

realizing this takes a critical approach

therefore,

when you realize this, you should be able to detach fluff and mechanics in your mind, especially when fluff is not adequately reflected by mechanics

and

this is the case with 3.5 monk and paladin, as they are described as being better at what they do than they actually are.

Red Fel

2016-06-23, 02:51 PM

even if it's not a big deal whether "Orc" is spelled with a C or a K.

I think that's a very big deal.

The spelling lets me know whether I'm playing a high fantasy RPG with too many classes and feat taxes, or a grimdark miniatures game where everything is war and CHAOS and HERESY forever.

I think the difference is substantial.

SethoMarkus

2016-06-23, 02:53 PM

Hecuba

2016-06-23, 03:19 PM

Which we don't, because they're vital mechanical functions of the system.

If you're not using D&D mechanics, you're not actually playing D&D. You're playing a game, sure, but when you ignore the level-based system that is D&D, you're not playing that game.
I meant gloss over them in terms of in-character discussion. Having class as a recognizable trait inside the game world does not necessitate explicitly discussing levels in-character.

Right. So people described as "X" in your setting have a particular class. I get that. But that's a function of this setting, not a function of the game.

Settings are an inherent part of the game. There are several first-party options, even more third-part options, and an infinity of home-brew options.

But there is also a default setting. And the default class fluff tells you have one part of the game (the classes) relate to another (the default setting) when both are in use.
There is a deliberate degree of flexibility involved in that fluff. That does not make the fluff less of an intentionally designed element of the game.

As an aside, how does one measure that? Does anybody ask what they took their last level in? Is there some sort of test? "Perform a number of Turn Undead checks for me?" How can they measure Cleric levels in order to confirm one's qualification for Priest?
For such a setup, one does not become a priest by having turn undead attempts. One becomes a priest by performing whatever in-game actions are related to taking up that vocation (taking holy orders, fasting, ministering to the sick, whatever) and as a result becomes a priest. Becoming a priest, in turn, has some set of results in the game word: some portion of those, like the ability to turn undead, will have mechanical implications important enough to list as a class ability.

But classes are simple meta-game constructs. Yes, there's some fluff attached, but their primary function is to serve as a bundle of abilities. "Take 1 Paladin level and receive the following bits." "Take another three and receive the following bits." That's what a "class" is.
That's certainly one aesthetic outlook for how to treat classes in a game. But it is not be an aesthetic I would generally call a strongly class-based aesthetic. Indeed, I would say that that is about as close as you can get to taking up a class-less aesthetic without actually abandoning classes altogether.

If you are looking for a class to be a central aesthetic element to the game, then that is probably a bad way to treat them.

If you look at how classes are traditionally treated in games that are strongly class-based, they are effectively treated as something similar to a profession.

The fluff tied to the classes in such an outlook is no less a part of the class than the fluff tied to a race is part of that race.

No. A class has no "abilities . . . in the given setting." The mechanical abilities of the class are not an abstraction - the fluff is the abstraction. The mechanical abilities are concrete. The mechanics say, "Look, this is what you can do. Here are the four corners of your abilities." The flavor then gives them shape.

Or, alternately, the class mechanics are a structured, summarized representation (an abstraction) of a set of features common to the characters in the game world who are a member of whatever group that class represents. Just like the race mechanics are an an abstraction of a set of features common to the characters in the game world who are a member of the given race.

The full scope and meaning of "Paladin" is not expressed in the list class abilities any more than the full scope and meaning of "Elf" is expressed by [+2 dex/-2 con/Medium/Speed 30/low-light vision/immunity to sleep/Favored class: wizard/Lists of languages, proficiency, and racial skill bonuses I'm not going to type out].

In both cases, the full meaning also includes a great deal of description about what they are. The fact that some of that description is structured narratively (fluff) instead of mechanically (crunch) does not mean that it is any less descriptive.

The mechanical abilities are the defining features of the class. Without them, you're playing a freeform RPG.

Sorry, I think we are using different definitions of abstraction. That's probably my fault: I'm using a meaning of the word that is a few levels down in its listing in the dictionary - I'd use a synonym if I knew a good one.

What I was pointing out is that each mechanic is an aspect/characteristic common to the characters in a class that is addressed as a thing in and of itself rather than in terms of its relationship with the other features of the characters who are members of that class. The set of mechanics related to the class are a summary of the elements of mechanical importance taken from the class concept for "Paladin." This is an abstraction in the same way that, say, a list of taxonomic characteristics (even-toed ungulate, ruminant, 2 ossicones on the head, 4 to 6 meters tall) is an abstraction of a giraffe.

The brief fluff description at the beginning of class entry, is also an abstraction: it is an abstracted summary of the general narrative character of the class.
There is a great deal of narrative meaning caught up in "Paladin" that is not encompassed in the table of class abilities. There is also a great deal of mechanical interaction that is not encompassed in the fluff. Both are necessary to have a full picture of what "Paladin" represents inside the game world.

To use race for comparison again:
+2 Dex is a mechanical abstraction of Elves being dexterous and graceful. It does not fully encompass that the that dexterity - there is a great deal of narrative meaning lost by distilling it to "+2 Dex."
Likewise, the simply using only the narrative distinctions around Elves being dexterous and graceful misses a great deal of mechanical implications that included in "+2 Dex."

digiman619

2016-06-23, 03:23 PM

Okay, some arbitrary decisions exist. But if that's the kind of arbitrariness you're talking about, then I really don't see what your point is. Clearly the name and aesthetics of a class are important, even if it's not a big deal whether "Orc" is spelled with a C or a K.

I think that's a very big deal.

The spelling lets me know whether I'm playing a high fantasy RPG with too many classes and feat taxes, or a grimdark miniatures game where everything is war and CHAOS and HERESY forever.

I think the difference is substantial.

But what about Orques?

ExLibrisMortis

2016-06-23, 03:30 PM

There's more than just the webcomic. There are also options presented for the leveling process that involve explicit training.
I assume you mean the DMG alternative rules, page 197 and onwards. Interestingly, these don't give any reason to mention 'levels' in-universe: the rules don't actually support your point. Rather the contrary - using training rules, level-ups are much less discrete and more smooth and gradual, like actual training on regular Earth, so you have less reason to mention them in-character.

Following up on your previous idea, that classes are known in-universe, the training rules do somewhat support that notion. From the alternate rule on class abilities: "Training requires a character to train with a character of the same class who is higher in level". It doesn't state whether this is character level or class level, which is a bit of an oversight - as usual, multiclassing is forgotten - but I think they mean class level (or maybe just both). So while there is some support for treating classes as in-universe entities, but it's in a rarely-used variant rule. I wouldn't particularly consider that a great source, considering that the rest of the game is trying hard to tell you that classes are not a thing, in-universe.

Having class as a recognizable trait inside the game world does not necessitate explicitly discussing levels in-character.
I don't agree with this. Either you discuss game mechanics, including levels, class, XP, base attack, and Uncanny Dodge, or you don't, and just discuss the effects on the world. I don't like arbitrarily deciding that 'class' is represented in-universe, and 'XP' is not. Of the two choices, I prefer to play in a world where the game mechanics are used to shape the story, but in-universe justification is provided by real-world style laws of nature.

SethoMarkus

2016-06-23, 03:42 PM

For such a setup, one does not become a priest by having turn undead attempts. One becomes a priest by performing whatever in-game actions are related to taking up that vocation (taking holy orders, fasting, ministering to the sick, whatever) and as a result becomes a priest. Becoming a priest, in turn, has some set of results in the game word: some portion of those, like the ability to turn undead, will have mechanical implications important enough to list as a class ability.

So under this philosophy, is it possible to have a Cleric who is not a priest? Or for a priest who is not a Cleric? (In 3.5 terms) In a given setting, sure, most priests of an order are Clerics (or Archivists, or Favored Souls, etc), and most Clerics are priests, or at least were part of some religious order at one point in time. But can an Expert act as the chaplain and priest of a small community? Can a Rogue be the highest religious leader of a religion centered around theft and deceit, or must she have Divine spellcasting ability to be a bishop of the religion?

There are Paladins (the class), and paladins (the concept, or the aesthetic). It is fine, and natural, for them to overlap, but one does not require the other. An attachment to the class name and its fluff is not an aesthetic decision, it is a decision of simplicity and ease of understanding, and that is not a bad thing. Play a Paladin, and until otherwise expressed, the other players at the table will likely view that character as a stalwart defender of all that is good and just. Play a Lawful Good Fighter with ranks in Knowledge(Religion) who prays before each battle and wields a Good aligned weapon, and there are chances they won't even be able to tell the difference (at least not right away).

Don't get me wrong, I love to apply the aesthetic theme to the class, and I'll sooner play a Paladin rather than a Crusader, but it is because of simplicity and directness, not because a Crusader is any less of a paladin (the concept).

Hecuba

2016-06-23, 04:04 PM

I wouldn't particularly consider that a great source, considering that the rest of the game is trying hard to tell you that classes are not a thing, in-universe.
I would disagree that the game is telling you that. There are plenty of places where they tell you that it can be a thing and is by default in many cases: druidic is known only and always by druids, and Mages of the Arcane Order are all all mages who are members of the Arcane Order.

I would say rather that it is telling you that:

it doesn't have to be a thing (the present various levels of integration of class fluff and setting are presented for different classes)
changing the fluff is a great way to adapt the class to your needs (adaptation write-ups and the guidance on world-building)
changing the crunch is also a great idea to adapt the class to your needs (ACFs/class variants and the guidance on creating new classes)

Troacctid

2016-06-23, 04:13 PM

My point is that the decision of a designer when designing mechanics are not necessarily the best to reflect the fluff,

and

realizing this takes a critical approach

therefore,

when you realize this, you should be able to detach fluff and mechanics in your mind, especially when fluff is not adequately reflected by mechanics

and

this is the case with 3.5 monk and paladin, as they are described as being better at what they do than they actually are.

Just because classes are poorly designed doesn't mean aesthetics don't matter in game design.

Hecuba

2016-06-23, 05:13 PM

So under this philosophy, is it possible to have a Cleric who is not a priest? Or for a priest who is not a Cleric?

If you are mapping Cleric to the in-game role of "Priest", then the answers to your questions are "maybe" and "no" (respectively). The "maybe" depends on whether you are mapping anything else to cleric in the setting.

You could take the strongest possible form of a class-based design aesthetic and always insist on a strict 1-to-1 correspondence: under such an aesthetic, the "maybe" would become a "no" as well. I would argue, however, that is one extreme that neither 3.5 nor any other version of D&D has made any effort to support. (If you go back far enough that "elf" was still a class rather than a race, you find that "magic-user" becomes indistinct). There are systems where that works: if you are running a Star Wars RPG where Jedi is a class, then you're probably in that neighborhood.

But D&D has bent over backwards to accommodate class mapping to something in-setting, and they have done so in every remotely recent version. It's never an required or enforced option, and whether or not WOTC designers happen to use it is highly inconsistent.

But they do make space for it, and it is an outlook used throughout 3e/3.5 edition - especially for Prestige Classes, and occasionally for base classes (though that trend seems to me to be more a matter the vast gulf between the initial vision of PRCs and the emergent role for them).

There are Paladins (the class), and paladins (the concept, or the aesthetic). It is fine, and natural, for them to overlap, but one does not require the other.
If your aesthetic approach to the game is strongly centered around the idea of a class-based game, it is not just fine and natural for them to overlap. Rather, it is an explicitly desirable goal and the hallmark of a well designed class.

SethoMarkus

2016-06-23, 05:25 PM

If you are mapping Cleric to the in-game role of "Priest", then the answers to your questions are "maybe" and "no" (respectively). The "maybe" depends on whether you are mapping anything else to cleric in the setting.

You could take the strongest possible form of a class-based design aesthetic and always insist on a strict 1-to-1 correspondence: under such an aesthetic, the "maybe" would become a "no" as well. I would argue, however, that is one extreme that neither 3.5 nor any other version of D&D has made any effort to support. (If you go back far enough that "elf" was still a class rather than a race, you find that "magic-user" becomes indistinct). There are systems where that works: if you are running a Star Wars RPG where Jedi is a class, then you're probably in that neighborhood.

But D&D has bent over backwards to accommodate class mapping to something in-setting, and they have done so in every remotely recent version. It's never an required or enforced option, and whether or not WOTC designers happen to use it is highly inconsistent.

But they do make space for it, and it is an outlook used throughout 3e/3.5 edition - especially for Prestige Classes, and occasionally for base classes (though that trend seems to me to be more a matter the vast gulf between the initial vision of PRCs and the emergent role for them).

If your aesthetic approach to the game is strongly centered around the idea of a class-based game, it is not just fine and natural for them to overlap. Rather, it is an explicitly desirable goal and the hallmark of a well designed class.

I don't find any fault in a game being played in such a way that you describe, but I have never played in or seen a gameplay of a game where the classes are used as an in-game, in-character construct. Sure, they can and do overlap (the barbarian is a Barbarian), but sometimes they don't (barbarian 2 is a Ranger, and barbarian 3 is their shamen, a Druid).

Again, it's all fine to play a game in a setting where the Fighter is a fighter and is referred to as such, but I don't believe than the majority consider that the norm. I'm not saying it is a minority position, either, but I accept that both are valid and equally acceptable interpretations. A Crusader can be the epitome of steteotypical paladins, and the Paladin can be anything but (looking at you Paladin of Tyranny).

Seppo87

2016-06-23, 05:30 PM

Just because classes are poorly designed doesn't mean aesthetics don't matter in game design.

I never said anything remotely similar to "aesthetics don't matter"

I said the way mechanics and aesthetics are associated is a choice made by designers that can be questioned and changed.

ExLibrisMortis

2016-06-23, 05:59 PM

I would disagree that the game is telling you that. There are plenty of places where they tell you that it can be a thing and is by default in many cases: druidic is known only and always by druids, and Mages of the Arcane Order are all all mages who are members of the Arcane Order.

I would say rather that it is telling you that:

it doesn't have to be a thing (the present various levels of integration of class fluff and setting are presented for different classes)
changing the fluff is a great way to adapt the class to your needs (adaptation write-ups and the guidance on world-building)
changing the crunch is also a great idea to adapt the class to your needs (ACFs/class variants and the guidance on creating new classes)

The specific reference to an organization of MotAOs suggests that it is not the default; members of a given prestige class are not usually known by that prestige class in game. The same applies to Paragnostic Apostles, Red Wizards, Holt Wardens, and Jade Phoenix Mages, for example - the organisations involved are all explicitly called out in the requirements. The basic assumption is that prestige classes do not correspond to an in-universe organization.

Druids are absolutely an oddity, with Druidic as weird special language, but Druidic is not unique to druids. Non-druids can learn Druidic through the Loremaster prestige class and the epic Polyglot feat, but also by paying a Blighter.

As for your list, I disagree about 1: I think it's assumed to be the default that it [in-universe classes] is not a thing, and no suggestion or reason is ever given to make it a thing; the authors consider it self-evident that fighters can be all sorts of things in-game (bodyguard, swordmaster, horse archer), for example, and the same for other classes.

Milo v3

2016-06-23, 06:52 PM

Didn't notice this till now, but at the start of the class chapter the 3.5e players handbook actually says class fluff isn't strictly true. You can become a sorcerer by studying magic, you can be a paladin who got their power from the gods, you can be a monk who has never seen a monastery, you can be a cleric while hating the god you get power from and might not have ever been a priest, etc.

Also, I do want to say that because of the very small number of PC classed individuals in most settings, saying "You can't be a priest unless you have cleric powers" is a pretty dumb move recruitment wise.

Also, if your setting does have classes as in-setting things.... How do you deal with things like Hexblades and Duskblades both being "Martial with casting", how do you know whether someone is a beguiler or an enchantment/illusion focused sorcerer, how do you know if the medic is a cleric with a focus on healing or a healer, how do you tell the difference between a scout and a rogue, how do you tell the difference between a scout/rogue and a rogue, how do you tell the difference between a warlord and a fighter, how do you tell the difference between a fighter and a warrior?

I don't even want to imagine how it'd work in a game like Pathfinder where there are billions of archetypes.

Hecuba

2016-06-23, 09:59 PM

The specific reference to an organization of MotAOs suggests that it is not the default; members of a given prestige class are not usually known by that prestige class in game. The same applies to Paragnostic Apostles, Red Wizards, Holt Wardens, and Jade Phoenix Mages, for example - the organisations involved are all explicitly called out in the requirements. The basic assumption is that prestige classes do not correspond to an in-universe organization.

I'm not saying the correspond specifically to a individual orginization, but many of them do seem to correspond to something in game. Dread Pirate, Eunuch Warlock, war weaver, sypmaster, and many PRCs have fairly well defined narrative ideas they correspond to.

Druids are absolutely an oddity, with Druidic as weird special language, but Druidic is not unique to druids. Non-druids can learn Druidic through the Loremaster prestige class and the epic Polyglot feat, but also by paying a Blighter.

Yes, there are ways to get around the secret language element, but the secret language emphasizes that there is generally something recognizable about Druids in the game world. If a character went out of their way to learn Druid from a blighter in order to pass themselves off as a druid, it would seem relatively apparent from a narrative sense that they are misrepresenting themselves by doing so. That's fine, you're character is free to lie.

As for your list, I disagree about 1: I think it's assumed to be the default that it [in-universe classes] is not a thing, and no suggestion or reason is ever given to make it a thing; the authors consider it self-evident that fighters can be all sorts of things in-game (bodyguard, swordmaster, horse archer), for example, and the same for other classes.

I didn't say it was universal: its a significant element for druids, a notable element for clerics and paladins, and (as you rightly point out) so weak its almost non-existant for the fighter. 3.5 is not at all consistent in what kind of game design aesthetics it uses (often even within the same book), both in terms of class and otherwise.

But it is that it's a well-supported and often directly addressed option. You have variant systems to support training. You have things like adaptation treatments and ACFs that provide guidance on altering how things fit into the world (which wouldn't be meaningful if there wasn't a default to change with the adaptation). You have a plethora of ACFs and PRCs tied to things like specific deities or specific organizations or specific life experiences.

Didn't notice this till now, but at the start of the class chapter the 3.5e players handbook actually says class fluff isn't strictly true. You can become a sorcerer by studying magic, you can be a paladin who got their power from the gods, you can be a monk who has never seen a monastery, you can be a cleric while hating the god you get power from and might not have ever been a priest, etc.

I'm not saying that you should are are in anyway discouraged from re-fluffing things. You are actively encouraged to do so in the core rulebooks. You are also actively given guidance on homebrewing new classes.
But if if your aesthetic goals for the system include classes representing something in the gameworld rather than merely being metagame constructs, then it is important to recognize that both options represent you making changes to that representational system. And it is important to have a clear idea of what you want the class in question to represent narratively after your changes.

Also, I do want to say that because of the very small number of PC classed individuals in most settings, saying "You can't be a priest unless you have cleric powers" is a pretty dumb move recruitment wise.
People seem to be routinely putting switching up cause and effect as it relates to that example. If the class "Cleric" represents the abilities of a priest in game, then you gain the abilities listed under "Cleric" as a result of living as a priest.

Classes represent the results of defined narrative choices, not the other way around. Your character does not study arcane magic by gaining a level of wizard: he gains a level of wizard by pursuing a study of arcane magic.

Bob the dirt farmer is not a meek peasant as a result of having only commoner levels: he has only commoner levels because those are the levels we use to represent the results of living as a meek peasant. If he started living a more adventurous life, his next level would probably be in a different class.

Also, if your setting does have classes as in-setting things.... How do you deal with things like Hexblades and Duskblades both being "Martial with casting", how do you know whether someone is a beguiler or an enchantment/illusion focused sorcerer, how do you know if the medic is a cleric with a focus on healing or a healer, how do you tell the difference between a scout and a rogue, how do you tell the difference between a scout/rogue and a rogue, how do you tell the difference between a warlord and a fighter, how do you tell the difference between a fighter and a warrior?
For each of those items you are including in the game, you establish what the class is going to represent in the game world. You flesh-out the fluff and make a distinction between edge cases. Again, it is important to get the cause and effect right.

A scout is not a scout by virtue of having skirmish: they gain skirmish as a mechanical way to represent the skills they gained by honing their craft of scouting in dangerous environments. A rogue is not a rogue by virtue of having sneak attack: rather she gains sneak attack along with the rest of the Rogue package - both narrative and mechanical - by eeking out a meager living as a vagabond or a fabulous living as a jewel thief or whatever it is you decide the class rogue is supposed to represent.

As to how you distinguish the two: how would you distinguish a military scout from a jewel thief in real life?

I don't even want to imagine how it'd work in a game like Pathfinder where there are billions of archetypes.

Generally, it would not. Pathfinder chose deliberately to tie those aesthetic choices to archetypes instead of classes.

Milo v3

2016-06-23, 11:08 PM

I'm not saying that you should are are in anyway discouraged from re-fluffing things. You are actively encouraged to do so in the core rulebooks. You are also actively given guidance on homebrewing new classes.
I'm not talking about refluffing, it has a bit on saying that the fluff only applies to "most" members of the class.

But if if your aesthetic goals for the system include classes representing something in the gameworld rather than merely being metagame constructs, then it is important to recognize that both options represent you making changes to that representational system. And it is important to have a clear idea of what you want the class in question to represent narratively after your changes.
I agree, I simply don't agree that D&D did that.

People seem to be routinely putting switching up cause and effect as it relates to that example. If the class "Cleric" represents the abilities of a priest in game, then you gain the abilities listed under "Cleric" as a result of living as a priest.
Then there either would be a ridiculously large number of clerics since it's not that hard to become a priest or many many many priests wouldn't become clerics as part of them becoming a priest and retain what they were before, meaning that class doesn't actually have an in-game allocation properly anymore since you'd have ranger priests/druid priests/fighter priests/aristocrat priests/etc.

A scout is not a scout by virtue of having skirmish: they gain skirmish as a mechanical way to represent the skills they gained by honing their craft of scouting in dangerous environments. A rogue is not a rogue by virtue of having sneak attack: rather she gains sneak attack along with the rest of the Rogue package - both narrative and mechanical - by eeking out a meager living as a vagabond or a fabulous living as a jewel thief or whatever it is you decide the class rogue is supposed to represent.

As to how you distinguish the two: how would you distinguish a military scout from a jewel thief in real life?
Except that there is nothing that actually causes you to be a criminal as a rogue (the rogues fluff actually says the opposite, saying rogues are ridiculously varied in what aesthetic/fluff that the rogue represents).... And nothing that causes you to be a military scout in scout. The difference would be profession, but turns out, class doesn't force you into a single profession in D&D, otherwise there'd be a lot stricter rules on the profession skill wouldn't there?

Rogue even says in it's fluff that it represents scouts. Scout is one of the aesthetics of rogue. A scout aesthetic character can be made as a scout or rogue without refluffing either class, because both share the same aesthetic. So, how do you tell these two guys appart?

Generally, it would not. Pathfinder chose deliberately to tie those aesthetic choices to archetypes instead of classes.
The classes have aesthetics as well in Pathfinder, especially since there are things like Paladin/Warpriest/Cleric/Battle Oracle all potentially covering the same fluff in being a holy warrior without even touching archetypes.

Hecuba

2016-06-24, 08:37 AM

I'm not talking about refluffing, it has a bit on saying that the fluff only applies to "most" members of the class.
If that fluff apply to most of the members of the class, but not to the one a member of it, then definitionally you must be writing new fluff for the class for use with (at minimum) that member.
You may not be applying it across the board, but you are absolutely re-fluffing.

Moreover, this situation is no different than it is for mechanics. Most fighters get feats at even levels. Some don't: they get sneak attack or some other ACF instead. That does not change the fact that the feats at even levels are a core element of the Fighter class.

I agree, I simply don't agree that D&D did that.
3.5 D&D doesn't do that reliably do that or force you to do that, but it does reliably provide the tools for you to do that. And it occasionally does it for some classes.
I'm not saying it is a required element of 3.5: I'm saying that it's a deliberately supported way to play 3.5

Then there either would be a ridiculously large number of clerics since it's not that hard to become a priest or many many many priests wouldn't become clerics as part of them becoming a priest and retain what they were before, meaning that class doesn't actually have an in-game allocation properly anymore since you'd have ranger priests/druid priests/fighter priests/aristocrat priests/etc.
Multi-classing in no way breaks the aesthetic in question. If someone lives as a priest (resulting in cleric levels) and later chooses to spend their life communing with nature (let's say that results in druid levels), the expected result would be Cleric X/Druid Y.
It may make it harder for a character to assess them on casual interaction, but it should still be apparent to someone who knew them and their past.

Except that there is nothing that actually causes you to be a criminal as a rogue (the rogues fluff actually says the opposite, saying rogues are ridiculously varied in what aesthetic/fluff that the rogue represents).... And nothing that causes you to be a military scout in scout. The difference would be profession, but turns out, class doesn't force you into a single profession in D&D, otherwise there'd be a lot stricter rules on the profession skill wouldn't there?
Again, I'm not saying that all rouges are cat burglers, but rather that if you choose to represent the skills of a cat burglers with rogue then you should consistently represented. The class need not map to a single in game idea, but if you're representing an in-game idea with a class than it should map back to that class reliably.

Rogue even says in it's fluff that it represents scouts. Scout is one of the aesthetics of rogue. A scout aesthetic character can be made as a scout or rogue without refluffing either class, because both share the same aesthetic. So, how do you tell these two guys apart?

You start here.

For each of those items you are including in the game, you establish what the class is going to represent in the game world.
In all likelihood, you are already doing this for the character in question to some extent. You probably have a idea of what that level of Scout represents in their life. The difference is merely a matter of generalizing it as part of world building and using it consistently.

As I previously noted, there are certainly classes in 3.5 where the demarcation with other classes is not well-defined. But there is nothing preventing you from defining it.

It's also worth noting that working under this aesthetic almost requires an outlook on supplements more similar to the original guidance (everything outside core is only available at the discretion of the DM) rather than the emergent trend of presumed availability of most resources. This isn't because of any idea that core is more balanced, but rather a matter of knowing what elements need to be built into the setting.

The classes have aesthetics as well in Pathfinder, especially since there are things like Paladin/Warpriest/Cleric/Battle Oracle all potentially covering the same fluff in being a holy warrior without even touching archetypes.

There are certainly aesthetics represented by classes in PF, but there are typically more general (with the archetypes adding an additional degree of specificity).