How Fluff Restrictions Hurt the Game

[Easy_Lee]

There are a lot of restrictions on character mechanics in 5e. You can't make an extra attack via TWF unless you take the attack action first. Rogues can only sneak attack with ranged and finesse weapons. Barbarian Reckless Attack only works if you use Strength for the attack. The two Power Attack feats only work with Heavy and Ranged weapons, putting all other sorts of weapons at a DPR disadvantage. And so on.

Many of these restrictions pigeonhole characters into particular builds. My favorite example is the Bladesinger. Not only is this wizard archetype restricted to elf, but its primary feature does not work if the character wears armor that isn't light, equips a shield, or uses two hands to make an attack. The Hexblade, who fills a similar role, has none of these limitations.

Some restrictions are likely done for balance reasons, such as paladins being unable to smite with ranged attacks, thus giving them a weakness. But many more of them are pure fluff. I hate these sorts of restrictions. What if someone wants to build a thief acrobat Rogue, but can't do so because quarterstaves aren't finesse? What if someone wants to play an elf Barbarian, but finds that he's unable to do so without penalizing his primary attack attribute?

It seems to me that the only true purpose of any of these restrictions is to force players to fit the intended "fluff," whatever it may be, even if they don't want to.

[lunaticfringe]

I don't enforce fluff. I think it's a table & individual thing. One of my players like to play bookstandard examples of race/class so I try to leave room for that, but I like weird & imaginitive. It's stupid easy to refluff & reskin because no mechanics change.

Ah well, to each there own. My way is just my way, not the right way.

[Aett_Thorn]

I don't view it the same way, at least partially.

In 2E, you were restricted to which class you could even PLAY based on your race. If you weren't the right race, you couldn't play a Paladin, for example. In 3E, if you weren't the right alignment, you were locked out of some classes. 5E is a lot better in that regard than it has been.

Bladesinger restricts you to light armor, but most Wizards can't even wear that, so it's still an improvement, and giving a full Wizard access to heavy armor would probably be imbalanced without some sort of penalty (such as needing to spend a level on Cleric or Fighter). Does it restrict character concepts? Somewhat. But if you want to be a heavy-armor wearer who has access to magic, there are options for that. Even the race restriction can be waived based on your DM - the SCAG basically says that the DM can waive it for his/her world if they want, the restriction is just for stock FR. And don't get me started on the Hexblade - that subclass was not the right way to fix bladelocks, IMO, and this is one of the reasons why.

I do agree on the GWM/Sharpshooter weirdness. I don't know why Sharpshooter doesn't apply to all ranged attacks, and GWM was replaced with something like "Power Attack", which could be used on any melee attack.

It's not impossible for any character of any race to be a certain class...it just might be harder for them to do and take more time to master (more ASIs needed to get to max stat). But I think that it also fits within the scheme of worldbuilding. Certain races are going to fill certain niches that are better at some things rather than others. It doesn't mean that those races can't be something atypical for their race, but it makes those atypical choices rarer, which makes sense to me.

[KorvinStarmast]

It seems to me that the only true purpose of any of these restrictions is to force players to fit the intended "fluff," whatever it may be, even if they don't want to. Then play a different class.

The desire to make all classes close in power leads to a lot of "you get this neat thing but not that neat thing" such that Pun Pun and tiers are mostly avoided.

Classes and archetypes are each supposed to provide a slightly different play experience. Otherwise, why have classes at all?

[Easy_Lee]

Bladesinger restricts you to light armor, but most Wizards can't even wear that, so it's still an improvement, and giving a full Wizard access to heavy armor would probably be imbalanced without some sort of penalty (such as needing to spend a level on Cleric or Fighter).

Bladesinging specifically does not work if you wear medium or heavy armor or use a shield. Any wizard except a Bladesinger can take a level of life cleric and wear heavy armor without penalty. That's why I called this specifically a fluff restriction. It prevents interesting concepts, such as Tiefling Hexblade / Bladesinger, from working even if your DM lifted the elf restriction.


Then play a different class.

The desire to make all classes close in power leads to a lot of "you get this neat thing but not that neat thing" such that Pun Pun and tiers are mostly avoided.

Classes and archetypes are each supposed to provide a slightly different play experience. Otherwise, why have classes at all?

I don't think you understood my post. I'm not advocating buffs for anyone. I'm advocating against restrictions that exist only for fluff reasons. For example, just because you can't imagine a non-elf Bladesinger, or just because it doesn't fit your idea of the lore, doesn't mean I should be prevented from playing one. It has nothing to do with classes being distinct.

[Aett_Thorn]

Bladesinging specifically does not work if you wear medium or heavy armor or use a shield. Any wizard except a Bladesinger can take a level of life cleric and wear heavy armor without penalty. That's why I called this specifically a fluff restriction. It prevents interesting concepts, such as Tiefling Hexblade / Bladesinger, from working even if your DM lifted the elf restriction.



Without the light armor restriction, you could have a Bladesinger with Plate, a Shield, and the +5 from Int for a total of 25 AC. It's not necessarily just a fluff restriction, but a fluff restriction that allows for a mechanical benefit on the other side (allowing for the +Int to AC). Without that fluff restriction, for balance, you'd probably need to take that out, which would lead to the opposite side that most Bladesingers would NEED to take a level of Fighter for heavy armor proficiency in order to be able to perform at all on the front lines/as a skirmisher. Hexblade doesn't get +Cha to AC, so they can get some better armor.

[Naanomi]

Everything is a fluff restriction based on a loose enough definition... spell lists, why? Racial stat modifiers... why? Distinct races at all... why?

Unless you move to a much more ‘freeform’ game system (Hero System?) you are going to have barriers like this, it is just about where your tolerance for them ends

[Ganymede]

I agree with the OP here.

I am not a fan of double-layered restrictions on abilities. One example is the barbarian: it does not have heavy armor proficiency, and it has additional limitations on the effectiveness of its abilities if it ever does get heavy armor proficiency. Other classes have similar double-layered restrictions. I simply don't get it.

There's also the weird selectivity in what weapon style training classes get: there certainly isn't a balance reason why paladins can't take two weapon fighting training or why rangers can't take great weapon training, and any thematic reasons for it are paper thin.

[Soleil]

I do agree on the GWM/Sharpshooter weirdness. I don't know why Sharpshooter doesn't apply to all ranged attacks, and GWM was replaced with something like "Power Attack", which could be used on any melee attack.

I don't think someone with a weapon and shield should be able to benefit from GWM, but if they're using a versatile weapon two-handed I feel that would be okay. I have more of a problem with PAM, though. Great DPR boost restricted to 3 weapons or so. It's not like a glaive lags behind other two-handed heavy weapons anyway.

[Morty]

D&D has always put restrictions for restrictions' sake just about everywhere. 5E removes many, but a fair number remain. Like rogues being restricted to finesse weapons... something that didn't actually exist prior to 4E. That said, some of the restrictions you use as examples don't feel purely fluffy to me.

Power attack equivalents not working with all weapons doesn't strike me as a problem, either. There should be some difference between weapon styles, and we sure as hell won't find it in the weapons table. If there's a problem, it's that the other styles' gimmicks aren't as good in comparison.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't think you understood my post. The restriction makes sense if you play an FR game, since that is how it was introduced in terms of its place in the setting, but in any other setting I agree. For an AL game adherence to the WoTC canon/rulings strikes me as completely valid.

The DM is the Master of Rules. A gnome wants to be a blade singer? If it fits the DM's world, sure. Each setting has its own flavor.

Beyond that, when I see complaints about "fluff" I usually write off the post as noise, so the fact that I responded to your post at all means that I recognized it as not just noise. I think you are right it that I did not clearly discern the line you were taking. Thanks for clearing that up.

[MadBear]

First, I'll start by saying that I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but my conclusion is a bit different. I'll just tackle the sneak attack needing a ranged or light weapon. If you removed the restriction, then there is no mechanical reason that every thief isn't using a 2-handed weapon instead of the more iconic weapons of that class.

5e, being more "rulings not rules", makes it then easier for a DM to lift that particular restriction for a PC who may want to break that mold, without ruining the overall iconic archetype.

So I don't think that the fluff is really hurting the game at all. Instead, the fluff is there to give you the iconic norms, and the DM and you should work together to work around them, if you want to break that norm.

If we give everyone the -5/+10 ability (which I don't like anyway, but that's neither here nor there), then the sword and board fighter gets to deal 92% of the damage of a 2-handed weapon user, while also getting a 10% bump in AC.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The people using a single handed weapon have the opportunity to use a shield in their off-hand instead.(and Fighters/Rangers/Paladins get access to the dueling fighting style for +2 dmg)
GWF is supposed to give some meaningful damage boost for people using both hands for offense and can never use a shield with their weapon no matter what classes they pick up.



If we give everyone the -5/+10 ability (which I don't like anyway, but that's neither here nor there), then the sword and board fighter gets to deal 92% of the damage of a 2-handed weapon user, while also getting a 10% bump in AC.
Or what he said.


Bladesinging specifically does not work if you wear medium or heavy armor or use a shield. Any wizard except a Bladesinger can take a level of life cleric and wear heavy armor without penalty. That's why I called this specifically a fluff restriction. It prevents interesting concepts, such as Tiefling Hexblade / Bladesinger, from working even if your DM lifted the elf restriction.
Which it does for balance reasons not fluff. The bladesinger is already a defensive power house it doesn't need the boost from skipping on investing in dexterity.
Barbarians only get Con to AC when they don't wear armor monks only get wisdom to AC when they're armorless.
Why should Bladesong work in fullplate? Its a balance restriction. Fullplate, shield, bladesong and you have a 25AC and that's before casting the shield spell which would stack on top of all that. People pick up the archtype but never even use a weapon they just use the defense options offered and play a straight wizard otherwise.


Bladesong "graces you with supernatural speed, agility, and focus." it makes perfect sense that it won't work in medium armor or with a shield
Just because they have a fluff explanation doesn't mean fluff is the reason and not mechanical or balance restrictions.




I don't think you understood my post. I'm not advocating buffs for anyone. I'm advocating against restrictions that exist only for fluff reasons. For example, just because you can't imagine a non-elf Bladesinger, or just because it doesn't fit your idea of the lore, doesn't mean I should be prevented from playing one. It has nothing to do with classes being distinct.
I don't have the book on hand, but I recall it saying sure you can wave the race restriction if it fits better in your campaign world. Its the Sword Coast Adventures guild so the material is all tailored for The Forgotten Realms where bladesingers would be restricted to Elves. Its a campaign world book first its supposed to contain fluff for the setting.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I’m inclined to agree with OP. But I think I have a better example

Druids. Metal armor. Why not?

[ZZTRaider]

As far as I can tell, there's nothing in 5e to deter you from wearing metal armor as a druid.

Their proficiency entry doesn't say they don't gain proficiency in metal armor, so presumably they still do. It simply states they "won't" wear metal armor. And at a glance, I don't see anything in their class description that causes them to lose access to feature if they break that restriction, so it's more forgiving than previous editions.

Are you playing in a setting where druid will happily wear metal armor? Then ignore the clear fluff that has no mechanical implications and go from there.

[Darth Ultron]

Restrictions stop the game from being a silly immature mess.

Just think of an ''awesome'' D&D game with no restrictions: Ok, so every character would have infinite hit points/all scores and cast wish at will.

Now this type of character sounds great, to the average five year old...they can ''pew pew'' all day long about thier super awesome character that can do anything.

Well, most players don't want a game like that...and the only way to do that is have restrictions.

[Tanarii]

No. They don't hurt the game of D&D, in particular. There's absolutely nothing wrong with rules that reinforce a D&D archetype. The game has a long and successful history of such things. Things like:
- Divine Smite & Eldritch Blast
- Spell Levels
- Druids not Wearing Metal Armor
- Paladins being committed to special rules (oaths in 5e)
- Wizards having a Spellbook
- Rogues are good at "skills"
- Rangers have special features related to certain kinds of enemies
- Rangers cast spells

Pretty much ever class is a case of rules that reinforce the D&D archetype, or create a new one.

(Please note that I'm not using the word fluff or mechanics here, because that's not a rules division I care about.)

[Nettlekid]

For example, just because you can't imagine a non-elf Bladesinger, or just because it doesn't fit your idea of the lore, doesn't mean I should be prevented from playing one. It has nothing to do with classes being distinct.

This is a glib approach that really gets on my nerves. The idea that there's somehow a lack of creativity associated with not permitting every possible permutation of ability score and race and class. I hear this often in more general terms when people dislike the idea of race-based ability score increases and say that "Just because you can't imagine an intelligent Half-Orc Wizard doesn't mean I shouldn't get my extra +2 Int to play one." I would argue the exact opposite, that anyone who demands the scores to fall a certain way is the one lacking the creative drive to play anything except the cliches.

As written, on average a Half-Orc is brawnier and hardier than a High Elf, who is lither and more erudite than an equivalent Half-Orc. That doesn't mean that every Half-Orc is stronger and dumber than every High Elf, but it means that all other things equal the Half-Orc will tend toward strength and the High Elf will tend toward agility and acuity. That's flavor, that's context, that's what makes the races distinct and real and not some featureless blob that can be kitted out with some sort of point-based customization system. Minmaxers will whine that a High Elf having +2 Dex and +1 Int makes them obviously a better choice to be Wizards than a Half-Orc. I don't disagree, and I think that in a campaign world you'd be far more likely to find a High Elf Wizard than a Half-Orc Wizard.

Does any of that stop a player from playing a Half-Orc Wizard? Not in the slightest. You have every capacity to play a Half-Orc Wizard and play with what that means - putting a 15 into Int means you're the smartest Half-Orc around, and just as smart as the smartest Dwarf and Halfling and Wood Elf and as smart or smarter than many, many High Elves. How does that affect your character? Being smarter than most of their kin, and also burlier than most of their Wizardly peers? Be creative with it! Fluff and mechanics synthesize into a character. If you can't get past "High Elves get +1 Int and I cannot possibly be a Wizard without theoretically maximizing my Int" then I'm not sure this creative world exploration game is really your thing.

[Dudewithknives]

You are conflating restrictions and fluff.

Only elves can be a bladesinger is fluff.
Only dwarves being a battlerager is fluff.

A barbarian having to use str for reckless attack is a class feature, not fluff.
A bladesinger not being able to use a class feature in medium or heavy armor or with a shield is a class feature.

Class features are there for balance, they are not fluff. Changing them to let people do something they can't by the book is not refluffing, it is a houserule.

I do think that some restrictions are stupid as well, like the idea that bracers of archery do not work for crossbows, or that a quarterstaff can be used for PAM but a spear can't.

However that is what the rules say they do, or don't do, that is not fluff, it is raw.

Letting a bladesinger use medium or heavy armor or use a shield is no different than letting a red draconian sorcerer just throw that lightning bolt as fire instead of lightning.

It is just a straight power upgrade by removing a class ability restriction, not a "fluff" change.

[Kurald Galain]

Fluff restrictions are a great benefit to the game.

This is because they reinforce the world that your character lives in, making it more consistent and more believable. This is a boon to storytelling and roleplaying.

If you want an exception to a restriction, you can always ask your DM. Hopefully most DMs will find an exception that fits your backstory more compelling than an exception merely to increase your DPR. Sure, there's always a few restrictions in a system that make zero sense (a classic one is game designers not knowing the difference between a Dennis The Menace slingshot and a military sling...) but the principle of fluff restrictions is sound. Basically, D&D wouldn't be a roleplaying game any more if it didn't have fluff restrictions.

[Laundry55]

DnD seems to have a conflicted identity ATM. Some people want it to adhere to traditions from older editions, and some people want it to take a more modern approach. Seems the former is a more popular viewpoint though, because 4e was very unpopular.

If these kinds of restrictions bother you, maybe try a different game?

I do think 5e would be better for having less restrictions. For example, I think each character should get +2 to one stat, and +1 to another, regardless of race, but I just accept that DnD doesn't do things that way when I play DnD.

[Caelic]

If I want a system where I can design my character from the ground up, without restrictions, there are already systems for that. If I want to do it on a heroic level, I'll use GURPS. If I want to do it on a superheroic level, I'll use Hero.

If I want to play D&D, I'll play D&D.

[Tanarii]

DnD seems to have a conflicted identity ATM. Some people want it to adhere to traditions from older editions, and some people want it to take a more modern approach. Seems the former is a more popular viewpoint though, because 4e was very unpopular.I loved 4e from the moment I opened it until Mearls destroyed it with Essentials. I love traditions from older editions. Am I some kind of schizophrenic aberration? (Not going to discount that possibility. :smallwink: )

I mean, I'd be perfectly happy if they brought back class restrictions for races. That was one of my least favorite 3e changes.

Conversely, I loved open multiclassing on a per level basis ... up until it became apparent what a disaster that concept is. Thankfully 5e had the balls to make that an Optional rule. Unfortunately AL didn't.

Edit: Also, I think I object to the idea that being able to put everything together however you like is a "modern approach", if that's what you meant. That's GURPS, which has been around forever. It has it's problems.

[Morty]

DnD seems to have a conflicted identity ATM. Some people want it to adhere to traditions from older editions, and some people want it to take a more modern approach. Seems the former is a more popular viewpoint though, because 4e was very unpopular.

If these kinds of restrictions bother you, maybe try a different game?

I do think 5e would be better for having less restrictions. For example, I think each character should get +2 to one stat, and +1 to another, regardless of race, but I just accept that DnD doesn't do things that way when I play DnD.

D&D had had a conflicted identity since pretty much forever, certainly from 3E onward. It doesn't know what it is or what it should be.

Anyway, when you restrict something, you need to consider if it's actually beneficial. A bladesinger being unable to wear heavy armour prevents stacking too much AC and preserves their role. A bladesinger being always an elf does... what, exactly?

A barbarian being forced to use strength... I wouldn't call it a fluff restriction, really. Just the barbarian being a one-note class that really shouldn't exist. And strength needing such restrictions in order not to be obsolete. Which is a problem, but with the rules.

[Laundry55]

I loved 4e from the moment I opened it until Mearls destroyed it with Essentials. I love traditions from older editions. Am I some kind of schizophrenic aberration? (Not going to discount that possibility. :smallwink: )

I mean, I'd be perfectly happy if they brought back class restrictions for races. That was one of my least favorite 3e changes.

Conversely, I loved open multiclassing on a per level basis ... up until it became apparent what a disaster that concept is. Thankfully 5e had the balls to make that an Optional rule. Unfortunately AL didn't.

Edit: Also, I think I object to the idea that being able to put everything together however you like is a "modern approach", if that's what you meant. That's GURPS, which has been around forever. It has it's problems.

Modern was the wrong word to use. I'm probably a bit inexperienced to weigh in on this, honestly. I have only played 5e and GURPS. I only have cursory and anecdotal knowledge of other editions of DnD. I don't have any connection to DnD traditions.

The reason I moved from 5e to GURPS as my main ttrpg is the restrictions on the system, and the strict attitudes towards rules and restrictions from most people I played with.

'Out of the box' GURPS to me is extremely unplayable. The thing I like is that players and gms are open to changing things to make the game work better for the group. No one cares that I don't use everything exactly as it says in the book when I play GURPS.

When I play DnD, and want to change a minor ability, or create a spell (using the rules in the dmg), or play a cleric (for mechanics), but use the fluff for a wizard, warlock, sorceror or bard people lose their ****.

[Cybren]

There are a lot of restrictions on character mechanics in 5e. You can't make an extra attack via TWF unless you take the attack action first. Rogues can only sneak attack with ranged and finesse weapons. Barbarian Reckless Attack only works if you use Strength for the attack. The two Power Attack feats only work with Heavy and Ranged weapons, putting all other sorts of weapons at a DPR disadvantage. And so on.

Many of these restrictions pigeonhole characters into particular builds. My favorite example is the Bladesinger. Not only is this wizard archetype restricted to elf, but its primary feature does not work if the character wears armor that isn't light, equips a shield, or uses two hands to make an attack. The Hexblade, who fills a similar role, has none of these limitations.

Some restrictions are likely done for balance reasons, such as paladins being unable to smite with ranged attacks, thus giving them a weakness. But many more of them are pure fluff. I hate these sorts of restrictions. What if someone wants to build a thief acrobat Rogue, but can't do so because quarterstaves aren't finesse? What if someone wants to play an elf Barbarian, but finds that he's unable to do so without penalizing his primary attack attribute?

It seems to me that the only true purpose of any of these restrictions is to force players to fit the intended "fluff," whatever it may be, even if they don't want to.
Mechanics with diegetic reasoning and narrative resonance are good, actually.

[Laurefindel]

I tend to agree with Naanomi and Dupewithknives

D&D has restrictions. That in itself doesn't hurt the game; it makes it.

A few restrictions are truly based on fluff. Bladesinger needing to be elf is one, and so is the no-metal armor clause on the druid class. While I'm comfortable with these, I can see how they appear arbitrary.

Most restrictions are mechanical, meaning that they attempt (with variable degrees of success) to keep the game balanced and fun for all. Restricting bladesong to light armor and no shield to avoid easy AC of 20+INT and no need for DEX is a balance thing. It also allows a fantasy archetype (lightly armed and armored fighter-mage type) to exist without having to consciously gimp your character.

Those are far from being arbitrary. They may not achieve their goal of balancing the game, but they are not fluff restrictions hurting the game.

[Tanarii]

When I play DnD, and want to change a minor ability, or create a spell (using the rules in the dmg), or play a cleric (for mechanics), but use the fluff for a wizard, warlock, sorceror or bard people lose their ****.Theres some stuff you'd need to get buy in to do that, like the source of their Spells being Divine instead of Arcane. But that doesn't really have a big effect in 5e provided the group buys in.

What's an example of "fluff" from those classes that doesn't work / causes people to lose their mind, other than the source of their magic being Divine?

[Lombra]

Because when crunch and fluff merge together you get a far more intreasting experience rather than a bland "here's what this class represents but you can do whatever you want with it really, because we don't care about how you play your game".

Barbarians are perceived (are intended to be perceived) as primal force, dexterity implies control over the attacks that you perform (as per the PHB description and common RPG knowledge), so making rage and dexterity go together would result in a cacophony of ideals that would make the class less appealing IMO.

Bladesingers are restricted to light armor, so do rogues, where's the problem? Going strength bladesinger would result in the same cacophony as before, but with the opposite feelings, bladesinging is about grace, so what's the point of a full-plate dude with a warhammer calling himself a bladesinger?

You can play a dex fighter and call it a barbarian

You can play a cleric/warlock and call it bladesinger

There isn't a limit to how you can fluff your own characters, so why stop at what the book says? Why can't I be a fierce but elegant force of nature? I can! Just make a fighter and fluff it the way you want it, don't lock class flavours behind class mechanics.

[ad_hoc]

"Fluff" is the game. This framing is backwards.

The whole idea of having classes is to represent archetypes. Those archetypes are realized through abilities and restrictions.

And there are countless restrictions. Every character in the game has countless millions of restrictions put on them in order to create 'fluff'.

The rules allow characters to have identity.

Humans need to eat, dwarves can't fly, fighters don't have laser rifle proficiency, and Bladesingers are elves.

Throw away the notion of rules representing archetypes, theme, etc. (or 'fluff') and there is no game.

[Laundry55]

Theres some stuff you'd need to get buy in to do that, like the source of their Spells being Divine instead of Arcane. But that doesn't really have a big effect in 5e provided the group buys in.

What's an example of "fluff" from those classes that doesn't work / causes people to lose their mind, other than the source of their magic being Divine?


That's generally the major concern. Others include "you can't be a wizard without a spell book", " you can't be a bard without inspiration". I don't like that I have to be a specific archetype instead of just an adventurer who can use magic.

Of all 5e classes, I like the mechanics and spell list of the cleric the most, but I will never play one because I have no interest in RPing a religious character, and no DM I have played with will allow a cleric to not have a deity.

I just want to play a magic user who focuses on healing who has some melee capabilities/armour proficiencies without having a deity or multiclassing, and bard or paladin is not quite what I'm looking for. I would be happy to be a spontaneous casting cleric with spells known equal to cleric level + wisdom mod, no preparing each day, but no DM I know would be happy with that.

I think there is an incongruency between my gaming wants and what DnD provides. I like character creation and customization to be complex and have a meaningful impact on gameplay and 5e just doesn't give me that.

I gave up DMing 5e because I found that running modified GURPS works better for me and my group.

[Kurald Galain]

DnD seems to have a conflicted identity ATM. Some people want it to adhere to traditions from older editions, and some people want it to take a more modern approach.
The point is that D&D needs to have fluff restrictions, NOT that these need to be the exact same ones as in earlier editions.


Because when crunch and fluff merge together you get a far more intreasting experience rather than a bland "here's what this class represents but you can do whatever you want with it really, because we don't care about how you play your game".
Precisely.


"Fluff" is the game. This framing is backwards.

The whole idea of having classes is to represent archetypes. Those archetypes are realized through abilities and restrictions.
And also that.

[Mith]

Of all 5e classes, I like the mechanics and spell list of the cleric the most, but I will never play one because I have no interest in RPing a religious character, and no DM I have played with will allow a cleric to not have a deity.

I just want to play a magic user who focuses on healing who has some melee capabilities/armour proficiencies without having a deity or multiclassing, and bard or paladin is not quite what I'm looking for. I would be happy to be a spontaneous casting cleric with spells known equal to cleric level + wisdom mod, no preparing each day, but no DM I know would be happy with that.

To me that's a table problem, as I am certain I have read about Clerics of Philosophy and Concepts in the 5e handbook.

[MxKit]

Ehhh, I agree with your basic premise, actually, but only some of your examples. Some stuff is fluff, some is not super well thought out mechanics, and some are actual class/race mechanics that are there to balance the class and give it a flavor. Not pure fluff, but something that makes the Barbarian the Barbarian rather than just Guy Get Mad And Attack, Non-Fighter Edition.

Admittedly, I'm not sure what you're saying about TWF, given that you can't make an extra attack without making an attack first, yes. Are you proposing instead a fighting style that lets you, so long as you are holding two weapons, be able to use your action on something other than attacking but still use your bonus action to attack with one of your hands? Because that actually does sound cool, but that's a completely different fighting style, not TWF, and not inherently better than TWF.

But as for the others:


I feel like Rogues being able to Sneak Attack with only those weapons is meant to be a balance issue, but I will say that as a DM, I'd not be too fussed if a player wants to rework certain weapons to be finesse weapons and use them with Sneak Attack, and I know a lot of DMs who would let me as a player ask for that as well so long as I didn't go crazy with it. Quarterstaff is a good example; I'd personally rule that if you're not using it two-handed, it has the finesse quality, but if you are, it doesn't. That would open it up for Sneak Attack. Same with a handaxe or sickle. Basically, so long as you're not trying to be able to use a maul as a Dex weapon and/or Sneak Attack with it, it seems fair enough to adjust things.
Barbarians being powered by blinding anger and Reckless Attacking does seem to imply that they're using Strength to do it, as other people have noted. You might argue that it's just fluff, but the thing is, that fluff is what makes them Barbarians. I think there's room for a Shaman class that also works with animal spirits, ancestral spirits, etc., and can use Dex, but that would be a completely different class, not a Barbarian.
I do agree with you and GWM and Sharpshooter are weird and should probably be opened up. For balance reasons, you might want to keep GWM a little restricted, but I don't see why it shouldn't work with every two-handed weapon/weapon that's being used two-handed, and letting Sharpshooter work with thrown daggers certainly wouldn't break anything or imbalance any power.
As people have pointed out, Bladesinger isn't necessarily restricted to elves only, except in AL play. You'd have to ask your DM, but I think most of them wouldn't care if you were some other race.
That said, I'd open up Bladesinger so that they could two-hand weapons (either one weapon or two), because that does seem like a weird restriction, but people have pointed out that the armor and shield restrictions are definitely a balance issue. While you're bladesinging, you can get up to 27 AC by the end of your career, which is kind of crazy. That said, if someone really wanted to be able to use medium armor with it, I'd say that they can use hide, chain shirts, or scale mail with it, but while wearing any of those armor they can only add a maximum of +3 Intelligence during their bladesong. That seems like it would keep it balanced and would allow the wizard a bit more survivability outside of bladesinging, which they'd be able to get if they multiclassed as any other subclass of wizard anyway.
I did address your thief acrobat Rogue idea above, but...
You can absolutely play an elf Barbarian, you just can't worry about 100% optimization all the time. Actually, if you build your starting stats using point buy, you can actually do almost as well, you just have to think about stat assigning a little differently. Think about this, if you're a Wood Elf, you can get your initial stats to 15, 14, 15, 8, 14, 8. Dex is still pretty good for a Barbarian for initiative, and Wisdom for Perception checks and Wisdom saves. You get five ASIs, and can max out both Strength and Constitution with them, or you can grab a feat and just max Strength if an 18 Con is fine to you. 5e is actually a vast improvement in this regard because 95% of the races don't give negative ability modifiers anymore!
(Speaking of which, I would absolutely houserule that the Kobold and Orc don't get those -2s, because that's dumb.)

Basically, I think you've got a weird mix here of good points, looking at things the wrong way, and assuming players are optimizers by default. I agree that some of the fluff is unnecessarily restrictive and some of the mechanics are silly and arbitrary, but I also don't think it's a huge deal unless you're very invested in playing AL, because in my experience a lot of DMs are willing to work with players so long as they're not obviously trying to game the system.

[KorvinStarmast]

You can absolutely play an elf Barbarian, you just can't worry about 100% optimization all the time. You and I can, but some people who participate on GiTP 5e forums are trapped in the optimization maze and can't get out. Some people seem to me to be Lost in the Funhouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_Funhouse)
The play's the thing. (Shakespeare quoted slightly out of context)

[MxKit]

You and I can, but some people who participate on GiTP 5e forums are trapped in the optimization maze and can't get out. Some people seem to me to be Lost in the Funhouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_Funhouse)
The play's the thing. (Shakespeare quoted slightly out of context)

Well, now I just want to read that book!

Seriously, though—I don't even have a problem with optimizers or optimization. Reading guides and ideas on how to do things like that have helped inspire me and give me ideas on how to build a character well within the often terribly unoptimized frameworks I go with. :smallwink:

The only thing that gets me is when people seem to forget that a lot of players aren't optimizers, and therefore things like an Elf giving +2 Dex and no Strength bonus (unless you go UA Grugach) absolutely won't keep a lot of players from playing an Elf Barbarian if they like the idea. I can totally get being disappointed that your Elf isn't going to be as good a Barbarian out of the box as a Dwarf would be, but saying it forces players out of playing Elf Barbarians isn't really true, IMO.

(Well, another thing that gets me, as in mildly annoys me, is when people doing guides and advice kind of go too far down the optimizing rabbit hole and devalue options that aren't optimized way further than they should be. A lot of stuff gets called a trap option when it really, really isn't, imo. But that's a bit of a digression, I don't think that's happening here. Basically, I'm fine with optimizers, just feels weird when they forget plenty of non-optimizers exist!)

[Laundry55]

To me that's a table problem, as I am certain I have read about Clerics of Philosophy and Concepts in the 5e handbook.

PHB56
"...but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity's wishes"

It's a common problem I have found playing DnD. Maybe I'm just unlucky, and always found tables that aren't very flexible in terms of fluff.

[ad_hoc]

PHB56
"...but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity's wishes"

It's a common problem I have found playing DnD. Maybe I'm just unlucky, and always found tables that aren't very flexible in terms of fluff.

Deities in D&D usually represent some sort of ideal. Some resemble what people in the West think of as religion, the framework of Judaeo-Christian doctrines, worship, and organization. Though even those ones recognize the other gods. Many others do not have priests, temples, or what we think of as worshipers.

Deities are primarily worshiped by doing. A cleric embodies the nature of the deity they worship by doing the thing.

An important thing to keep in mind is that deities are actually real in the fiction. They are really there, no faith or superstition required.

At some point I question the point of playing D&D. Class based systems that create strong archetypes aren't for everyone. The worst designed class in 5e is the fighter because it has the least amount of 'fluff' tied to it. It has little to no identity in the fiction. Stripping that from other classes removes the heart from the game.

[Zilong]

Other than the restrictions being there for balance reasons (no heavy armor bladesinger), I find myself agreeing with the sentiment. Archetypes are nice, but I can do without excess baggage.

As player I like creating characters from a backstory and personality standpoint first then finding the mechanics that fit it best. Sometimes I'll be met with a minor bit of fluff that just doesn't make sense, but the mechanics are a good fit. Luckily, the DMs I've played with are not too hung up on built in fluff.

As a DM I've only run a homebrew setting so far. The setting is quite a bit different than say FR or Greyhawk. This means that a sizable portion of the built in fluff for both races and classes have either been scrapped or changed. FOr instance: the organization that governs magic use on one of the continents would have members ranging from traditional wizards, to sorcerers, and even to clerics. So, for my table, the fluff restrictions tend to get in the way of concepts.

[Laundry55]

Deities in D&D usually represent some sort of ideal. Some resemble what people in the West think of as religion, the framework of Judaeo-Christian doctrines, worship, and organization. Though even those ones recognize the other gods. Many others do not have priests, temples, or what we think of as worshipers.

Deities are primarily worshiped by doing. A cleric embodies the nature of the deity they worship by doing the thing.

An important thing to keep in mind is that deities are actually real in the fiction. They are really there, no faith or superstition required.

At some point I question the point of playing D&D. Class based systems that create strong archetypes aren't for everyone. The worst designed class in 5e is the fighter because it has the least amount of 'fluff' tied to it. It has little to no identity in the fiction. Stripping that from other classes removes the heart from the game.

Yeah I don't run 5e any more because it's just not the ideal game for me. I still play once in a blue moon and keep an eye on it because it is the most popular ttrpg in my area and presumably most places.

[Scyrner]

At my table, I basically ignore exclusively fluff restrictions (like Bladesingers as Elves only or No Metal Armor for Druids). Like most of the folks posting here, however, I feel that very few of the restrictions in 5e are exclusively fluff based, most of them being intended to help balance the game.

On top of that, however, in support of "rulings not rules", I don't see any reason why I, as a DM, would not be willing to lift some mechanical limitations provided the player was willing to meet me half-way. For example, if the player really wanted to play a strength Rogue, I'd probably let them, but I'd firmly request that they limit themselves to weapons lacking the two-handed property. The difference between hitting someone with a Rapier and a Longsword is not really worth noting, given that most of the Rogue's damage is coming from Sneak Attack, and I'd be steering them away from two-handed weapons in order to prevent them from combining Sneak Attack with Great Weapon Master.

On the other hand, no amount of arguing is going to convince me to lift the Bladesinger's restrictions regarding the Bladesong in light armor, as it is, in my opinion (and as mentioned before) more of a mechanical restriction than a fluff restriction.

On the other other hand, at my table, we play quite fast and loose with the "somatic requires a free hand" rule, mostly because I think that, if you're not attacking with your weapon on the same turn, you can take some fingers off to wiggle them, and that makes War Caster less of a feat tax for people playing casters that get weapon (and heaven forbid shield) proficiency.

[Kurald Galain]

As player I like creating characters from a backstory and personality standpoint first then finding the mechanics that fit it best. Sometimes I'll be met with a minor bit of fluff that just doesn't make sense, but the mechanics are a good fit.

Yes, and this is fine. Most DMs will make exceptions for you.

And then there are players that like creating characters from the most powerful rules options and/or DPR, mix-and-matching from all the strongest mechanics they can find, and then either ignoring the fluff entirely or coming up with a sketchy, nonsensical, and self-contradictory backstory. It is against this kind of players that fluff restrictions are in place.

[CantigThimble]

I kind of wonder if 5e might have been better if they had a lot more fluff restrictions. As it is now, I think it's kinda missed the balance. It's open enough that people try to get around all the restrictions but restrictive enough that people chafe at what's left. We get used to getting around restrictions when it's convenient and now we don't want to bother at all. People have the option to make strength, dexterity, wisdom or charisma their weapon attack stat and so they start wondering why they can't use intelligence or constitution.

Can't get the stats you want with the race you want? Why not do away with different race traits altogether. You can imagine druids in plate mail? I'm sure it works in your concept. Want to sneak attack with a maul? Why not!

Maybe if only humans could be paladins, dwarves couldn't cast arcane spells and clerics could only use blunt weapons people would respect the lore instead of tring to remove it. Or at least they'd figure out what restrictions like those are good for their own world and stop treating them like tyranny every time a DM uses some.

[Laundry55]

Can't get the stats you want with the race you want? Why not do away with different race traits altogether. You can imagine druids in plate mail? I'm sure it works in your concept. Want to sneak attack with a maul? Why not

You can use your imagination in a ttrpg? Why not!

I IMAGINE someone sneaking up on you and hitting you with a maul would hurt. Also a whip qualifies for sneak attack. I don't know much about whips or mauls, but I know that whips are loud as all get out, and seem quite unwieldly.

If you are a Goliath rogue with 16 strength, I imagine it would be easier to attack sneakily with a maul than a whip.

I've also never seen anyone wanting to use a maul for sneak attack in person or online, personally.

In my experience, I've only seen people wanting to change rules and abilities to fit character concepts better, not to gain mechanical advantages. I actively encouraged players to do so when I ran 5e.

I think the sneak attack maul rogue is something people speculate about on forums, but never actually want to bring to the table.

The issue I find is that for someone like myself, who only started with 5e, there are a lot of restrictions that seem to limit creativity with character creation, and when I ask to break convention in aid of building a character concept, I am always shut down without more reasoning than "tradition".

[CantigThimble]

People may not specifically say maul, but they do ask why they can't use strength weapons and two-handed weapons.

I'm not saying don't use your imagination, I'm saying use your imagination to decide what restrictions you should have in your own game. And that maybe if 5e had more restrictions codified (and a bit in the DMG about how to modify/swap them, and I don't mean just removing them) then people would appreciate what they bring to the table more.

More specifically, what restrictions bring to the table is that they cut the mediocre sludge of sameness across the board down into something coherent and interesting.

Are paladins, holy warriors bound by an oath, an interesting concept? What if there are different oaths for pretty much any philosophy? What if there were 6 between your last 4 adventuring groups, 2 of them were also dragon-blooded sorcerers and one had a pact with a fiend?

At a certain point the concept ceases to be an interesting or meaningful one because it applies to too many things, it's not restrictive enough and so everything just kinda blends together into character soup. You can't have an exception to the rule unless you first have a rule, and that rule needs to mean something, it can't just be broken whenever anyone wants.

[Kurald Galain]

You can use your imagination in a ttrpg? Why not!
Of course you can. But if your imagination comes up with a highly outlandish concept that would never work in Tolkien/Martinesque works of fiction, then you are not entitled to have this concept get the exact same costs and effects as a common concept that is seen all the time. Some DMs will allow it anyway but this may break suspension-of-disbelief of the other players.

For example, "sneak attack" doesn't mean any arbitrary way of getting a higher DPR; it means to stab somebody in the vital organs. This is why it's not normally allowed with a maul, unless your group is heavily into slapstick.

[Zezzy]

For example, "sneak attack" doesn't mean any arbitrary way of getting a higher DPR; it means to stab somebody in the vital organs. This is why it's not normally allowed with a maul, unless your group is heavily into slapstick.

I've always seen it as just being able to take advantage of catching someone off guard. Restricting it to just stabbing fits the assassin and generic rogue fluff, but clubbing someone in the back of the head or breaking their kneecaps seems like a common and reasonable portrayal of sneak attacking.

Previous editions even mentioned this style of stuff in the sneak attack rules, like using a sap nonlethally to knock out someone with a sneak attack.

About this topic as a whole, I've always felt that fluff was there to give flavor to a character's abilities when the player didn't want to create their own. If a restriction doesn't help balance anything, then it probably shouldn't be there, as it is no gain for those who could have just followed along with the flavor text, and a huge hindrance for those who want to go for more out there characters.

[Zilong]

Of course you can. But if your imagination comes up with a highly outlandish concept that would never work in Tolkien/Martinesque works of fiction, then you are not entitled to have this concept get the exact same costs and effects as a common concept that is seen all the time. Some DMs will allow it anyway but this may break suspension-of-disbelief of the other players.

On the one hand, yes outlandish idea can be a bit of a pain, I have to take exception to one thing here. The idea that Martin or Tolkien, especially Tolkien, are the holy grails to which all character concepts need to conform is a bit exasperating for me. Those examples are exactly the kinds of baggage i was talking about in my previous post. I don't particularly care how Tolkien's ranger works or that Martin's dragons do X (I assume you were talking about ASoIF). As a player I do not appreciate being beholden to those concepts and as a DM, my setting is not their setting. Now if a player in one of my games wants to model a character off Aragorn or Oberyn and asks me for advice, I'll say great and point them in a direction that fits my world. But I won't force everyone to know those references or conform to them in any way that is not pure coincidental.

TLDR: I wish people would stop using Tolkien and certain other fantasy writers as the end-all-be-all to fantasy archetypes. A non-Tolkien concept is just as valid as any other as long as it functions in the given world. (to me, but that should go without saying)

Edit: Apologies, don't mean to derail the thread into a war over who's fantasy peanut butter is tastier.

[Laundry55]

People may not specifically say maul, but they do ask why they can't use strength weapons and two-handed weapons.

I'm not saying don't use your imagination, I'm saying use your imagination to decide what restrictions you should have in your own game. And that maybe if 5e had more restrictions codified (and a bit in the DMG about how to modify/swap them, and I don't mean just removing them) then people would appreciate what they bring to the table more.

More specifically, what restrictions bring to the table is that they cut the mediocre sludge of sameness across the board down into something coherent and interesting.

Are paladins, holy warriors bound by an oath, an interesting concept? What if there are different oaths for pretty much any philosophy? What if there were 6 between your last 4 adventuring groups, 2 of them were also dragon-blooded sorcerers and one had a pact with a fiend?

At a certain point the concept ceases to be an interesting or meaningful one because it applies to too many things, it's not restrictive enough and so everything just kinda blends together into character soup. You can't have an exception to the rule unless you first have a rule, and that rule needs to mean something, it can't just be broken whenever anyone wants.

I am legitimately asking why you can't use sneak attack with strength weapons. Why not? What changes?

I agree that restrictions can help with world building, but in my experience they have only stopped me from enjoying the game, and accessing mechanics that are appealing to me in conjunction with a character concept that is appealing to me.

The reason you see so many paladins, and half-elf multiclassed paladins/sorcerors/warlocks is because they are powerful, and DnD is a game about fighting powerful wizards, warriors and monsters. The way the game is presented encourages optimization. The vast majority of class features are for combat, and combat is the only part of the game to give xp (unless you use milestone or something else).

5e is poorly balanced, even without multiclassing. A half-elf paladin will always outclass a forest gnome sorceror. I don't understand why people are offended by the idea of changing forest gnome scores from +2 Int, +1 dex to +2 cha, +1 dex if I want to play a sorceror instead of a wizard.

I think paladins are a cool concept, and so are rangers. It makes more sense toe to have one class called "martial" which has a heap of customization options to help achieve your character concept.

I mean I do understand, really. It's because it's DnD. I just don't like the way DnD discourages people from playing the way they want, which is why I prefer GURPS.

I think DnD is a worse game for having restrictions so heavily baked into the rules by default.

[Kurald Galain]

I've always seen it as just being able to take advantage of catching someone off guard. Restricting it to just stabbing fits the assassin and generic rogue fluff, but clubbing someone in the back of the head or breaking their kneecaps seems like a common and reasonable portrayal of sneak attacking.

Previous editions even mentioned this style of stuff in the sneak attack rules, like using a sap nonlethally to knock out someone with a sneak attack.

Yes, it doesn't have to be stabbing per se. The point is hitting in the vitals (which includes specific parts of the head). Just whacking in their general direction with a huge hammer hurts for a different reason (i.e. larger damage die + strength, not sneak attack).


TLDR: I wish people would stop using Tolkien and certain other fantasy writers as the end-all-be-all to fantasy archetypes. A non-Tolkien concept is just as valid as any other as long as it functions in the given world. (to me, but that should go without saying)
I agree. And players that want something for a good character concept (that fits whatever world they're playing in) should be given more leeway than players that just want to max out their DPR.

[Laundry55]

Of course you can. But if your imagination comes up with a highly outlandish concept that would never work in Tolkien/Martinesque works of fiction, then you are not entitled to have this concept get the exact same costs and effects as a common concept that is seen all the time. Some DMs will allow it anyway but this may break suspension-of-disbelief of the other players.

For example, "sneak attack" doesn't mean any arbitrary way of getting a higher DPR; it means to stab somebody in the vital organs. This is why it's not normally allowed with a maul, unless your group is heavily into slapstick.

How about if I want to play a lightfoot halfling wizard, and I want to change the racial bonus from +2 dex, +1 cha to +2 dex, +1 Int?

If sneak attack is stabbing someone's vitals, why can a low level rogue sneak attack a high level fighter and they don't die from internal bleeding?

Wouldn't sneak attacking with a maul be more effective against someone in full plate armour?

I do see sneak attack as arbitrary DPR, because of the way AC and HP work in DnD. Scoring a hit doesn't necessarily mean you hit them.

[Kurald Galain]

Scoring a hit doesn't necessarily mean you hit them.

To most players it does.

[Laundry55]

To most players it does.
I just don't buy it. If that is the case, certain characters wearing no armour can be hit by a minotaur with a greataxe and not die or be grievously injured.

I am willing to suspend disbelief, but only to an extent.

[Phoenix042]

I tell my players to use the rules to create mechanically effective characters, then reassign names and descriptions to suite their imagination and concept.

So for example, in one of my games a player is running a pretty standard vuman rogue/ranger crossbow expert, but he describes his character as a cyborg wielding a high-powered rifle and a pair of pistols, with his high perception and stealth resulting from an active camouflage system and advanced lidar.

This sort of freedom makes fluff restrictions glaringly obvious. There are fewer in this edition than in any previous one, but there are still some that really suck. Handwaving them away feels messy, but it's what I've done so far.

Wish they were suggestions and not hard restrictions.

[Kurald Galain]

I just don't buy it. If that is the case, certain characters wearing no armour can be hit by a minotaur with a greataxe and not die or be grievously injured.

Sure. That happens in books and action movies all the time. In fact, it is vastly more common to see a hero that has been hurt dozens of times and is bruised and bleeding and still standing, than to see a hero that has been in a long battle and has miraculously dodged every single blow so far.

[Morty]

For example, "sneak attack" doesn't mean any arbitrary way of getting a higher DPR; it means to stab somebody in the vital organs. This is why it's not normally allowed with a maul, unless your group is heavily into slapstick.

Sneak attack means, to quote, striking subtly and exploiting a foe's distraction. You can do it with any weapon. The reason you can only do it with finesse weapons is either balance or, more likely, something someone threw in without thinking about it too hard. While I could see balance issues arising from letting rogues do it with two-handed weapons, a battleaxe is identical to a rapier.

[Kurald Galain]

Sneak attack means, to quote, striking subtly and exploiting a foe's distraction. You can do it with any weapon. The reason you can only do it with finesse weapons is either balance or, more likely, something someone threw in without thinking about it too hard.

"Striking subtly" is antithetical to "using a zweihander".

[Rhedyn]

There are a lot of restrictions on character mechanics in 5e. You can't make an extra attack via TWF unless you take the attack action first. Rogues can only sneak attack with ranged and finesse weapons. Barbarian Reckless Attack only works if you use Strength for the attack. The two Power Attack feats only iswork with Heavy and Ranged weapons, putting all other sorts of weapons at a DPR disadvantage. And so on.

Many of these restrictions pigeonhole characters into particular builds. My favorite example is the Bladesinger. Not only is this wizard archetype restricted to elf, but its primary feature does not work if the character wears armor that isn't light, equips a shield, or uses two hands to make an attack. The Hexblade, who fills a similar role, has none of these limitations.

Some restrictions are likely done for balance reasons, such as paladins being unable to smite with ranged attacks, thus giving them a weakness. But many more of them are pure fluff. I hate these sorts of restrictions. What if someone wants to build a thief acrobat Rogue, but can't do so because quarterstaves aren't finesse? What if someone wants to play an elf Barbarian, but finds that he's unable to do so without penalizing his primary attack attribute?

It seems to me that the only true purpose of any of these restrictions is to force players to fit the intended "fluff," whatever it may be, even if they don't want to. It sounds like you need to play Savage Worlds. It's a system where you are expected to fluff your character with "trappings" and is classless so many of your complaints here do not come up.

You can "get the drop"/"strike vitals" aka sneak attack with any weapon on any Character but someone with built like a thief is better at it.

The berserk ability enhances all melee attacks and helps you better handle damage.

Martial dpr "feats" are only divided by range and melee

Armor Prof is handled by encumbrance, so a strong wizard can wear plate and swing a great axe. You can freely mix and match concepts with built in limitations (like needing to be strong to use heavy armor and big weapons well, which you are either pulling from your casting resources or defenses to make happen )

Spells themselves are given defined mechanics but the player decides if his Blast power is a fireball or a swarm of bees.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well, now I just want to read that book! I read it in high school, it's a neat collection of stories.

Seriously, though—I don't even have a problem with optimizers or optimization. In general, I don't either.


Reading guides and ideas on how to do things like that have helped inspire me and give me ideas on how to build a character well within the often terribly unoptimized frameworks I go with. :smallwink: Guides are a good first approximation, particularly when the author delves into synergies and interactions.

As to Elf Barbarian: got one on standby if that campaign ever starts up again. Wolf and Eagle Totem, no bear, just because.

A lot of stuff gets called a trap option when it really, really isn't, Yeah. My paradigm is to build with the team in mind.


I've always seen it as just being able to take advantage of catching someone off guard. In this edition, yeah, exploit an opening. In OD&D and 1e, it was specifically "by surprise from behind."


On the one hand, yes outlandish idea can be a bit of a pain, I have to take exception to one thing here. The idea that Martin or Tolkien, especially Tolkien, are the holy grails to which all character concepts need to conform is a bit exasperating for me.
It's also wrong. The Swords and Sorcery genre is far better aligned with:
Fritz Lieber(Fafhrd/Gray Mouser), Robert E Howard(Conan), Edgar Rice Burroughs(John Carter of Mars), Brothers Grimm, Jack Vance, Lovecraft, and a variety of the pulp authors from the mid 20th century. (Michael Moorcock and Poul Anderson as well). This is not to say that Tolkien didn't have an influence, but I think it's overplayed. Another source of the swords and sorcery base line was comic books. (I am not sure if I still have any of my 60's and 70's era Sergeant Rock, the Haunted Tank, and Conan comic books, I think they disappeared during a move one year).

[Unoriginal]

D&D, despite what some people will tell you and 3.X attempt at being part of an universal system, has its own identity.

5e does not try to emulate any fiction other than 5e. It is not Lord of the Rings, Conan the Barbarian, Harry Potter, Discworld, Xena, D&D 3e, The Roman de Renart, or that fanfictions I wrote when I was 15, nor is it trying to be. The fluff and the rules let you create many worlds, but many isn't any.

So, is the fluff hurting the game? No, it isn't. Fluff *is* the game, just as much as the rules and the art and the rest.


Is the fluff *not to your taste*, or *not letting you do something you want*? Perhaps it is. But, even if you think the fluff is ridiculously dumb, even if it stops you from doing something, it is not *hurting* you.

If you want to do something and the rules or the fluff don't let you, change them. If your gaming group doesn't want to let you do it, and it's a dealbreaker for you, find a different group that does agree.

[Morty]

"Striking subtly" is antithetical to "using a zweihander".

Says who? Using a long weapon doesn't prevent you from using deception and surprise. Particularly since all a rogue needs to deal sneak attack is an advantage on the roll or a nearby ally.

[Kurald Galain]

Says who? Using a long weapon doesn't prevent you from using deception and surprise. Particularly since all a rogue needs to deal sneak attack is an advantage on the roll or a nearby ally.
According to the rules, he needs an advantage or ally, AND a weapon that you can sneak attack with.

And this fluff restriction exists because "striking subtly" is antithetical to "using a zweihander", according to the direct meaning of those words.

[Mikal]

I don't know why people are calling Sneak Attacks weapon restriction a fluff restriction. It's obviously mechanical, with fluff to reinforce it. Otherwise everyone would be going Rogue for extra damage via Sneak Attack while using GWM and taking Magic Initiate or going Arcane Trickster to add Booming Blade/GFB to it, and fighters would be strictly secondary to them, used mainly to dip for buffs (Martial Weapon Prof, Champion crit range extension, Battlemaster abilities, etc).

It would also have the effect of making any weapon not a versatile martial weapon or a heavy weapon a stupid choice to take.
Why take a rapier when one can be just as effective with a longsword (if not more effective when two handing it) if one wants to use a shield. Why not use a Greatsword or Maul? I can get 2d6 damage that way over 1d8, plus additional +10 from GWM, +SA dice?

[Easy_Lee]

I tell my players to use the rules to create mechanically effective characters, then reassign names and descriptions to suite their imagination and concept.

So for example, in one of my games a player is running a pretty standard vuman rogue/ranger crossbow expert, but he describes his character as a cyborg wielding a high-powered rifle and a pair of pistols, with his high perception and stealth resulting from an active camouflage system and advanced lidar.

This sort of freedom makes fluff restrictions glaringly obvious. There are fewer in this edition than in any previous one, but there are still some that really suck. Handwaving them away feels messy, but it's what I've done so far.

Wish they were suggestions and not hard restrictions.

I think this is an excellent point.

To be clear to everyone, I like fluff. It gives players, especially new ones, some idea as to how to play their character. Some people want to play a human barbarian straight without changing a thing, and that's great.

But I don't think fluff and mechanics should interact. For me, it's a bit like the separation of church and state. This fluff may work well for most people, but once it's written into mechanical law, it stifles those who wish to be different.

Some restrictions have mechanical reasons, others don't, and others are unclear. With rogues, for example, there's no reason why Sneak Attack should only work with finesse weapons. If WotC wanted to limit rogue weapon damage die, they could have just limited SA to one-handed or non-heavy weapons. The finesse bit is purely for fluff.

In short, I like fluff and I like mechanics, but I would not mix the two.

[rbstr]

For me Bladesinger is a great example of both good and bad "fluff" restriction.

Bad with Elves-Only. Because I think race restriction just isn't fun.
But good since the armor/weapon restrictions give the class an identity and somewhat of a backstory built in too. Someone taught this Adventurer to Bladesing and that's a specific tradition/art that works in a particular way. I tend to see classes like that in general, they're collections of specific techniques and powers that are learned or discovered.
Like, nobody practices Kendo with a Pike. A baseball pitcher can't throw a curve-ball with an American football. A Java compiler won't work with C++ syntax.

That continues into "need a finesse weapon to sneak attack". The identity of the rouge class is someone that's sneaky and a bit dishonest in some ways (given the dictionary definition of rogue) - it doesn't need to mean "bad" dishonest but that's how they get stuff done. So they tend to fight maybe a bit underhanded or tricky. Wielding a Greatsword is antithetical to that image that makes them a distinct.

Things like the GWM Power Attack being attached to heavy weapons only also fits this kind of thing. You need to be strong and to wield a heavy weapon to take the big add swing at something.
I think that's a restriction that brings distinction to the game and helps define characters.
Having the feat change so you can powerattack with a dagger kills the image. An equivalent feat for light weapons should operate much differently even if it offers the same proportion of power. Bleed damage to convey precision or some kind of extra attack mechanic that conveys speed.

[Tanarii]

I just want to play a magic user who focuses on healing who has some melee capabilities/armour proficiencies without having a deity or multiclassing, and bard or paladin is not quite what I'm looking for.That sounds exactly like a Valour Bard to me. But I can see how you might look at 'Skald who knows how to Fight, plus Heal and Debuff using Arcane magic' and not see a melee capable healing magic-user. :smalltongue:

In all seriousness though, it sounds like a Cleric, probably Knowledge with the Sage or Hermit background, is what you're looking for. Divine magic / Diety "fluff" notwithstanding.



TLDR: I wish people would stop using Tolkien and certain other fantasy writers as the end-all-be-all to fantasy archetypes. A non-Tolkien concept is just as valid as any other as long as it functions in the given world. (to me, but that should go without saying)After reading the Words of Radiance, I had a hankering to create a lightly armorered warrior incredibly skilled with the spear, who could maybe eventually learn to fly. At first I lamented that spears are so terrible and there's no reason for an EK Fighter to use them, plus maxing Str & Dex for offense and defense sucks.

Then I ... that's a Monk with the Soldier background. The flying part probably means questing for some Winged Boots, but as a bonus I can run up walls at level 9.

There's a lot of room within the archetypes for broad concepts. But it's definitely based on traditions that were pulled by the creators from everything and turned into its own game.


D&D, despite what some people will tell you and 3.X attempt at being part of an universal system, has its own identity.

5e does not try to emulate any fiction other than 5e. It is not Lord of the Rings, Conan the Barbarian, Harry Potter, Discworld, Xena, D&D 3e, The Roman de Renart, or that fanfictions I wrote when I was 15, nor is it trying to be. The fluff and the rules let you create many worlds, but many isn't any.

So, is the fluff hurting the game? No, it isn't. Fluff *is* the game, just as much as the rules and the art and the rest.
I agree. But it's worth keeping two things in mind, historically:

- the game was based on a lot of specific sources, as listed by KevinStormast up thread.

- the original players and DM constantly pulled in stuff from other sources, figuring out rules for how to make it work. That's how D&D became its own identity in the first place.

Someone wanted a Black Sword a la Moorcook. So now Sentient Swords are a D&D thing.

Someone needed a way to have 'Magic' work in discrete packets, a certain number of times per day, because wargame. And had read Vance's books and now D&D is about Vancian spell casting.

Someone needed a weird monster to fight, and was a mythology buff, so now D&D has Kobolds and ... well, a plethora of mostly Norse and some Greek monsters.

Etc

[Talamare]

There are a lot of restrictions on character mechanics in 5e. You can't make an extra attack via TWF unless you take the attack action first. Rogues can only sneak attack with ranged and finesse weapons. Barbarian Reckless Attack only works if you use Strength for the attack. The two Power Attack feats only work with Heavy and Ranged weapons, putting all other sorts of weapons at a DPR disadvantage. And so on.

Many of these restrictions pigeonhole characters into particular builds. My favorite example is the Bladesinger. Not only is this wizard archetype restricted to elf, but its primary feature does not work if the character wears armor that isn't light, equips a shield, or uses two hands to make an attack. The Hexblade, who fills a similar role, has none of these limitations.

Some restrictions are likely done for balance reasons, such as paladins being unable to smite with ranged attacks, thus giving them a weakness. But many more of them are pure fluff. I hate these sorts of restrictions. What if someone wants to build a thief acrobat Rogue, but can't do so because quarterstaves aren't finesse? What if someone wants to play an elf Barbarian, but finds that he's unable to do so without penalizing his primary attack attribute?

It seems to me that the only true purpose of any of these restrictions is to force players to fit the intended "fluff," whatever it may be, even if they don't want to.

I think you're confusing Fluff and what isn't Fluff

Barbarian Reckless Attack can't be done with Finesse?
- Not Fluff, also...
Just basic English, how are you doing something both Recklessly and with Finesse?

Power Attack requires Heavy Weapons
- This is minimalist fluff, but also an attempt to put in realism. If there is an issue with the balance, then fix the balance.

Bladesinger requires Elf
- Agreed this is 100% Fluff and needs to be removed.
- Blade Singing doesn't work with Heavy/Medium Armor/Shields, not really Fluff...
- or using 2 hands to make an attack. This isn't Fluff, but it is a little awkwardly done.
- Hexblade has no restriction - This also isn't Fluff, and Hexblade probably should have been done differently. However that can't be used as justification.

Thief Acrobat Rogue
- I would allow you to refluff your Rapier into a "Quarterstaff", but still wouldn't allow it to benefit from PAM

Elf Barbarian
- This is pretty fluffy, but this is more arguing that Racial Stat Bonuses should be removed. This is a piece of fluff that attempts to promote diversity (even if it often has the opposite effect)
- Without Racial Bonuses every Race might as well just be... "Choose a Race for your character, here is a list of recommended names for your Race to be. Race has no mechanical effects on the game."

[Caelic]

I mean I do understand, really. It's because it's DnD. I just don't like the way DnD discourages people from playing the way they want, which is why I prefer GURPS.

I think DnD is a worse game for having restrictions so heavily baked into the rules by default.



I, too, enjoy GURPS (and Hero.) Let's be real, though: the notion that systems with no restrictions at all are superior is observably a minority opinion. GURPS never came close to dominating the RPG market; D&D, after losing its spot (to another game that works almost exactly the same way as D&D) seems to have regained the pole position at this point.

We may prefer generic systems; the market as a whole, demonstrably, does not.

[Tanarii]

But I don't think fluff and mechanics should interact. For me, it's a bit like the separation of church and state. This fluff may work well for most people, but once it's written into mechanical law, it stifles those who wish to be different.well then, clearly you have to do is realize that the fluff / mechanical divide isn't something required, that it's a design model to help designers think about what they're doing, not a natural law of RPG rules. Then you'll be perfectly at home with rules that don't fit within the model, or straddle the line. :smalltongue:

Seriously though, it's possible to take any model and turn it into a system of belief. And that's what often happens with the concept of fluff and mechanics. You're pretty clearly a believer. That's nice, but not everyone is.

Also, I find it interesting that you would liken it to the separation of church and state. That also isn't a natural Law of some kind, but rather a concept some designers liked and wrote into their particular rule book.

[thepsyker]

I, too, enjoy GURPS (and Hero.) Let's be real, though: the notion that systems with no restrictions at all are superior is observably a minority opinion. GURPS never came close to dominating the RPG market; D&D, after losing its spot (to another game that works almost exactly the same way as D&D) seems to have regained the pole position at this point.

We may prefer generic systems; the market as a whole, demonstrably, does not.

Even leaving the market out of it, you could strip D&D of all the traditions and restrictions like classes or spell books for wizards until it became a more generic/universal system like GURPS, but the question is why bother? If one wants/prefers a generic/universal system those already exist why dismantle D&D to reinvent the wheel?

[samcifer]

There are a lot of restrictions on character mechanics in 5e. You can't make an extra attack via TWF unless you take the attack action first. Rogues can only sneak attack with ranged and finesse weapons. Barbarian Reckless Attack only works if you use Strength for the attack. The two Power Attack feats only work with Heavy and Ranged weapons, putting all other sorts of weapons at a DPR disadvantage. And so on.

Many of these restrictions pigeonhole characters into particular builds. My favorite example is the Bladesinger. Not only is this wizard archetype restricted to elf, but its primary feature does not work if the character wears armor that isn't light, equips a shield, or uses two hands to make an attack. The Hexblade, who fills a similar role, has none of these limitations.

Some restrictions are likely done for balance reasons, such as paladins being unable to smite with ranged attacks, thus giving them a weakness. But many more of them are pure fluff. I hate these sorts of restrictions. What if someone wants to build a thief acrobat Rogue, but can't do so because quarterstaves aren't finesse? What if someone wants to play an elf Barbarian, but finds that he's unable to do so without penalizing his primary attack attribute?

It seems to me that the only true purpose of any of these restrictions is to force players to fit the intended "fluff," whatever it may be, even if they don't want to.

Quarterstaffs not being finesse weapons really sucks. casters all have access to them, but as STR is the lowest stat (usually) for a caster, there's no real point to using one. If they were finesse, DEX isn't the worst stat a caster would have, so they could have some versatility. If you have STR as your main stat, there's so many better weapons to take instead. At the very least they could have Reach, but no, not even that. :(

[CantigThimble]

I am legitimately asking why you can't use sneak attack with strength weapons. Why not? What changes?

Sneak attack stops being about subtlety, precision and speed and now just means taking advantage of your opponent's distraction in general.


I agree that restrictions can help with world building, but in my experience they have only stopped me from enjoying the game, and accessing mechanics that are appealing to me in conjunction with a character concept that is appealing to me.

So you agree that restrictions are important, but don't think they should be in any way restrictive? Anyway, I will agree, restrictions prevent you from doing things and some of those things are fun. However, I would also say that if you don't have restrictions then fun drops across the board, and that loss can more than counterbalance the benefit of the lost options. D&D stops being a game about the world of D&D and starts being an increasingly generic fantasy RPG. Is that better than a more restrictive, better defined, world?


The reason you see so many paladins, and half-elf multiclassed paladins/sorcerors/warlocks is because they are powerful, and DnD is a game about fighting powerful wizards, warriors and monsters. The way the game is presented encourages optimization. The vast majority of class features are for combat, and combat is the only part of the game to give xp (unless you use milestone or something else).

This isn't the point I was trying to make, I don't take issue with optimization. The point I was trying to make is was more about a comparison between 5e paladin and 2e paladin. In 2e, only one out of maybe 50 characters you rolled up even had the option to be a paladin, they had a code of conduct and they could never multi-class or dual-class. Being a paladin meant something because of all those restrictions. The 5e paladin is so unrestricted that it has lost that impact.


5e is poorly balanced, even without multiclassing. A half-elf paladin will always outclass a forest gnome sorceror. I don't understand why people are offended by the idea of changing forest gnome scores from +2 Int, +1 dex to +2 cha, +1 dex if I want to play a sorceror instead of a wizard.

What that does is change what it means to be a gnome. A defining trait they used to have just doesn't apply any more because now you can pick and choose whatever you want.


I think paladins are a cool concept, and so are rangers. It makes more sense toe to have one class called "martial" which has a heap of customization options to help achieve your character concept.

But if you do that then there is no paladin or ranger. Those concepts are dead, and now yourcharacter is 'Martial with funny ideas about morality' or 'marital who likes wilderness areas'. Something is lost in translation.


I mean I do understand, really. It's because it's DnD. I just don't like the way DnD discourages people from playing the way they want, which is why I prefer GURPS.

I think DnD is a worse game for having restrictions so heavily baked into the rules by default.

There are some advantages to having a more generic and modular system, but there are disadvantages too. Identity is dependent on restrictions. If you lose the restrictions you lose the identity. If you want to play a game with no identity then play gurps, or homebrew D&D so hard it becomes gurps.

I think D&D has lost sight of it's identity. 5e wasn't made with an identity, it was made with a few tatters or tradition that used to be part of its identity. However, because they aren't part of a cohesive whole people wonder why they're there. So now we have 2 options, some poeple advocate to get rid of those tatters and go all the way to being generic and I'm advocating to reforge the identity.

[samcifer]

why dismantle D&D to reinvent the wheel?

Because wheels are unnatural! Nothing is that perfectly round!!!

[Caelic]

Even leaving the market out of it, you could strip D&D of all the traditions and restrictions like classes or spell books for wizards until it became a more generic/universal system like GURPS, but the question is why bother? If one wants/prefers a generic/universal system those already exist why dismantle D&D to reinvent the wheel?


Precisely--particularly when there are already systems that do that job far better.

It's a little like hearing someone say "I don't like the fact that my pottery wheel doesn't play my collection of vintage 1970's Bee Gees albums! I think I should add amplifiers and a tone arm to it!"

In response, of course, you could say "Well, yeah, you could do that, I suppose...but why not just go get a record player and let your pottery wheel be a pottery wheel?"

[Mikal]

Quarterstaffs not being finesse weapons really sucks. casters all have access to them, but as STR is the lowest stat (usually) for a caster, there's no real point to using one. If they were finesse, DEX isn't the worst stat a caster would have, so they could have some versatility. If you have STR as your main stat, there's so many better weapons to take instead. At the very least they could have Reach, but no, not even that. :(

Well, that's why you're a caster and not a martial. You don't care how good you can swing your stick. You care about the strength of the fireballs that stick shoots.

If you *do* care about how good you can swing that stick, there are plenty of ways to do it as a caster.
1) Hexblade Warlock
2) Druid Shillelagh
3) Bard Magical Secrets Shillelagh
4) Arcana Domain Cleric Shillelagh
5) Tomelock Shillelagh
6) Magic Initiate Shillelagh
7) Magic Initiate Shillelagh
8) Eat the cost and raise Strength
9) MC into Monk and use Dexterity.

I think the problem here is that people don't want to make sacrifices to match their fluff. They want something the rules don't support such as dex to quarterstaves, but don't want to pay the cost of it (going Monk), or the cost to use a quarterstaff effectively as a wizard (raise your Strength).

Regardless, this again, isn't fluff. This is all mechanics. Fluff seems to be the smokescreen used to try and change those mechanics so that people can play what they want without, again, being forced to make a choice.

EDIT: And from a game design standpoint, why do you think fluff influences their mechanics rather than the other way around? That would be the tail wagging the dog. The mechanics would be designed first, and then fluff would be designed around it, most of the time. Again, regarding mechanics, not story elements or other parts of the game world/design.


Sneak attack stops being about subtlety, precision and speed and now just means taking advantage of your opponent's distraction in general.

Exactly, and that's already factored in. We call it advantage. The rogue has the extra ability to use that advantage of the distraction to do even more damage, because they know exactly where to hit someone where it hurts when they're not protecting themselves properly. And you can't exactly be precise when swinging around a two handed greataxe.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There are some advantages to having a more generic and modular system, but there are disadvantages too. Identity is dependent on restrictions. If you lose the restrictions you lose the identity. If you want to play a game with no identity then play gurps, or homebrew D&D so hard it becomes gurps.

I think D&D has lost sight of it's identity. 5e wasn't made with an identity, it was made with a few tatters or tradition that used to be part of its identity. However, because they aren't part of a cohesive whole people wonder why they're there. So now we have 2 options, some poeple advocate to get rid of those tatters and go all the way to being generic and I'm advocating to reforge the identity.

There's a third option--find a new identity. I did that with classes as power sources--a class describes how you gain access to that which sets you apart from the common herd. It then, for game purposes lays out a common bundle of packaged abilities that support the theme established. There's much more that can be done, however--especially in the areas of caster spell lists. But that's another thing entirely.

Much of the old identity was senseless (even internally inconsistent). Going back would suck--too much of that was tied to the old mechanics. Discarding it entirely sucks--there are better "toolkit" games out there. So make a new one, keeping the ideas we like and accept that each edition is its own game. 5e is not 4e is not 3e is not 2e is not OD&D.

But that's just my opinion. YMMV greatly.

[Laurefindel]

Sure. That happens in books and action movies all the time. In fact, it is vastly more common to see a hero that has been hurt dozens of times and is bruised and bleeding and still standing, than to see a hero that has been in a long battle and has miraculously dodged every single blow so far.

Depends on what you see and read I guess...

In most movies I saw, TV shows I've seen and book I've read, heroes, and villains, rarely take an axe through their guts, or a bullet in their head, or an arrow through the eye, and live to tell the tale. As a matter of fact, most movie/TV/book characters die after receiving a single blow or shot.

Fiction also portrays non-fatal blows and shots, whereas heroes and villain get injured, at which point they can barely function, or take weeks to recover. In D&D, a character is still 100% functional after losing 99% of its hp, and wakes-up fresh as a rose the next morning, which suggest that they didn't got injured at all.

Instead, hp in D&D are similar to the health bar in video games, which doesn't translate well in other medias. Anime and super-hero comics get close but even then, characters rarely get slashed through their guts and live unimpaired, or get shot without consequences unless they have obvious superpowers that allow them to stop bullets or heal instantaneously.

As such, a lot of players see hp as "not-dying points", a resource that allow them to survive damage, regardless of its source, representing dodges, parries, armor protection, cover etc. I see less and less players interpreting hp as "meat points".

[Morty]

According to the rules, he needs an advantage or ally, AND a weapon that you can sneak attack with.

And this fluff restriction exists because "striking subtly" is antithetical to "using a zweihander", according to the direct meaning of those words.

They're not antithetical, though. People just say that a) to justify the restriction and b) because they don't really have a very good idea of how those weapons work.

I can accept that allowing SA with any weapon could lead to potential abuses. But let's not pretend there's any non-balance reason for this restriction. And the only point where balance becomes an issue is two-handed weapons. A rogue who uses a one-handed weapon without finesse is just going to be worse than one that uses it, because dexterity skills are more useful.

My rogue, when she has to fight in melee, uses a rapier that I describe as a hatchet. The game has somehow managed not to break when a rogue successfully sneak attacked someone with an axe. Mind you, I haven't found a good reason for her not to shoot a crossbow, except when forced into melee by circumstances.

[Unoriginal]

because dexterity skills are more useful.

Not really, no. Stealth can pretty useful in some situations, but aside from that the DEX skills aren't more useful.


Quarterstaffs not being finesse weapons really sucks. casters all have access to them, but as STR is the lowest stat (usually) for a caster, there's no real point to using one. If they were finesse, DEX isn't the worst stat a caster would have, so they could have some versatility. If you have STR as your main stat, there's so many better weapons to take instead. At the very least they could have Reach, but no, not even that. :(

It's a feature, not a bug.

Wizards have their cantrips for a reason.

[CantigThimble]

There's a third option--find a new identity. I did that with classes as power sources--a class describes how you gain access to that which sets you apart from the common herd. It then, for game purposes lays out a common bundle of packaged abilities that support the theme established. There's much more that can be done, however--especially in the areas of caster spell lists. But that's another thing entirely.

Much of the old identity was senseless (even internally inconsistent). Going back would suck--too much of that was tied to the old mechanics. Discarding it entirely sucks--there are better "toolkit" games out there. So make a new one, keeping the ideas we like and accept that each edition is its own game. 5e is not 4e is not 3e is not 2e is not OD&D.

But that's just my opinion. YMMV greatly.

I don't think we should codify restrictions into the rules so that everyone will will follow them and play exactly that way. I think we should codify restrictions into the rules to demonstrate the value of having codified restrictions, and then encourage people to customize those restrictions.

There's a big difference between a game where:
A. The core rules say only humans can be paladins because only they, as a result of their short lifepans and intense emotion, have the will to devote themselves body and spirit to such an impossible goal as giving all people justice. The DMG suggests that some worlds may reinterpret paladins and change the racial restriction to include elven orders of paladins dedicated to preservation rather than the suicidal human interpretation of paladinhood.

B. There is no restriction on what races can be paladins and the core book includes options for champions, preservers and also blackguards as default player options.

I would rather have a game more like A and less like B.

[Theodoxus]

I'm happy to redo fluff to make a player happy. I'm happy to rework basic assumptions. When I watched the Mearls video on what he'd do differently, and mentioned moving static stat increases from races to classes, it blew my mind. So I decided to work in that direction.

But I also decided that the 3-18 stat delineation was also a traditional holdover, and I hate traditions for traditions sake, so I decided that stat generation should just be the modifiers, in a range of -1 to +4; a very convenient 6 point range, easily created by a d6!

So, every class has a set of d6's (from 1 to 3) for every stat, taking the highest single roll for each.

So, for instance, a Cleric has the set of: Str: 2d6, Dex: 1d6; Con: 2d6; Wis: 3d6; Int: 2d6; Chr: 2d6

So, for instance, rolling stats, you'd roll 2d6 for Str, resulting in a 3 and 5. Dex, you might get a 1; Con a 2 and 3; Wis a 1,5,6; Int a 1 and 4 and Cha a 2 and 2.

Taking the best of each, you get an array of 5,1,3,6,4,2. Then you compare them to the d6 table

1 = -1
2 = 0
3 = +1
4 = +2
5 = +3
6 = +4

So, the cleric in question would be Str: +3 (Equivalent to a 16 in 5E), Dex: -1, Con: +1, Wis: +4, Int: +2, Cha:0

A pretty good character.

Then, I decided to allow races to modify the results.
Any race that provides a +2 bonus to a stat, instead allows you to roll a d4, where the result equals the bonus (so 1='+1'. 4='+4'. This eliminates the possibility of negative or zero values for races known for their dexterity or intelligence, but doesn't provide a boon above the norm.
Any race that provides a +1 bonus to a stat, still provides that +1, so you'd have a range of 0 -> +5 instead. Since no race provides both a +2 and +1 to the same stat, you'll never get a d4+1.

So, if the cleric above was a dwarf, they'd end up with rolling 2d4 for Con, a decent chance of getting a +2 or better. And their Wis would increase to +5.

I did have to get rid of the 'half feat' bonuses - most of them were a bit wonky in my estimation, so it wasn't a big deal. The armor feats were an exception, so I included a second bullet point allowing the proficiency for a single martial weapon to both Light Armor proficiency and Medium Armor proficiency.

I based the rework on the majority of Zman's E10 rules, so added a ton of new feats: racial, 1st level only, class specific... and boosted the number of feats you get to 1 every other level starting at 1st. I also incorporated the multiclassing rules of using feats to MC, so there's a reason to get so many - and there are a lot of good choices offering legitimate competition.

But, reading through this thread, there can be a lot more. Finesse'd quarterstaff? Monk's are already halfway there, why not a feat? Heck, rogues get longsword proficiency for no apparent reason (legacy?) why not allow them a feat to use them to sneak with as well! Might make it the same feat, in fact... Neither option is 'optimal' for sneaking, since you want as many chances in a round as possible, and neither staves or longswords allow for offhand attacks natively. Seems like it's internally balanced in that regard (and yes, there are options to removing said restrictions, but like all good options, comes with opportunity costs to do other things.)

[Eric Diaz]

Fluff restrictions are important - they reinforce archetype, such as the elven bladesinger, the sneak thief with a dagger, etc.

Want to play a kung fu spearmaster? You must be a monk to make it work. Optimal great axe use? Only for barbarians, etc. TWF? Not great unless you're a rogue or something similar, etc.

With that said... If a player wants to play something else, JUST ALLOW IT, IMO.

Provided the mechanics are the same, you may have a 2d6 great axe or 1d8 "heavy scimitar", use a rapier and dagger (the damage gain is negligible and TWF won't ruin the game anyway), make you magic missiles look like flaming skulls, etc.

Re-fluffing races? Sure thing. You can use the half-orc template to play a cimmerian, the half-elf to play a human with fey blood, etc.

My most repeated example is a INT-sorcerer re-fluffed as "iron man kobold", with wild magic as malfunctions.

OTOH I wouldn't like the two-handed sword to become he optimal weapon for rogues. Such strangeness might require a feat, etc.

So, in short, restrictions have two benefits:

A) archetype.
B) making it easier for me to veto stuff that doesn't make sense.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think the problem here is that people don't want to make sacrifices to match their fluff. This too.
Choices are a part of the game, and of character creation and selection.

[Morty]

Not really, no. Stealth can pretty useful in some situations, but aside from that the DEX skills aren't more useful.

If that's the case, even if I kind of doubt it is, what's stopping us from letting rogues go all-in on strength? They can do it anyway, since the finesse keyword is optional.


This too.
Choices are a part of the game, and of character creation and selection.

It would be much easier to make such choices if what requires a sacrifice and what doesn't wasn't determined arbitrarily, often due to more than 20 years' worth of baggage. Why isn't quarterstaff a finesse weapon? Because the people putting together the weapons table didn't think of it. What would break if we allowed it? A rogue might get to use a dangerously uniconic weapon, I suppose. Quarterstaff actually was a finesse weapon at one point in the playtests, but it was changed in one of the iterations.

[Caelic]

It would be much easier to make such choices if what requires a sacrifice and what doesn't wasn't determined arbitrarily, often due to more than 20 years' worth of baggage.


You call it "baggage." Others would call it "flavor." Something has kept D&D at the top of the RPG industry for forty-plus years. Up until fourth edition, it could have been argued that it was McDonald's Syndrome--that D&D was only the biggest because it had been the first.

But then, D&D dropped out of that top spot. With 5e, it seems to have regained said spot.

Clearly, 5e did something right that 4e did wrong, from the point of view of the playerbase as a whole.

[Morty]

Your argument might hold some water if 4E hadn't doubled down on gear restrictions for classes in comparison to 3E.

[Easy_Lee]

You call it "baggage." Others would call it "flavor." Something has kept D&D at the top of the RPG industry for forty-plus years. Up until fourth edition, it could have been argued that it was McDonald's Syndrome--that D&D was only the biggest because it had been the first.

But then, D&D dropped out of that top spot. With 5e, it seems to have regained said spot.

Clearly, 5e did something right that 4e did wrong, from the point of view of the playerbase as a whole.

That argument doesn't work because you can apply it to anything. You can say, "something about 5e has put D&D back on top," then use that as justification to shoot down any change suggestion.

The flaw in your argument is this: you leap from "5e is successful" to "historical fluff-based restrictions are the reason for 5e's success" with no connecting arguments.

[Unoriginal]

If that's the case, even if I kind of doubt it is, what's stopping us from letting rogues go all-in on strength? They can do it anyway, since the finesse keyword is optional.

STR-Rogue is a build that is considered pretty decent already.

[Rhedyn]

I don't think 5e will have same staying power as the previous editions.

[Mikal]

If that's the case, even if I kind of doubt it is, what's stopping us from letting rogues go all-in on strength? They can do it anyway, since the finesse keyword is optional.

The fact it would make all meleeists go rogue with at most dips in other classes since you can now GWM a Greatsword along with Sneak Attack, which weakens not only other weapon choices, but class choices?

Yes, you can choose to play another class or use another weapon, but you are actively weakening yourself and harming your group when doing so since you are doing less damage, which means enemies survive longer, which means more chances for a character to die.

In other words: Baaaaaalaaaaance.


It would be much easier to make such choices if what requires a sacrifice and what doesn't wasn't determined arbitrarily, often due to more than 20 years' worth of baggage. Why isn't quarterstaff a finesse weapon? Because the people putting together the weapons table didn't think of it. What would break if we allowed it? A rogue might get to use a dangerously uniconic weapon, I suppose. Quarterstaff actually was a finesse weapon at one point in the playtests, but it was changed in one of the iterations.

Actually I'd say that it isn't a finesse weapon because then you'd have a simple finesse weapon that does 1d8 damage two handed, thus making a rapier a waste of a choice since you can now easily use PAM in addition to sneak attacks.
Even if you remove versatile you still now have a PAM capable weapon able to use Sneak Attacks.

Hey, look, now I took Tunnel Fighter! So now I got a PAM capable weapon able to do potentially unlimited sneak attacks.

In other words: Baaaaaalaaaaance.

The fact that it apparently (at least per you) was once finesse and is now not finesse shows that playtesters likely realized how broken a PAM weapon in the hands of a Sneak Attack capable class would be, and used that to show why it shouldn't be finesse.

It also shows that the people putting the weapons table did think of it, but then changed their mind. Unless they didn't think of it while putting the book together somehow despite having thought of it during playtesting. Amnesia...?

Now, if it's just wanting to use Dex for the quarterstaff, there's an easy fix: Play a Monk or Multi-class into Monk.
Problem solved. But then that requires sacrifice. (see my previous posts regarding that).

[Easy_Lee]

STR-Rogue is a build that is considered pretty decent already.

By who? There's the fighter-rogue shield master build which I wrote a thread about a long time ago, but you can hit a "good enough" Athletics check with just fourteen strength and expertise.

Since Athletics and Strength saving throws are the rogue's only uses for Strength over Dexterity, Strength saving throws are uncommon, and Rogues typically like high initiative and stealth, there's little reason to focus Strength over Dexterity. Even if you put some points in Strength, odds are you'd prefer to put more in Dexterity as a rogue.

[Caelic]

That argument doesn't work because you can apply it to anything. You can say, "something about 5e has put D&D back on top," then use that as justification to shoot down any change suggestion.

The flaw in your argument is this: you leap from "5e is successful" to "historical fluff-based restrictions are the reason for 5e's success" with no connecting arguments.


Nope. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, there are systems which do exactly what you desire: total control over mechanics with no fluff-based restrictions beyond those assigned by the players and GM. Such systems have, in fact, been around for decades. They have never been as popular or successful as D&D.

Ergo, in the eyes of the tabletop RPG customer base as a whole, a total absence of fluff-based restrictions does not result in a more appealing game than the route taken by D&D. The marketplace, in this case, has voted with its wallet--and done so pretty convincingly.

That being said, look at this from WotC's perspective. Why should they change the game to make it more like games which have not been as successful?

[Morty]

I'd say many non-D&D systems have more "fluff-based" restrictions than D&D does. They're just based on the actual settings they're attached to, and not some rather fuzzy ideas about character archetypes.

[Mikal]

I'd say most non-D&D systems have more "fluff-based" restrictions than D&D does. They're just based on the actual settings they're attached to, and not some rather fuzzy ideas about character archetypes.

Please see my previous posts on how most of what's being discussed is less about character archetypes and more about balancing out and forcing a player to make choices for my answer to this.

[thepsyker]

Nope. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, there are systems which do exactly what you desire: total control over mechanics with no fluff-based restrictions beyond those assigned by the players and GM. Such systems have, in fact, been around for decades. They have never been as popular or successful as D&D.


And to reinforce this point as these games already exist there is no reason to completely redo D&D into that type of system when those people who prefer such systems are perfectly free to just use any one of those existing restrictionless systems.

[ad_hoc]

I don't think 5e will have same staying power as the previous editions.

5e will have the most staying power of any edition, and it's not even close.

It is immensely popular. So much so that a new edition would sink D&D.

[Mikal]

5e will have the most staying power of any edition, and it's not even close.

It is immensely popular. So much so that a new edition would sink D&D.

4th edition didn't (quite) sink it after the juggernaut of 3rd. And I'll say 3rd had more staying power than 5th since it's still technically being played and updated with content people pay for. It's now called Pathfinder. So I don't see a 6e doing much damage unless it was completely crap. Especially since there's been what, less than 10 books published?
That's the other factor in what causes backlash, how much money was invested in the previous edition.

[ad_hoc]

Nope. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, there are systems which do exactly what you desire: total control over mechanics with no fluff-based restrictions beyond those assigned by the players and GM. Such systems have, in fact, been around for decades. They have never been as popular or successful as D&D.

Ergo, in the eyes of the tabletop RPG customer base as a whole, a total absence of fluff-based restrictions does not result in a more appealing game than the route taken by D&D. The marketplace, in this case, has voted with its wallet--and done so pretty convincingly.

That being said, look at this from WotC's perspective. Why should they change the game to make it more like games which have not been as successful?

Yep, here are the top 5 RPGs (by North American sales) in the Spring of 2017. All of them are heavy on theme or "fluff".

#1 D&D
#2 Pathfinder
#3 Star Wars
#4 Adventures in Middle-Earth
#5 Shadowrun

https://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/38060/top-5-roleplaying-games-spring-2017

[ad_hoc]

4th edition didn't (quite) sink it after the juggernaut of 3rd. And I'll say 3rd had more staying power than 5th since it's still technically being played and updated with content people pay for. It's now called Pathfinder. So I don't see a 6e doing much damage unless it was completely crap. Especially since there's been what, less than 10 books published?
That's the other factor in what causes backlash, how much money was invested in the previous edition.

3.x wasn't a juggernaut. It was the 4th best selling D&D edition, only beating 4e. 4e almost killed D&D for good. Multitudes more people currently play 5e than Pathfinder and 3e combined.

At this point it is likely that 5e is the best selling D&D edition of all time or soon will be (it's hard to tell as there isn't much in the way of early records).

A new edition will kill the momentum that D&D has. We're not talking about appealing to the base (though a new edition right now would do a lot of harm there too). We're talking about people who have never played RPGs before. A new edition will turn them off.

[Mikal]

3.x wasn't a juggernaut. It was the 4th best selling D&D edition, only beating 4e. 4e almost killed D&D for good. Multitudes more people currently play 5e than Pathfinder and 3e combined.

Really? Where do you get those numbers? Did you factor in Pathfinder sales as well as third party sells? All of them were based off the 3e engine. While 3E by itself may not have had larger numbers, 3E as a whole has likely made more.

And where are you getting your numbers on who plays 5E vs. Pathfinder and 3E?
How do those number look year over year? What are the peak numbers for 5E play vs. 3E/Pathfinder play for any single year? What are the total number of players?

[Easy_Lee]

Really? Where do you get those numbers? Did you factor in Pathfinder sales as well as third party sells? All of them were based off the 3e engine. While 3E by itself may not have had larger numbers, 3E as a whole has likely made more.

And where are you getting your numbers on who plays 5E vs. Pathfinder and 3E?
How do those number look year over year? What are the peak numbers for 5E play vs. 3E/Pathfinder play for any single year? What are the total number of players?

Just want to restate: there's no evidence that fluff-restrictions are specifically to blame for 5e's popularity or lack thereof.

[Rhedyn]

5e will have the most staying power of any edition, and it's not even close.

It is immensely popular. So much so that a new edition would sink D&D.
Eh I think after about a dozen campaigns most people will done with 5e.

[samcifer]

3.x wasn't a juggernaut. It was the 4th best selling D&D edition, only beating 4e. 4e almost killed D&D for good. Multitudes more people currently play 5e than Pathfinder and 3e combined.

At this point it is likely that 5e is the best selling D&D edition of all time or soon will be (it's hard to tell as there isn't much in the way of early records).

A new edition will kill the momentum that D&D has. We're not talking about appealing to the base (though a new edition right now would do a lot of harm there too). We're talking about people who have never played RPGs before. A new edition will turn them off.

I actually enjoy playing 4e. For martial classes, the powers were a very good addition, imo.

[Mikal]

Just want to restate: there's no evidence that fluff-restrictions are specifically to blame for 5e's popularity or lack thereof.

I'm not saying anything about fluff/mechanics/whatever here. Just stating that I don't think 5E is the most popular/strongest edition. Of course saying that it isn't to blame one way or the other also invalidates your original premise.
After all, if there's no evidence that fluff restrictions are to blame, then how can they hurt the game? After all, you just said they don't help or hurt it...

I am saying that the whole fluff argument is backwards, and that most restrictions are mechanical with fluff tacked on, not fluff with mechanics attached.

[Caelic]

Just want to restate: there's no evidence that fluff-restrictions are specifically to blame for 5e's popularity or lack thereof.


There is, however, evidence that fluff-restrictions do not harm a game's sales, and lack of fluff restrictions do not improve a game's sales. In fact, there's forty-plus years' worth of such evidence.

That said, I would challenge you (or anyone else) to demonstrate the harm that you claim comes from such restrictions. By what metric is the game harmed? Not by sales, certainly; not by popularity, certainly. If we assume that players know what they enjoy, then clearly, for most players, D&D, with its fluff-based restrictions, is more fun than games where fluff is completely decoupled from mechanics.

Really, the only way to argue against that (and I've seen it done before) is to take the position that most players are clueless and only play D&D because they're too ignorant to know what a good game is.

To your credit, I haven't seen you take that position, and I hope you won't...but in that case, we have to accept that, yes, players like D&D, and they like it the way it is.

[Rhedyn]

Table Top Role playing games are referred to as D&D generically. As long as an edition of D&D stays in genre (not 4e), it will be the #1 selling edition just from each new generation trying it out.

Then the hook is in and a solid group will evolve to something more specific to their taste than 5e.

A lot of the 3rd crowd is trying 5e, only some of them will actually stay. So I really doubt that 5e will maintain popularity once people realize Critical Role isn't happening at their tables.

[Pex]

I kind of wonder if 5e might have been better if they had a lot more fluff restrictions. As it is now, I think it's kinda missed the balance. It's open enough that people try to get around all the restrictions but restrictive enough that people chafe at what's left. We get used to getting around restrictions when it's convenient and now we don't want to bother at all. People have the option to make strength, dexterity, wisdom or charisma their weapon attack stat and so they start wondering why they can't use intelligence or constitution.

Can't get the stats you want with the race you want? Why not do away with different race traits altogether. You can imagine druids in plate mail? I'm sure it works in your concept. Want to sneak attack with a maul? Why not!

Maybe if only humans could be paladins, dwarves couldn't cast arcane spells and clerics could only use blunt weapons people would respect the lore instead of tring to remove it. Or at least they'd figure out what restrictions like those are good for their own world and stop treating them like tyranny every time a DM uses some.

I suppose it is subjective how much fluff restrictions are too much or too little. I know I do not want to go back to the days of 2E where the focus was on what your character could not do. I don't mind restrictions, but I don't want there to be too much. How much is too much goes back to subjective.

I don't mind class mechanic restrictions. Rogues can't sneak attack with a greatsword. Druids don't wear platemail. I consider such restrictions as part of balancing the math. They might be justified with fluff, but to me they're crunch restrictions. Fluff restrictions I don't like are racial or gender. They have nothing to do with the math and everything with the game telling me how to play. 5E doesn't have gender restrictions, but 3E did for Prestige Classes. It's the arbitrariness that bothers me.

[ad_hoc]

Really? Where do you get those numbers? Did you factor in Pathfinder sales as well as third party sells? All of them were based off the 3e engine. While 3E by itself may not have had larger numbers, 3E as a whole has likely made more.

Well WotC doesn't have the Pathfinder sales numbers so it is hard to tell. But we can make inferences. (and there is also a substantial amount of 3rd party products for 5e, though they are of course dwarfed by the main books)

North American sales figures of RPGs per year:

2013: $15 million
2014: $25 million
2015: $35 million
2016: $45 million

RPG sales have tripled (up $30 million/year) since the release of 5e and are currently the fastest growing hobby games market.

https://icv2.com/articles/games/view/29326/hobby-games-market-hits-700m
https://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/32102/hobby-games-market-climbs-880-million
https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/35150/hobby-games-market-nearly-1-2-billion
https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/38012/hobby-games-market-over-1-4-billion



And where are you getting your numbers on who plays 5E vs. Pathfinder and 3E?
How do those number look year over year? What are the peak numbers for 5E play vs. 3E/Pathfinder play for any single year? What are the total number of players?

3e owes its sales numbers to the same people buying many books. 5e has many more players. It has sold far more of the core books than 3.x has. I think it is safe to say that is has also outsold Pathfinder at this point.

5e is to RPGs as Settlers of Catan is to boardgames.

[Caelic]

Then the hook is in and a solid group will evolve to something more specific to their taste than 5e.




Possibly. However, the past forty years don't paint that picture. Some groups move on to other games, yes, but others stay with D&D, or play D&D in addition to other games. Sales figures, where available, have always indicated that a substantial majority of tabletop gamers at any given time are D&D players.

[Mikal]

Well WotC doesn't have the Pathfinder sales numbers so it is hard to tell. But we can make inferences. (and there is also a substantial amount of 3rd party products for 5e, though they are of course dwarfed by the main books)

North American sales figures of RPGs per year:

2013: $15 million
2014: $25 million
2015: $35 million
2016: $45 million

RPG sales have tripled (up $30 million/year) since the release of 5e and are currently the fastest growing hobby games market.

https://icv2.com/articles/games/view/29326/hobby-games-market-hits-700m
https://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/32102/hobby-games-market-climbs-880-million
https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/35150/hobby-games-market-nearly-1-2-billion
https://icv2.com/articles/news/view/38012/hobby-games-market-over-1-4-billion


Ok. So this shows the numbers for 5e. Where are the 3e numbers? The Pathfinder numbers?
If you claim X is more than Y, we need to see the evidence for both, not just that X is super neato.


3e owes its sales numbers to the same people buying many books. 5e has many more players. It has sold far more of the core books than 3.x has. I think it is safe to say that is has also outsold Pathfinder at this point.

Great. Where are your numbers to prove this, or is it just supposition?


5e is to RPGs as Settlers of Catan is to boardgames.
Feel free to elaborate on this with actual evidence.

Remember, a synonym of inference is assumption, which I think is the more apt term to be used for the above.

[Caelic]

Well, if we assume Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford are not liars, then 5e has, in fact, outsold all previous editions for which they have records.

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/764241988128419840?lang=en

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/11/17/has-the-5e-phb-already-outsold-the-entire-run-of-3-0e-and-3-5e-phb-sales/

[MadBear]

I don't have hard numbers, but there is this tweet from Mearls: https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/764279387520851968

Basically, 5e has sold more copies then 3.0, 3.5, 4e. (individually, not collectively).

edit: crafty ninja's are crafty.

[Pex]

I don't think we should codify restrictions into the rules so that everyone will will follow them and play exactly that way. I think we should codify restrictions into the rules to demonstrate the value of having codified restrictions, and then encourage people to customize those restrictions.

There's a big difference between a game where:
A. The core rules say only humans can be paladins because only they, as a result of their short lifepans and intense emotion, have the will to devote themselves body and spirit to such an impossible goal as giving all people justice. The DMG suggests that some worlds may reinterpret paladins and change the racial restriction to include elven orders of paladins dedicated to preservation rather than the suicidal human interpretation of paladinhood.

B. There is no restriction on what races can be paladins and the core book includes options for champions, preservers and also blackguards as default player options.

I would rather have a game more like A and less like B.

You can.

In your game world the DM can declare only humans may be paladins. Done.

However, why should your preference deprive me of playing a dwarf paladin in my gameworld using the same game system?

[Mikal]

Well, if we assume Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford are not liars, then 5e has, in fact, outsold all previous editions for which they have records.

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/764241988128419840?lang=en

It's in their financial interest to lie? And they don't provide hard numbers to back it up? What criteria are they using? Is it units sold? Is it gross revenue? Is it net revenue?

And note that's just "PHB sales", not total sales.
Seeing as how 3rd edition PHBs were 99% not necessary thanks to the OGL and 4th edition bombed, PHB sales could easily have been higher (again, depending on the criteria they're actually using and have numbers for), with the actual full RPG sales being lower.

[Caelic]

Yeah, we were thinking alike, Madbear. Note that in the SA entry I linked, he elaborates that 5e has outsold 3 and 3.5 combined.

[ad_hoc]

Ok. So this shows the numbers for 5e. Where are the 3e numbers? The Pathfinder numbers?
If you claim X is more than Y, we need to see the evidence for both, not just that X is super neato.



Great. Where are your numbers to prove this, or is it just supposition?


Feel free to elaborate on this with actual evidence.

Remember, a synonym of inference is assumption, which I think is the more apt term to be used for the above.

As of August 12, 2016:

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/764241988128419840?lang=en

This is in # of books, not $ as the 5e books cost much more per book.

Amazon sales rankings January 2018:

PHB #55
XGtE #106
MM #213
DMG #231

It's been 3 1/2 years and 5e sales are still strong.

Also, Pathfinder was the #1 selling RPG in 2013 when the RPG market was $15 million/year. D&D wasn't even top 5. Now D&D is #1 and the market is $45 million/year. That gives us some idea of how well D&D is selling vs. Pathfinder.

[Caelic]

It's in their financial interest to lie?


If you're going to argue that we can't trust the company that makes the game, then we're at an impasse--what would you trust as a reliable source on overall sales at that point?



And they don't provide hard numbers to back it up? What criteria are they using? Is it units sold? Is it gross revenue? Is it net revenue?


Units sold. Mearls answers most of the questions you're asking in subsequent posts under the tweet. He says explicitly that using revenue would be cheating, because 5e retails for more than previous editions.




Seeing as how 3rd edition PHBs were 99% not necessary thanks to the OGL and 4th edition bombed, PHB sales could easily have been higher (again, depending on the criteria they're actually using and have numbers for), with the actual full RPG sales being lower.



No offense, but I really feel like you're grasping at straws here. What would actually convince you that 5e is successful?

[MadBear]

It's in their financial interest to lie? And they don't provide hard numbers to back it up? What criteria are they using? Is it units sold? Is it gross revenue? Is it net revenue?

And note that's just "PHB sales", not total sales.
Seeing as how 3rd edition PHBs were 99% not necessary thanks to the OGL and 4th edition bombed, PHB sales could easily have been higher (again, depending on the criteria they're actually using and have numbers for), with the actual full RPG sales being lower.

So if you're main response is that they're lying, ok that's fair enough. In that case, do you have any numbers to back up the position that 3e is doing better then 5e? I mean, I know that the tweet and what Mearls said aren't drop dead pieces of evidence, but if you'd like your point that 3e was the juggernaut, you need to back that up with evidence as well.

[Rhedyn]

Perhaps they have sold more 5e PHs than 3.X PHs

That really means nothing.

[Easy_Lee]

There is, however, evidence that fluff-restrictions do not harm a game's sales, and lack of fluff restrictions do not improve a game's sales. In fact, there's forty-plus years' worth of such evidence.

That said, I would challenge you (or anyone else) to demonstrate the harm that you claim comes from such restrictions. By what metric is the game harmed? Not by sales, certainly; not by popularity, certainly. If we assume that players know what they enjoy, then clearly, for most players, D&D, with its fluff-based restrictions, is more fun than games where fluff is completely decoupled from mechanics.

Really, the only way to argue against that (and I've seen it done before) is to take the position that most players are clueless and only play D&D because they're too ignorant to know what a good game is.

To your credit, I haven't seen you take that position, and I hope you won't...but in that case, we have to accept that, yes, players like D&D, and they like it the way it is.

You have the argument backward. Restrictions are add-ons to a game, not part of it. In order for them to be there, there needs to be a reason for them to exist. Otherwise, they hurt the game by definition, as complexity for its own sake is indisputably undesirable.

You can't wear heavy armor without an investment in strength and the right features. That limitation fits with the game, because it incentivises you to make a meaningful choice.

Druids can't wear metal armor. That limitation does not fit with the game because it's arbitrary. There are no interesting decisions to be made here, as nothing stops druids from finding other materials for their armor. It's up to you to tell me what this restriction adds to the game, not up to me to tell you what it doesn't. But I did anyway.

The short version: if X doesn't work for balance reasons, that's fine. But if you don't want X to work because it doesn't feel right to you, tough crap. It feels right to someone else. Suggesting that the game is better if everyone is forced to play in a way that feels right to the devs, for no other reason than dev opinion, is inherently ludicrous. Dev opinion is no more valuable than player opinion.

[ad_hoc]

If you're going to argue that we can't trust the company that makes the game, then we're at an impasse--what would you trust as a reliable source on overall sales at that point?



Hasbro earnings call Q1 2015. D&D described as 'being on a tear'. It is illegal for them to lie. D&D even getting a mention here is huge. This was in 2015.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2542-Hasbro-CEO-says-D-D-is-really-on-a-tear&page=9#.Wk_VozdG318

[Mikal]

As of August 12, 2016:

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/764241988128419840?lang=en

This is in # of books, not $ as the 5e books cost much more per book.

Amazon sales rankings January 2018:

PHB #55
XGtE #106
MM #213
DMG #231

It's been 3 1/2 years and 5e sales are still strong.

I see the units. That's still one book vs. the entire line.
That's like me saying that the Edsel is the more popular car than the Corvette because the first year they only made/sold 300 Corvettes vs. 70,000 Edsels it's first year.

The above (both yours and my example) both ignore the fact that you're basing an entire series/models success on a single item when you should be looking at the whole.

In your example, that means all books sold, as well as net profits, including supplements.
In my example, that means production numbers for both car's entire runs.

So, great. 5E has sold more PHBs than 4E (which bombed) and 3E (whose PHB, again was about 90% copied for free online for people to use).

Show me total numbers, with units sold and/or net profits, and then we can actually compare the two.


So if you're main response is that they're lying, ok that's fair enough. In that case, do you have any numbers to back up the position that 3e is doing better then 5e? I mean, I know that the tweet and what Mearls said aren't drop dead pieces of evidence, but if you'd like your point that 3e was the juggernaut, you need to back that up with evidence as well.

I'm not the one claiming that 5E is the best/most popular/most successful edition. I just called into question why the claim was made. I'll be happy to provide evidence once the actual claimant has any actual evidence to support his claim (unless his evidence of course is irrefutable)


Hasbro earnings call Q1 2015. D&D described as 'being on a tear'. It is illegal for them to lie. D&D even getting a mention here is huge. This was in 2015.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2542-Hasbro-CEO-says-D-D-is-really-on-a-tear&page=9#.Wk_VozdG318


So in other words the stock call where the company does it's best to be all rah rah says that they're on a tear.
That compares sales of 5e vs. 3e how, exactly?

[MadBear]

The short version: if X doesn't work for balance reasons, that's fine. But if you don't want X to work because it doesn't feel right to you, tough crap. It feels right to someone else. Suggesting that the game is better if everyone is forced to play in a way that feels right to the devs, for no other reason than dev opinion, is inherently ludicrous. Dev opinion is no more valuable than player opinion.

And this is where I think you're wrong. Metal wearing druids, goes against the archetypal druid. Greatsword wielding rogues goes against the archetypal rogue and so on.

Those restrictions are fine, because they create the ground state of the game, where rogues use daggers, and druids wear leather armor.

With that said, it's up to the GM and table to making rulings. And a GM saying "ignore the metal armor thing if you want" is a perfectly reasonable thing for a GM to do at their table.

[Caelic]

I mean, we could point out that--at present, three years after its release--the 5e PHB is the 55th best-selling book on Amazon. That's not "55th best-selling RPG book," or "55th best-selling fantasy book." It's the 55th best selling book, period. The DMG and MM don't quite crack the top 200, but are still solid.

The Pathfinder core rolebook, meanwhile, is #8,792 in terms of overall sales.

[Mikal]

I mean, we could point out that--at present, three years after its release--the 5e PHB is the 55th best-selling book on Amazon. That's not "55th best-selling RPG book," or "55th best-selling fantasy book." It's the 55th best selling book, period. The DMG and MM don't quite crack the top 200, but are still solid.

The Pathfinder core rolebook, meanwhile, is #8,792 in terms of overall sales.

Great. If the claim was "What is the best selling D&D or D&D derivative player's handbook of all time", it sounds like 5E is winning hands down.

However, that isn't the claim.

[Caelic]

Hasbro earnings call Q1 2015. D&D described as 'being on a tear'. It is illegal for them to lie. D&D even getting a mention here is huge. This was in 2015.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2542-Hasbro-CEO-says-D-D-is-really-on-a-tear&page=9#.Wk_VozdG318


Agreed. When we get to "We can't trust that, they could be lying!" we're really into conspiracy theory territory. The idea that a company would risk charges of fraud to make it look like the current edition of a game is selling better than older editions is...pretty far out-there. Why would they do this? How does it benefit them, exactly? Are people who weren't already playing D&D going to run right out and buy the game because, gee, Mike Mearls tweeted that it's selling better than old editions? How would someone who doesn't play the game even know who Mearls is, or care what he tweets?

[ad_hoc]

So, great. 5E has sold more PHBs than 4E (which bombed) and 3E (whose PHB, again was about 90% copied for free online for people to use).

5e has basic rules which are online. Where did you get that 90% number?

In July 2015 the 5e PHB was the #1 seller on Amazon.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?357835-PHB-is-3-right-now-on-quot-Amazon-s-Hot-New-Releases-quot/page9#post6390727



I'm not the one claiming that 5E is the best/most popular/most successful edition. I just called into question why the claim was made. I'll be happy to provide evidence once the actual claimant has any actual evidence to support his claim (unless his evidence of course is irrefutable)

Except for 1e/basic, it is not even close.



So in other words the stock call where the company does it's best to be all rah rah says that they're on a tear.

It is illegal for them to lie here.



That compares sales of 5e vs. 3e how, exactly?

I think we're all completely fine with you sticking your head in the sand at this point.

[Mikal]

Agreed. When we get to "We can't trust that, they could be lying!" we're really into conspiracy theory territory. The idea that a company would risk charges of fraud to make it look like the current edition of a game is selling better than older editions is...pretty far out-there. Why would they do this? How does it benefit them, exactly? Are people who weren't already playing D&D going to run right out and buy the game because, gee, Mike Mearls tweeted that it's selling better than old editions? How would someone who doesn't play the game even know who Mearls is, or care what he tweets?

That's nice. No one said they're lying on the earnings call. I said that earnings calls are used to make polish turds and to put a spotlight on successes.
So did D&D have one great quarter in 2015? Seems like they did.

Does that mean 5E made more money/sold more than 3E/Pathfinder?
No. If you feel it does, I'd love to see your logic.


5e has basic rules which are online. Where did you get that 90% number?
By how much of the PHB mechanics are in the OGL page? Which was everything except specific names for spells that they kept generic but kept in the PHB?


In July 2015 the 5e PHB was the #1 seller on Amazon.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?357835-PHB-is-3-right-now-on-quot-Amazon-s-Hot-New-Releases-quot/page9#post6390727

Great. Now show me the numbers for the entire edition's lifespan vs. 3E/Pathfinder.


Except for 1e/basic, it is not even close.
Great. Now show me the numbers that prove this.


It is illegal for them to lie here.
I agree. Show me where I said they lied.


I think we're all completely fine with you sticking your head in the sand at this point.
Projecting, much?

[Caelic]

Great. If the claim was "What is the best selling D&D or D&D derivative player's hand book of all time", it sounds like 5E is winning hands down.

However, that isn't the claim.


Short of getting WotC to disclose all of their financial data, what would convince you? All of the evidence available seems to support the idea that 5e has outsold the editions for which WotC has accurate records. (Such records simply don't exist for 1e or OD&D.) Barring any evidence whatsoever to the contrary, I'm inclined to accept the claim.

I mean, I suppose Magic of Incarnum could have been a runaway smash hit that cleared several million units, but somehow, I just don't think so.

[Easy_Lee]

And this is where I think you're wrong. Metal wearing druids, goes against the archetypal druid. Greatsword wielding rogues goes against the archetypal rogue and so on.

Whose archetype, and why did we decide to choose that one? Also, you just misused the word archetypal.

In the context of this sort of fiction, archetypal specifically means a recurrent symbol or motif, a typical example. An archetype is something you observe, not something you dictate. The archetypal rogue is sneaky and wields a dagger because that's how people imagine rogues, not because all rogues must fit that image.

[Rhedyn]

I mean, we could point out that--at present, three years after its release--the 5e PHB is the 55th best-selling book on Amazon. That's not "55th best-selling RPG book," or "55th best-selling fantasy book." It's the 55th best selling book, period. The DMG and MM don't quite crack the top 200, but are still solid.

The Pathfinder core rolebook, meanwhile, is #8,792 in terms of overall sales.

Yes the physical book buying business is thriving afterall /s

Mearls could have been talking about PH sales and what they said isn't fraud. It also means nothing compared to 3e's business model of "one Guy per group grabs all the books" to 5e's "everyone needs a PH because our online resources are garbage" model.

[Mikal]

Short of getting WotC to disclose all of their financial data, what would convince you? All of the evidence available seems to support the idea that 5e has outsold the editions for which WotC has accurate records. (Such records simply don't exist for 1e or OD&D.) Barring any evidence whatsoever to the contrary, I'm inclined to accept the claim.

I mean, I suppose Magic of Incarnum could have been a runaway smash hit that cleared several million units, but somehow, I just don't think so.

So in other words, you can't prove it. Thanks.
The only evidence shown is PHB sales of one edition vs. PHB of another. See my Edsel vs. Corvette comparison.

And yes, actual sales numbers year by year would be great.
We can track New Coke vs. Coca-Cola sales
We can track Corvette vs. Edsel sales
Heck. We can track Chevy vs. Ford sales as a total!

Provide those, and then I think one could more plausibly claim that one edition is better than the other. Until then it's nothing but speculation.

[Caelic]

That's nice. No one said they're lying on the earnings call. I said that earnings calls are used to make polish turds and to put a spotlight on successes.



No, but you did strongly suggest that they were lying when they made the claim about PHB sales. Specifically, your immediate response was "It's in their financial interest to lie?"

That's not true, mind, but it was the first place you went. And, like I said, when we get to that point, we're past the basis for rational discussion, because ANY evidence presented could be dismissed as "They have incentive to lie."

[Caelic]

So in other words, you can't prove it. Thanks.


I can't prove it to your satisfaction. I don't think anyone could. Given what you've said so far, I don't think any standard of evidence would get you to admit that you're wrong at this point. I think we're pretty firmly into entrenched, heels-dug-in "I can't be wrong on the Internet!" territory, here.

That being the case, I'm going to walk away from the discussion at this point. Feel free to declare victory.

[Mikal]

No, but you did strongly suggest that they were lying when they made the claim about PHB sales. Specifically, your immediate response was "It's in their financial interest to lie?"

If you've ever actually paid attention to what I say, you'd know I never "strongly suggest". I say it bluntly. Repeatedly, and sometimes caustically. Regarding my response, the question was "why would they lie". The first answer that would come to my mind for anyone as to why they might lie about sales numbers for a brand/company/whatever they're selling is because it's in their financial interest to lie.


That's not true, mind, but it was the first place you went. And, like I said, when we get to that point, we're past the basis for rational discussion, because ANY evidence presented could be dismissed as "They have incentive to lie."

Then I guess it's a good thing I never said they have incentive to lie when it came to the actual numbers, isn't it?


I can't prove it to your satisfaction. I don't think anyone could. Given what you've said so far, I don't think any standard of evidence would get you to admit that you're wrong at this point. I think we're pretty firmly into "I can't be wrong on the Internet!" territory, here.

See all the other things which can easily be compared in the business world for examples of things that can be proved to my satisfaction. Note all I actually need are... what's word? Oh yeah. Evidence.

Again, you've shown that sales of 5E PHBs are higher than 3E PHBs and 4E PHBs.
You've not shown that sales of 5E products as a whole are higher than 3E/Pathfinder.

[Rhedyn]

My metric is GitPG thread counts. 3e still has quadruple the number and that ratio has started tipping back to 3e's favor after a brief 5e surge.

D&D is dead. Long live D&D!

[Mikal]

My metric is GitPG thread counts. 3e still has quadruple the number and that ratio has started tipping back to 3e's favor after a brief 5e surge.

D&D is dead. Long live D&D!

Should you count threads or posts? After all, 10,000 posts with 2 replies is wider, but not deeper, than 5,000 posts with 10 replies. :smallsmile:

[ad_hoc]

Just for fun, XgtE is the fastest selling D&D book of all time.

https://www.tabletopgaming.co.uk/board-games/news/xanathars-guide-to-everything-is-the-fastest-selling-dungeons-dragons

Momentum.


My metric is GitPG thread counts. 3e still has quadruple the number and that ratio has started tipping back to 3e's favor after a brief 5e surge.

D&D is dead. Long live D&D!

Please tell me you're joking.

[Mikal]

Just for fun, XgtE is the fastest selling D&D book of all time.

https://www.tabletopgaming.co.uk/board-games/news/xanathars-guide-to-everything-is-the-fastest-selling-dungeons-dragons

Momentum.

Great. Define fastest selling now.
It doesn't mean "sold the most copies" or even "sold the most copies in a period of time." It also doesn't mean "sold through its print run in the smallest amount of time." Cause, you know, they'd have said that instead.


Please tell me you're joking.

His metric is honestly only slightly less valid than yours. Seriously- He's comparing actual participation and interest in the game while you're comparing the sales of a single book.

[Caelic]

So anyways: I'm still waiting for someone to produce actual evidence that "Fluff restrictions hurt the game."

I don't think a case can be made that they do:


Individually, D&D has always been more popular than any single game where fluff is decoupled from mechanics.

In the aggregate, games where fluff-based restrictions exist have always been more popular, as a whole, than games where fluff is decoupled from mechanics.

This isn't even a close contest. The most popular generic systems never even came close to D&D's popularity, and at this point, aren't even in the same ballpark. Thus, we can safely say that fluff restrictions have not hurt D&D as a whole.

On the level of the individual campaign, fluff-based restrictions may hurt the game, in that they may interfere with the enjoyment of that individual group of players. However, on the individual campaign level, fluff-based restrictions can be freely modified or eliminated--so again, they shouldn't "hurt the game."

[Rhedyn]

Liars figure and figures lie.

[ad_hoc]

His metric is honestly only slightly less valid than yours. Seriously- He's comparing actual participation and interest in the game while you're comparing the sales of a single book.

Some people posting on a message board (not even the largest one for RPGs) does not show the participation and interest in the game. Even if we put all message boards together it still wouldn't even come close to the player base of 5e (or RPGs in general). And it would also not show actual participation in the game.

You aren't aware of the scope of 5e or RPGs. Message boards are a lake, this one a pond, compared to the ocean of RPG players.

[CantigThimble]

You can.

In your game world the DM can declare only humans may be paladins. Done.

However, why should your preference deprive me of playing a dwarf paladin in my gameworld using the same game system?

But you see, I can throw the same argument right back at you, because I'm not actually trying to deprive anyone of anything. If the game system said only humans can be paladins then your DM can just houserule in dwarven paladins and the end result is the same. You play the game the way you want to and I play the game the way I want to, so what does it matter? Does it matter at all?

I think it does, and the issue is one of legitimacy. No individual restriction matters to me enough for me to want to impose it on anyone's game other than mine. However, I do think that the idea of having restrictions should be legitimized by the game system because the difference between 'default rules' and 'homebrew' really matters for perspective.

In one game I played in, the DM banned a few classes and races he didn't want in his world, including gnomes and barbarians. One player had wanted to play a gnome barbarian and so he deliberately planned to play disruptively as revenge against the DM. Now, you can say that you just shouldn't play with people like that, and you'd be right, but I don't think that idea is actually that rare. Specifically, the idea that when your DM takes away an option in the core rules that is an unjust or tyrannical move. I think this is a result of the fact that 5e has no significant restrictions built into it and so the idea of having restrictions at all has no legitimacy.

I think restrictions having no legitimacy makes the game worse, and a way to fix that would be to include some of the harsh, 2e style, restrictions in the core, along with suggestions about making exceptions or adjusting the restrictions to fit the group.

It's the difference between saying:
"You can pick whatever option you want, but the DM can take your options away if he wants to."
and
"You can pick from these options. Your DM can give you more options if he wants to."

The end result is practically the same, DM does what DM wants, but the second perspective makes the idea of using restrictions to build a game world much more reasonable.

[Rhedyn]

Some people posting on a message board (not even the largest one for RPGs) does not show the participation and interest in the game. Even if we put all message boards together it still wouldn't even come close to the player base of 5e (or RPGs in general). And it would also not show actual participation in the game.

You aren't aware of the scope of 5e or RPGs. Message boards are a lake, this one a pond, compared to the ocean of RPG players.All true, but the factors are equally true for both 3e and 5e in this comparison with the only difference being relative interest.

[Caelic]

All true, but the factors are equally true for both 3e and 5e in this comparison with the only difference being relative interest.


...on this board.

Using the same metric at Dragonsfoot, we would conclude that first edition is clearly still the most popular edition.

[ad_hoc]

All true, but the factors are equally true for both 3e and 5e in this comparison with the only difference being relative interest.

What you're missing is the selection bias.

1) 3.x attracts the sort of players who frequent message boards.
2) People like to make posts about 3.x on message boards.

Here's an interesting story.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136954-Pathfinder-RPGs-Number-of-Players-Grows-Every-Year#&gid=gallery_3031&pid=1

In August 2014 Erik Mona, Publisher of Pathfinder, stated that "Pathfinder has sold more core game books each year since they released, which Mona says isn't supposed to happen in roleplaying games."

This was at a time when the NA RPG market was $15 million/year, Pathfinder was on top, and D&D wasn't even in the top 5.

3 1/2 years later the NA RPG market is $45 million/year and D&D is on top.

Amazon sales ranking:

D&D PHB: 61
Pathfinder Core Rulebook: 10 033

I say this not as a knock to Pathfinder, but to show how much the scope of RPGs have changed in so little time. What was once considered doing very well is now merely a blip. The 5e PHB peaked at #1, I'd like to see the peak ranking of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

[Theodoxus]

I need better definitions and examples. A lot of "there are games that do X" without actually naming the games. So, I have no idea what mechanics and/or fluff are being espoused as examples of same.

Now, in D&D, I think some fluff is arbitrarily too complicated. Druids and metal armor, for example. Outside of exotic skins that are nearly always 100% DM fiat, the only medium armor that Druids can wear, according to the "metal armor restriction is law, not fluff" crowd, is Hide. If this was what was meant by WotC for Druids to use, why didn't they just restrict Druids to light armor? (And if you're going to claim that studded leather - a completely non-historical, made up fantasy trope based on jacked leather - is metal, and thus restricted, you can go 'f' yourself.)

Heck, there's precedence in weapon lists to have Simple + some martial weapons; you could do the same for Druids: Light and Hide armor only.

But, WotC didn't do that. Druids are the nature priests, modeled after mistaken concepts of our real world druids. Metal isn't "natural", but in reality it is - there's no reason a competent player couldn't argue the case - which is what I think JC was thinking (or was it MM) in their "Druids wearing metal explode" reply.

[ad_hoc]

Now, in D&D, I think some fluff is arbitrarily too complicated. Druids and metal armor, for example.

It's straightforward to me.



there's no reason a competent player couldn't argue the case

I reject the implication that being argumentative and difficult shows competence.

[Caelic]

I need better definitions and examples. A lot of "there are games that do X" without actually naming the games. So, I have no idea what mechanics and/or fluff are being espoused as examples of same.



I'd point to GURPS and the Hero System as the two most successful engines where mechanics are completely decoupled from fluff.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd point to GURPS and the Hero System as the two most successful engines where mechanics are completely decoupled from fluff.

As an additional note: 4e D&D almost entirely decoupled fluff from mechanics. Even to the class level. Classes were power sources and lists of abilities, all of which you could refluff basically at will. Being "prone" just meant a certain set of penalties, unconnected to actually being knocked prone to the ground (which is why you could prone an ooze).

No single factor dominated the failure of 4e, but this certainly didn't help 4e be successful (because it was a major break from the past). So saying "fluff hurts the game" must deal with 4e.

[Eric Diaz]

There are a lot of restrictions on character mechanics in 5e. You can't make an extra attack via TWF unless you take the attack action first. Rogues can only sneak attack with ranged and finesse weapons. Barbarian Reckless Attack only works if you use Strength for the attack. The two Power Attack feats only work with Heavy and Ranged weapons, putting all other sorts of weapons at a DPR disadvantage. And so on.

Many of these restrictions pigeonhole characters into particular builds. My favorite example is the Bladesinger. Not only is this wizard archetype restricted to elf, but its primary feature does not work if the character wears armor that isn't light, equips a shield, or uses two hands to make an attack. The Hexblade, who fills a similar role, has none of these limitations.

Some restrictions are likely done for balance reasons, such as paladins being unable to smite with ranged attacks, thus giving them a weakness. But many more of them are pure fluff. I hate these sorts of restrictions. What if someone wants to build a thief acrobat Rogue, but can't do so because quarterstaves aren't finesse? What if someone wants to play an elf Barbarian, but finds that he's unable to do so without penalizing his primary attack attribute?

It seems to me that the only true purpose of any of these restrictions is to force players to fit the intended "fluff," whatever it may be, even if they don't want to.

I think that might be better analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

* "You can't make an extra attack via TWF unless you take the attack action first" - the "first" part inst RAI, apparently.
* "Rogues can only sneak attack with ranged and finesse weapons" - otherwise most rogues would be using great-swords, I guess?
* "Barbarian Reckless Attack only works if you use Strength for the attack" - since barbarians don't use armor, basing their powers on Dex would be too favorable to a Dex build IMO, and that was not what the were going for.
* "The two Power Attack feats only work with Heavy and Ranged weapons, putting all other sorts of weapons at a DPR disadvantage." - agreed.
* "My favorite example is the Bladesinger" - haven't looked into the specifics, but probably agree.
* "quarterstaves aren't finesse" - agreed, am currently re-writing the whole weapon feats for FWIW.
* "elf barbarian" - he... though one. A barbarian with good Dex ain't bad... If elf barbarian is sub-optimal becasue they wanted most barbarians to be orcs etc.... what would you think of halfling barbariasn walking around just becasue the player like the hafling luck thing? I dunno, I'd rather refluff things myself in theses cases.

Havent read the whole thread, sorry if I've missed anything.

[KorvinStarmast]

Druids can't wear metal armor. That limitation does not fit with the game because it's arbitrary.
Not arbitrary. Druids are full casters. A means to differentiate between the druid divine caster and the cleric divine caster needed to be made.
Given the 40+ years of tradition and the model it was built on, it is not accurate to call the choice to make that class distinction arbitrary.
It's a tradition that isn't arbitrary.
As I am not interested in rehashing that pages long thread wherein this particular feature turned into an unfortunate many versus many pissing contest, that's all I've got for you on this point.

[Easy_Lee]

Havent read the whole thread, sorry if I've missed anything.

No worries. A few brought up your points as well. Since then, the thread has gone off the rails a tad with people debating whether 5e is the most popular edition to-date, and why.

As for the initial premise, there are two camps: those who believe fluff should be separate from mechanics, and those who believe fluff should influence mechanics.

My position is simple: fluff is a great starting point, but should not control game mechanics. Mechanics need to be justified by their impact on the game, not by their agreement with the fluff. An archetypal rogue is stealthy and uses a dagger because that's how people commonly imagine rogues, not because rogues must fit that image. You don't dictate archetypes, you observe them.

The moment WotC codifies fluff into rule, that fluff becomes permanent and stagnant, unable to change or grow. This is the heart of the druid thread up right now, with people discussing why druids are unpopular and many agreeing that it's because of their stagnant, stifling fluff.

[KorvinStarmast]

Easy, there is another group of people who feel that the never ending effort to drive a wedge between "fluff" and "mechanics/crunch" is misguided.
I am part of that group.

[Easy_Lee]

Easy, there is another group of people who feel that the never ending effort to drive a wedge between "fluff" and "mechanics/crunch" is misguided.
I am part of that group.

How is that different from believing fluff should influence mechanics? If you don't believe in differentiating the two, you necessarily must be either in favor of or indifferent to linking fluff to mechanics.

[Eric Diaz]

No worries. A few brought up your points as well. Since then, the thread has gone off the rails a tad with people debating whether 5e is the most popular edition to-date, and why.

As for the initial premise, there are two camps: those who believe fluff should be separate from mechanics, and those who believe fluff should influence mechanics.

My position is simple: fluff is a great starting point, but should not control game mechanics. Mechanics need to be justified by their impact on the game, not by their agreement with the fluff. An archetypal rogue is stealthy and uses a dagger because that's how people commonly imagine rogues, not because rogues must fit that image. You don't dictate archetypes, you observe them.

The moment WotC codifies fluff into rule, that fluff becomes permanent and stagnant, unable to change or grow. This is the heart of the druid thread up right now, with people discussing why druids are unpopular and many agreeing that it's because of their stagnant, stifling fluff.

Thanks for the summary!

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I'd argue there are some shades of grey there.

The druids thing seems to be purely a (strange) tradition thing, so I'd be happy either way.

And the rogue... well, what would you suggest? I honestly don't see a problem with a great weapon rogue, since the -5 would significantly diminish your chances of dealing sneak attack, and the +10 damage would be less significant. But what if a rogue would be more efficient with a battle axe than a dagger? Wouldn't that make all rogues prefer battle axes and, conversely, more people having to fight the crunch to make their preferred fluff work?

Mostly, I agree with your point - I see no problems in letting a wizard carry a sword, for example, and always thought the "clerics must wield maces" a bit silly - but there are certainly some edge cases. Like the barbarian, for example. One of the main uses of Str is armor - take that out, and there would be a lot fewer Str barbarians out there.

(although that might mean I agree with you that "restrictions are okay if the reason is balanced, not okay if purely for fluff").

[ORione]

What even is the point of mechanics, if not to enforce fluff? You may be happier with freeform roleplaying.

[Unoriginal]

Mechanics exist for the fluff.

The issue people have with it is just that it doesn't fit the fluff they want.

[ad_hoc]

What even is the point of mechanics, if not to enforce fluff? You may be happier with freeform roleplaying.

Yeah, this entire conversation doesn't make sense to me because the fluff is the game.

It's like saying that the game is hurting the game.

There are aspects we could discuss such as being narrative/story focused, simulationist, competitive, etc.

5e is the most narrative/story focused edition of D&D. I believe this is one of the main reasons it is so popular and is breaking back into the mainstream. This, of course, makes the game less appealing to some, but then all games have aspects that some people like and others dislike.

If we're talking about the health of the game then the claim couldn't be further from the truth. 5e is either already or on course to be the most popular edition of D&D ever.

[Easy_Lee]

What even is the point of mechanics, if not to enforce fluff? You may be happier with freeform roleplaying.

In classic EverQuest, copying from early D&D, classes were restricted by race. For example, ogres could not be monks. That sucked for me since I always wanted to play an ogre monk.

I suspect most will agree that decoupling classes from races was good for D&D. It opened up so many new possibilities. That's the kind of fluff I'm talking about. I think I made that clear.

[ad_hoc]

To put the final nail in the coffin of 5e vs Pathfinder sales numbers:

Highest Amazon sales rankings:

5e PHB: 1
Pathfinder Core Rulebook: 678

http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=92670&d=1515190055

[ad_hoc]

In classic EverQuest, copying from early D&D, classes were restricted by race. For example, ogres could not be monks. That sucked for me since I always wanted to play an ogre monk.

I suspect most will agree that decoupling classes from races was good for D&D. It opened up so many new possibilities. That's the kind of fluff I'm talking about. I think I made that clear.

Fluff can be bad but more fluff is not bad.

Race specific subclasses and feats give flavour to the races. Having race specific classes goes a bit too far, not because fluff is bad, but because classes are designed to be broad. Having them restricted makes them too narrow.

[GlenSmash!]

I dislike race specific subclasses, but I like race specific Feats. Go figure.

[OldTrees1]

No worries. A few brought up your points as well. Since then, the thread has gone off the rails a tad with people debating whether 5e is the most popular edition to-date, and why.

As for the initial premise, there are two camps: those who believe fluff should be separate from mechanics, and those who believe fluff should influence mechanics.

My position is simple: fluff is a great starting point, but should not control game mechanics. Mechanics need to be justified by their impact on the game, not by their agreement with the fluff. An archetypal rogue is stealthy and uses a dagger because that's how people commonly imagine rogues, not because rogues must fit that image. You don't dictate archetypes, you observe them.

The moment WotC codifies fluff into rule, that fluff becomes permanent and stagnant, unable to change or grow. This is the heart of the druid thread up right now, with people discussing why druids are unpopular and many agreeing that it's because of their stagnant, stifling fluff.

The only problem I see with your position, is that you call a lot of mechanics "fluff". If we were talking about restricting Warlock to only Red haired people, that is clearly fluff (hair color has no mechanical impact) causing the restriction. But most of your examples(as others brought up) are probably restrictions created out of designing the interaction between mechanics with a flavorful description added to help the imagination.

[Tanarii]

Easy, there is another group of people who feel that the never ending effort to drive a wedge between "fluff" and "mechanics/crunch" is misguided.
I am part of that group.me too.

I think it's a good model for a developer to lightly consider at some point, but not to wed themself too. There are many potentially useful rules that don't fit into the model, or that are somewhere between the two. For example, role-playing rules.

[MxKit]

As for the initial premise, there are two camps: those who believe fluff should be separate from mechanics, and those who believe fluff should influence mechanics.

TBF, I think there is a third camp, and it's one I have sympathy for: Those who believe that mechanics can be enriched if they then influence the fluff. For example, people pointing out that encouraging Dex-based Barbarians would allow for an AC high enough to be unbalanced; at that point, fluffing the class to encouraging Strength-based builds by having Rage and Reckless Attack work with Strength-based attacks only. I can certainly see where they're coming from with this, since that ends up making the Barbarian class feel unique.


My position is simple: fluff is a great starting point, but should not control game mechanics. Mechanics need to be justified by their impact on the game, not by their agreement with the fluff. An archetypal rogue is stealthy and uses a dagger because that's how people commonly imagine rogues, not because rogues must fit that image. You don't dictate archetypes, you observe them.

The moment WotC codifies fluff into rule, that fluff becomes permanent and stagnant, unable to change or grow. This is the heart of the druid thread up right now, with people discussing why druids are unpopular and many agreeing that it's because of their stagnant, stifling fluff.

I do mostly agree with you, but I think that's really only a problem when the fluffy mechanics are a)too restrictive and b)too arbitrary. And I'd also have to say that, so long as these examples are fairly rare, and I think they are, it doesn't hurt the game so much as it hurts the specific class/subclass in question, at worst.

I also think it's worth reiterating that DMs can houserule things to their liking, and that as a player you can ask a DM to allow certain things. Many will work with you on many things, especially things that are purely fluff and don't throw off game balance. Hell, for those people who don't like the races and subraces having specific ability score adjustments, you can easily run a game where those don't apply, and during character creation everyone can just put a +2 into any one stat and a +1 into any other one stat. It's unusual and maybe a lot of potential players wouldn't like it, but you'd almost certainly be able to find potential players who'd love it.

Basically, I feel like 5e removed a ton of the actually restrictive mechanics and arbitrary fluff rulings, and made it easier than ever for a DM to just go "nah, I don't care about that, we can change it" about most of the actually arbitrary things that remain. Just letting any race be a Bladesinger, giving Druids access to metal armor, or deciding that quarterstaffs are finesse weapons while not being two-handed is easy mode!

[Naanomi]

Finesse quarterstaves make for some very deadly reaction attacks on rogues backstabbing using Polearm Mastery

[ZZTRaider]

One thing that I think is worth specifically mentioning is that the Bladesinger comes from SCAG, which is explicitly a setting book.

I think there's an argument to be made that the PHB should strive to be generally setting agnostic and, as a result, some fluff-based restrictions may not have a place there. Figuring out where the line ought to be in a setting agnostic resource is probably worth discussion.

Taking issue with the lack of non-elf Bladesingers is another matter entirely, though. It seems like Bladesingers were made specifically to provide a good mechanical representation of how something particular about the setting works. That's not a bad thing. In fact, it's really cool! You have a specific group of warriors with shared training that lets them do some special things that most people can't.

If you want to pull the mechanics of Bladesingers into your own setting, that's fantastic. You should absolutely evaluate whether or not the elven restriction still makes sense in the context of your setting, and remove it if not. But what makes sense in your setting has no bearing on what makes sense on the Sword Coast.

Even if you play on the Sword Coast, in your own home games, you can choose to waive the restriction -- though that would presumably require some backstory to explain it. But in this case, the existence of the restriction makes a non-elf Bladesinger even more interesting. They're clearly an exception to the stated order, which is neat. Immediately, there's something truly special about that character, but only because a fluff restriction exists.

[Pelle]

I like that the mechanics incentivize the classic stereotypes/archetypes that I want to see when I play D&D. Variant Human being good for human-dominated settings, Str-based barbarian builds better than Dex etc.

As long as you are allowed to play the Orc Wizard or Gnome Barbarian if you want to be the special snowflake, I see no problem. And when this choice foregoes optimization, it actually means something.

[Tanarii]

One thing that I think is worth specifically mentioning is that the Bladesinger comes from SCAG, which is explicitly a setting book.Its also worth mentioning that SCAG explicitly says under Restriction: Elven Only, "Your DM can lift this restriction to better suit the campaign. The restriction reflects the story of bladesingers in the Forgotten Realms, but it might not apply to your DM's setting to or your DM's version of the Realms." (SCAG p141)

So basically, there's no for way this "fluff" influencing "mechanical" to hurt the game. They already took it into consideration, and went with a very 5e way of handling it.

Ditto Battlerager's restriction to Dwarves only, and Fighter's Purple Dragon Knights restriction to knights of Comyr.

Furthermore they included three pages at the end of the book on suggestion for how to adapt the material included to other worlds: Dragonlance, Eberron, Greyhawk, and home brew.

So yeah, tempest in a teapot on that front.

[visitor]

I agree that the fluff is the game, or what defines it and sets it apart.

D&D is a mostly generic fantasy setting with archetypal heroes: wizard, fighter, thief (now remodeled as a WoW-rogue). Very familiar and popular.



If you completely decoupled fluff from mechanics, what would you really have left? Rolling dice to mark generic "damage points" off of generic "life points" from generic characters? Making them elves or dwarves or spacemen or sorcerers can all be considered fluff too.

Even GURPS (if I remember correctly, it's been a while) uses additional rules/fluff to add to it's basic ruleset. And so you have wild west GURPS, martial arts GURPS, fantasy GURPS and so on. Who wants to play straight up basic GURPS?

Multiple RPGs with various game systems and mechanics have come and gone. But what has determined the winners and losers (IMO) are the settings and fluff that has captured the interest and imagination of a player base.

Runequest took off as a RPG with the introduction of the Gloranthan gameworld and its fluff/mechanics. Avalon Hill killed Runequest by rewriting it as a generic game system.

Cthulhu/Lovecraft has been represented in multiple game systems.


My point is you would not want to play a generic mechanics-only RPG, TTgame or video game. And the other point is you obviously can change any rule/fluff you want if your group agrees, so this only has become a problem with message board communities.

[Pex]

But you see, I can throw the same argument right back at you, because I'm not actually trying to deprive anyone of anything. If the game system said only humans can be paladins then your DM can just houserule in dwarven paladins and the end result is the same. You play the game the way you want to and I play the game the way I want to, so what does it matter? Does it matter at all?

I think it does, and the issue is one of legitimacy. No individual restriction matters to me enough for me to want to impose it on anyone's game other than mine. However, I do think that the idea of having restrictions should be legitimized by the game system because the difference between 'default rules' and 'homebrew' really matters for perspective.

In one game I played in, the DM banned a few classes and races he didn't want in his world, including gnomes and barbarians. One player had wanted to play a gnome barbarian and so he deliberately planned to play disruptively as revenge against the DM. Now, you can say that you just shouldn't play with people like that, and you'd be right, but I don't think that idea is actually that rare. Specifically, the idea that when your DM takes away an option in the core rules that is an unjust or tyrannical move. I think this is a result of the fact that 5e has no significant restrictions built into it and so the idea of having restrictions at all has no legitimacy.

I think restrictions having no legitimacy makes the game worse, and a way to fix that would be to include some of the harsh, 2e style, restrictions in the core, along with suggestions about making exceptions or adjusting the restrictions to fit the group.

It's the difference between saying:
"You can pick whatever option you want, but the DM can take your options away if he wants to."
and
"You can pick from these options. Your DM can give you more options if he wants to."

The end result is practically the same, DM does what DM wants, but the second perspective makes the idea of using restrictions to build a game world much more reasonable.

I don't want the game to tell me what I can't do as in 2E. Humans can't multiclass. You must have this score to play a class*. DMs don't let a player play a ranger even you adjust his scores. No more.

The game's job is to tell us the math behind it. It's the DM's job (sometimes with player input depending on group) to tell us the story behind it.

*Yes, this does mean I don't care for the minimum score requirements of 5E multiclassing, but since it's 13s across the board and easy to get unlike 2E's version of class requirements it's only a minor quibble for me I can get over it. It's very low on the list of my beefs with 5E. The Forum knows which ones are on top.




I reject the implication that being argumentative and difficult shows competence.

There's a joke in there somewhere. I don't claim immunity.

Cheers!

:smallcool:


The only problem I see with your position, is that you call a lot of mechanics "fluff". If we were talking about restricting Warlock to only Red haired people, that is clearly fluff (hair color has no mechanical impact) causing the restriction. But most of your examples(as others brought up) are probably restrictions created out of designing the interaction between mechanics with a flavorful description added to help the imagination.

My impression too. Is a restriction a fluff restriction or a crunch restriction to balance game math but given fluff to paint a picture? As I mentioned before the former bothers me. Easy_Lee too. The latter doesn't. I don't think it bothers Easy_Lee either, but maybe there's too much fluff for his taste surrounding a particular mechanical restriction that he thinks it's the former for that instance.

No offense intended, Easy. :smallsmile:

[MxKit]

Finesse quarterstaves make for some very deadly reaction attacks on rogues backstabbing using Polearm Mastery

Hmm, on the one hand, I do see what you mean. If an enemy enters within 5 feet of you on their turn, you'd be able to use Sneak Attack on them... but at the same time, you'd have to have advantage to do that. If you're trying to get advantage via being hidden, it's likely that they don't see you and wouldn't have ended their turn within 5 feet of you, meaning that if they entered your reach and then tried to leave your reach without noticing you, you'd still get that same Sneak Attack. If you're not hidden and they're coming into your reach and staying there purposefully to attack you, you're less likely to have advantage as they're entering your reach.

So I'd venture to say that in most cases, the Rogue isn't going to get a Sneak Attack of opportunity via Polearm Master if they weren't going to get one already. The only subclass this really breaks down with is Swashbuckler, due to their Rakish Audacity, so if the player was going Swashbuckler specifically and asking to be able to do this I'd be more dubious about letting them unless they agreed not to take that feat. But for most subclasses, I don't think there'd be too much of an issue.

[Mith]

...deciding that quarterstaffs are finesse weapons while not being two-handed is easy mode!

Are you saying swapping out the versatile feature for the finess feature and giving a slender club vs. the usually much longer quarterstaff? Or that it only counts as finess while one handed? Because that second one seems counter intuitive to me. Surely you have less finesse trying to one had a quarterstaff?

[Theodoxus]

If the fear is that you can get more sneak attacks with a finesse'd polearm because you have PAM, well, I hope you don't play with battlemasters using Commanders Strike... This is why martials can't have nice things?

A rogue, without heavy modification, or homebrew, gets to sneak attack a maximum of twice a round: On his turn, and as a reaction (something that doesn't happen very often).

But still, I'll bite...

FEAT
Thief-Acrobat
Prerequisite: Bard or Rogue class
Some rogues study martial arts, becoming particularly adept with the quarterstaff, and gaining near supernatural ability to strike hard and true with a staff.
* A quarterstaff is considered a finesse weapon in your hands, allowing you to use your Dexterity Modifier for attack and damage rolls when wielding a quarterstaff.
* While using a quarterstaff in two hands for balance, you automatically pass any Dexterity (Acrobatics) check requiring balance, such as walking a tightrope or running across ice, that has a DC of 15 or less.

[Naanomi]

Inquisitive as well, and of course you can just stand next to buddies and staff-stab anyone who approaches the two of you

Edit: commander strike? Two characters expending resources to synergize well? I love it... one character taking an already strong feat to double their potential damage... not so much

[OldTrees1]

Hmm, on the one hand, I do see what you mean. If an enemy enters within 5 feet of you on their turn, you'd be able to use Sneak Attack on them... but at the same time, you'd have to have advantage to do that. If you're trying to get advantage via being hidden, it's likely that they don't see you and wouldn't have ended their turn within 5 feet of you, meaning that if they entered your reach and then tried to leave your reach without noticing you, you'd still get that same Sneak Attack. If you're not hidden and they're coming into your reach and staying there purposefully to attack you, you're less likely to have advantage as they're entering your reach.

So I'd venture to say that in most cases, the Rogue isn't going to get a Sneak Attack of opportunity via Polearm Master if they weren't going to get one already. The only subclass this really breaks down with is Swashbuckler, due to their Rakish Audacity, so if the player was going Swashbuckler specifically and asking to be able to do this I'd be more dubious about letting them unless they agreed not to take that feat. But for most subclasses, I don't think there'd be too much of an issue.

The Rogue gentle requests two of their allies stand to either side forming a line of Ally-Rogue-Ally. Now anyone that triggers Polearm Master's AoO would be adjacent to one of the Rogue's allies. While this does not give advantage it is enough to allow Sneak Attacks in 5E.

So in most cases the Rogue would get a Sneak Attack of opportunity.


You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it

[Theodoxus]

I'm confused, are you for or against that idea, Oldtrees1? Because as far as I can see, that just convolutes the tactics in favor of the enemy. Now you have a trio of dudes that either form a line - bad for a host of spells; or a clump - bad for a different host of spells. All to get a sneak attack? Which without such convolutions, happens most rounds with a decently smart player.

If the argument is that 'if you use this particular tactic, that actually hampers our ability to thrive as a party' then it should be a no-brainer to allow quarterstaves to be finesse without jumping through additional hoops - it's a horrible combination that is literally worse than any other weapon combination.

Edit:
Edit: commander strike? Two characters expending resources to synergize well? I love it... one character taking an already strong feat to double their potential damage... not so much

My first character in 5E was a battlemaster - not really knowing the game then, it seemed cool. We had a gnome arcane trickster who loved Commander's Strike. At 3rd level, he was doing 3d6+3 with a hand crossbow with a successful sneak. I was doing 1d8+3 with a sword strike (I was S&B, with Protection fighting style... so new... so new...) Anyway, since he easily out DPR'd me, it was obvious that spending my dice to have him attack was better than anything I'd do. Other than be the mark standing in the face of the enemy so he'd get his sneak dice. It was a lot of fun.

I definitely agree that PAM on a rogue is pretty meh for a damage boost. The bonus action attack is competing with a lot of option. The damage is no better than a dagger, so even if they take it, that's literally no different than rapier/dagger, available with a different feat - so simple opportunity cost, zero sum. The reaction on an enemy closing to within 5' of you, again, requires you having a companion also within 5' of the critter... most things don't run into a location where they'll get thumped by two or more folk... mindless undead, perhaps - but beasts? no way. Smarter opponents definitely not... It's a nothingburger problem. No one is going to pick it because it's awesome... but perhaps as a build concept, like a thief-acrobat.

[Dudewithknives]

The Rogue gentle requests two of their allies stand to either side forming a line of Ally-Rogue-Ally. Now anyone that triggers Polearm Master's AoO would be adjacent to one of the Rogue's allies. While this does not give advantage it is enough to allow Sneak Attacks in 5E.

So in most cases the Rogue would get a Sneak Attack of opportunity.

Or just be a swashbuckler...

[Theodoxus]

Or be an elf with a longbow, still getting their d8, attacking from the safety of 'far away' and not worrying about where to use their bonus action... it's gonna be to hide, so they can snipe again.

This is much ado about nothing.

[Naanomi]

Or be an elf with a longbow, still getting their d8, attacking from the safety of 'far away' and not worrying about where to use their bonus action... it's gonna be to hide, so they can snipe again.
Bonus action is useful, but it is the regular use of the reaction... that you won’t be getting with the longbow... that nearly doubles your damage capacity

[CantigThimble]

I don't want the game to tell me what I can't do as in 2E. Humans can't multiclass. You must have this score to play a class*. DMs don't let a player play a ranger even you adjust his scores. No more.

The game's job is to tell us the math behind it. It's the DM's job (sometimes with player input depending on group) to tell us the story behind it.

*Yes, this does mean I don't care for the minimum score requirements of 5E multiclassing, but since it's 13s across the board and easy to get unlike 2E's version of class requirements it's only a minor quibble for me I can get over it. It's very low on the list of my beefs with 5E. The Forum knows which ones are on top.

Any inclusion is by definition also an exclusion. Saying "Sorcerers can use metamagic" is the same as saying "Every character that isn't a sorcerer can't use metamagic." There's no difference between "Humans can't multiclass" and "Elves, dwarves, halflings and gnomes can multiclass." Or "Humans can dual class" and "Elves, dwarves, halflings and gnomes can't dual class."

That's my point, the difference between adding a restriction and giving an option is only a matter of perspective and presentation.

[OldTrees1]

I'm confused, are you for or against that idea, Oldtrees1? Because as far as I can see, that just convolutes the tactics in favor of the enemy. Now you have a trio of dudes that either form a line - bad for a host of spells; or a clump - bad for a different host of spells. All to get a sneak attack? Which without such convolutions, happens most rounds with a decently smart player.

If the argument is that 'if you use this particular tactic, that actually hampers our ability to thrive as a party' then it should be a no-brainer to allow quarterstaves to be finesse without jumping through additional hoops - it's a horrible combination that is literally worse than any other weapon combination.


I don't have to be for or against. I am just pointing out advantage is not needed to proc PAM out of turn Sneak Attack.

We are talking about the out of turn Sneak Attack right? The during turn Sneak Attack is already a guaranteed thing for Rogues.

[Pex]

Any inclusion is by definition also an exclusion. Saying "Sorcerers can use metamagic" is the same as saying "Every character that isn't a sorcerer can't use metamagic." There's no difference between "Humans can't multiclass" and "Elves, dwarves, halflings and gnomes can multiclass." Or "Humans can dual class" and "Elves, dwarves, halflings and gnomes can't dual class."

That's my point, the difference between adding a restriction and giving an option is only a matter of perspective and presentation.

The difference is restriction by fluff vs restriction by crunch. You don't want a distinction. Others do and declare the former as not a good idea.

[CantigThimble]

The difference is restriction by fluff vs restriction by crunch. You don't want a distinction. Others do and declare the former as not a good idea.

Can you clarify this distinction a bit for me? I'm not really sure what I apparently want here.

[JackPhoenix]

If the fear is that you can get more sneak attacks with a finesse'd polearm because you have PAM, well, I hope you don't play with battlemasters using Commanders Strike... This is why martials can't have nice things?

A rogue, without heavy modification, or homebrew, gets to sneak attack a maximum of twice a round: On his turn, and as a reaction (something that doesn't happen very often).

But still, I'll bite...

FEAT
Thief-Acrobat
Prerequisite: Bard or Rogue class
Some rogues study martial arts, becoming particularly adept with the quarterstaff, and gaining near supernatural ability to strike hard and true with a staff.
* A quarterstaff is considered a finesse weapon in your hands, allowing you to use your Dexterity Modifier for attack and damage rolls when wielding a quarterstaff.
* While using a quarterstaff in two hands for balance, you automatically pass any Dexterity (Acrobatics) check requiring balance, such as walking a tightrope or running across ice, that has a DC of 15 or less.

Quarterstaff-using acrobat sounds like pretty specific character concept. I'm not sure if feat is the best way to represent it. Subclass would propably be better. On the other hand, why does "thief-acrobat" needs to be a rogue? It can just as well be any monk. There's nothing about the concept of thief-acrobat that requires sneak attack, and monk is actually better suited for acrobacy, with increased movement, unarmored defense, slowfall, and what not.

[MxKit]

Are you saying swapping out the versatile feature for the finess feature and giving a slender club vs. the usually much longer quarterstaff? Or that it only counts as finess while one handed? Because that second one seems counter intuitive to me. Surely you have less finesse trying to one had a quarterstaff?

Ah, yeah, that'd actually make a lot more sense. Initially I was thinking the latter specifically just to avoid both versatile and finesse piling up, but a)just switching out versatile for finesse makes more sense and b)there's not even really a good reason to try to avoid that in the first place, since even two-handing it just gives them the same damage as a rapier. The bigger problem really is the Polearm Master feat, and even with that, I still say that in most games it wouldn't come up nearly often enough to worry about it.


The Rogue gentle requests two of their allies stand to either side forming a line of Ally-Rogue-Ally. Now anyone that triggers Polearm Master's AoO would be adjacent to one of the Rogue's allies. While this does not give advantage it is enough to allow Sneak Attacks in 5E.

So in most cases the Rogue would get a Sneak Attack of opportunity.

I feel like this is such a convoluted tactic and requires so much that probably will not happen—two of their allies have to be happy to just stand to either side of the Rogue so the Rogue can pull this one particular thing off, rather than going after enemies themselves or positioning themselves in a way that's tactical for them or for the rest of the team a sa whole; enemies would then have to be stupid enough to rush directly at those three instead of going after other party members or attacking from a distance whenever possible—and actually makes the Rogue's position in the battle worse, since they'd have to be standing there in plain sight with a quarterstaff just waiting rather than hiding, maneuvering, or using a bow/crossbow while at range...

Some players may try this, yeah, but if there's any trust between the DM and the players, I imagine a DM would have a good idea if their player is just trying to get away with annoying cheese or not. Or, again, if a player wants to use a quarterstaff as a finesse weapon for their Rogue, the DM can always say "okay, I'll let you do that, but only if you don't take the Polearm Master feat with this character."

[Easy_Lee]

To those saying rogues would be OP if they could use PAM with SA, that rogue's theoretical damage is nothing compared to a standard GWM barbarian. I don't think that's anything to worry about.

As for fluff, some think that decoupling mechanics from fluff means that the fluff disappears and D&D becomes play-pretend. That's ridiculous. Mechanics may well be inspired by fluff, but that is nowhere near the same as fluff dictating mechanics.

Fighters are a great positive example. Fighter fluff is clear - they are masters of martial combat. And the mechanics reflect that, but in such a way that they do not prevent you from building non-standard fighters. Dipping fighter is common because fighter mechanics are general and work well with many things.

Some people claim the fighter has no identity. I believe those people lack creativity. Does your character lack an identity just because WotC didn't write one for you? Of course not. You choose your own identity. The fluff is there to help you with that, if you want to use it. But there's nothing forcing you to adhere to fighter fluff.

In contrast, barbarians are a near-perfect negative example. Few of their features work well outside of their intended play-style.

Can't cast or concentrate on spells while Raging - no caster dips.
Can't Reckless Attack unless you make the attack roll with strength - requires strength.
Unarmored Defense tied to dexterity and constitution specifically rather than resembling normal armor - guess WotC decided my secondary attributes for me.
Fast Movement doesn't work with Heavy Armor - one more reason why you can't dump dexterity.
Brutal Critical (and Reckless Attack depending on your interpretation) only works with melee attacks - what, did you think you were going to build a thrower?

I could go on.

As a result of the restrictive mechanics, there is only one effective way to play a barbarian: as a melee striker. Barbarians can never hit the high ACs that some other classes can reach. They can't be switch-hitters like a fighters or rogues. They can't dip into casters to create spell-martial hybrids. They can't even afford many feats given that they have three different attributes that affect their core mechanics. No, the barbarian's combat role, play style, primary attribute, and even secondary attributes are decided for you by the mechanics. If you go against the mechanical restrictions, you take a big, pointless hit to your character's potential.

You could remove all of the restrictions above without changing the fluff at all. You'd still have the same picture for and description of barbarians in the PHB. The only thing you would do is allow for other kinds of barbarians, meaning more options for the players.

[Theodoxus]

Quarterstaff-using acrobat sounds like pretty specific character concept. I'm not sure if feat is the best way to represent it. Subclass would probably be better. On the other hand, why does "thief-acrobat" needs to be a rogue? It can just as well be any monk. There's nothing about the concept of thief-acrobat that requires sneak attack, and monk is actually better suited for acrobacy, with increased movement, unarmored defense, slowfall, and what not.

Monk is already getting a quarterstaff using Dex to attack and damage if they so choose. This just makes the staff finesse, so a rogue could sneak attack with it.
A subclass could work, but what if I want to emulate a wizard, AT's out, so I'd need either Magic Initiate or multiclass into wizard... not ideal. What if I want to have the versatility that thief provides? If the Thief-Acrobat waters down other rogue archetypes by taking bits for each, it's not particularly beneficial.

Sure, in a standard game, a non-bard or rogue might want the feat... but they're not getting the full benefit from it, not having sneak attack... (and I included Bard, simply because the PHB has the picture of the tightrope walker on the Bard's page - I'd probably make it rogue only in an actual game.) It would probably be more beneficial, if they really wanted to emulate Little John, to grab a level of monk for the dex wielding staff.


Ah, yeah, that'd actually make a lot more sense. Initially I was thinking the latter specifically just to avoid both versatile and finesse piling up, but a)just switching out versatile for finesse makes more sense and b)there's not even really a good reason to try to avoid that in the first place, since even two-handing it just gives them the same damage as a rapier. The bigger problem really is the Polearm Master feat, and even with that, I still say that in most games it wouldn't come up nearly often enough to worry about it.



I feel like this is such a convoluted tactic and requires so much that probably will not happen—two of their allies have to be happy to just stand to either side of the Rogue so the Rogue can pull this one particular thing off, rather than going after enemies themselves or positioning themselves in a way that's tactical for them or for the rest of the team a sa whole; enemies would then have to be stupid enough to rush directly at those three instead of going after other party members or attacking from a distance whenever possible—and actually makes the Rogue's position in the battle worse, since they'd have to be standing there in plain sight with a quarterstaff just waiting rather than hiding, maneuvering, or using a bow/crossbow while at range...
Yeah, that's exactly what I said... weird.



Some players may try this, yeah, but if there's any trust between the DM and the players, I imagine a DM would have a good idea if their player is just trying to get away with annoying cheese or not. Or, again, if a player wants to use a quarterstaff as a finesse weapon for their Rogue, the DM can always say "okay, I'll let you do that, but only if you don't take the Polearm Master feat with this character."

Bonus action is useful, but it is the regular use of the reaction... that you won’t be getting with the longbow... that nearly doubles your damage capacity

I still have zero issues with PAM interacting with a finesse quarterstaff. Again, why can't martials have nice things?

I know I probably look like a fanboi, but if this is a concern, Zman's houserule is to simply make sneak applicable once a round. The interesting outcome I've seen, is if the rogue misses their attack(s) on their turn, they're more interested in getting that reaction attack, just to make sure they're getting their sneak in. It gives rogues a slightly more reckless feel - which I like; they're like barbarian-lite. But I could see how that might not be everyone's cup of tea.

[MxKit]

I still have zero issues with PAM interacting with a finesse quarterstaff. Again, why can't martials have nice things?

I know I probably look like a fanboi, but if this is a concern, Zman's houserule is to simply make sneak applicable once a round. The interesting outcome I've seen, is if the rogue misses their attack(s) on their turn, they're more interested in getting that reaction attack, just to make sure they're getting their sneak in. It gives rogues a slightly more reckless feel - which I like; they're like barbarian-lite. But I could see how that might not be everyone's cup of tea.

That would also be a pretty decent fix! I was mostly just throwing it out there that if you were really worried about your player trying to finagle things so they can get two easy Sneak Attacks off every single round, there are a few simple fixes for that, and one of them is just going "okay, but don't do X thing that I'm worried about." One doesn't always have to assume DMs running a defensive game against players who are always trying to get one over on them. :smallwink:

[Naanomi]

I mean... realistically if you are doing away with what you see as ‘limiting fluff’; you’d probably be pulling the weapon limitations on ‘polearm mastery’ and just be using it with a rapier, whip, or greatsword anyways

[Caelic]

There's another element here that I think the proponents of decoupling mechanics from fluff are missing.

Games where fluff and mechanics are fully decoupled tend to be for hardcore gamers. GURPS is a hardcore gamer's engine. Hero, perhaps even moreso. They have a steep learning curve, and require a DM who really knows what he or she is doing, because it's easy to break the game when you have control over the mechanics at that granular a level.

This, I would argue, is precisely why such systems have never been as popular as D&D and will never be as popular as D&D. They're not new player friendly.

The reality is that new players may not have a clear idea of what they want to play. New players frequently welcome the same archetypes that are being decried as boring and restrictive here. A new player may well WANT a straightforward, clear-cut archetype like "big strong barbarian," rather than "Well, what sort of barbarian do you envision? Do you want to go with the light cavalry horse-archer barbarian, or the heavily armored Landsknecht, or the medium-armor and dexterity based barbarian, or..."

One of 5e's strengths--a strength it shares with, for instance, BECMI--is that it's easy to learn right out of the box. In a hobby that relies on a steady stream of new players, many of them young, in order to stay vital, that's a critical thing.

[ZZTRaider]

Unarmored Defense tied to dexterity and constitution specifically rather than resembling normal armor - guess WotC decided my secondary attributes for me.

Honestly, I see Barbarian's Unarmored Defense much more as a bonus thing to enable a specific type of character. Namely, the iconic Conan figure that walks in bare-chested and wrecks things. Especially with the damage resistance from Rage, it lends itself to the kind of fighter that deals with attacks by shrugging them off, more than avoiding them.

If you do manage to to reach 20 Dexterity and 20 Constitution, that's as good as wearing +2 Plate armor, which is crazy good, especially when you remember that magic items are not part of the baseline assumption. The balancing factor, though, is that it's very difficult to reach such high scores, because you're heavily incentivized to use Strength as your primary stat. You're more likely to end up with something equivalent to a Breastplate, Half Plate, or nonmagical Plate (though without the stealth penalty the latter two carry). And you still have damage resistance going for you.


Monk is already getting a quarterstaff using Dex to attack and damage if they so choose. This just makes the staff finesse, so a rogue could sneak attack with it.

It is probably worth noting that the designers explicitly decided to make Monk weapons not gain finesse, even though the only mechanical difference is sneak attack. That suggests that they foresaw potential issues with giving weapons like quarterstaff the ability to sneak attack.

[ad_hoc]

There's another element here that I think the proponents of decoupling mechanics from fluff are missing.

Games where fluff and mechanics are fully decoupled tend to be for hardcore gamers. GURPS is a hardcore gamer's engine. Hero, perhaps even moreso. They have a steep learning curve, and require a DM who really knows what he or she is doing, because it's easy to break the game when you have control over the mechanics at that granular a level.


Yeah.

This whole thing is like taking a streamlined combat game like Nexus Ops and using houserules to turn it into a classic war game.

It's not that war games are inherently bad, it's just that most people don't want to spend 10 hours pushing chits around on a board. If you are that sort of person, well, there are already great vetted games that do that and everything in between.

The most popular board games tend to be 30-60 minutes long. Then there are a smaller but still strong contingent of players who like the 2-3 hour long games which take many hours to learn properly. Then there are the really dedicated people who play the 6-10 hour long games which take years to learn. They're all good games just to different tastes. Personally I appreciate the design behind streamlined elegant games.

RPGs are similar. The games that many people want here exist, it's just that most people don't want to play them.

[OldTrees1]

In contrast, barbarians are a near-perfect negative example. Few of their features work well outside of their intended play-style.

Can't cast or concentrate on spells while Raging - no caster dips.
Can't Reckless Attack unless you make the attack roll with strength - requires strength.
Unarmored Defense tied to dexterity and constitution specifically rather than resembling normal armor - guess WotC decided my secondary attributes for me.
Fast Movement doesn't work with Heavy Armor - one more reason why you can't dump dexterity.
Brutal Critical (and Reckless Attack depending on your interpretation) only works with melee attacks - what, did you think you were going to build a thrower?

I could go on.

As a result of the restrictive mechanics, there is only one effective way to play a barbarian: as a melee striker. Barbarians can never hit the high ACs that some other classes can reach. They can't be switch-hitters like a fighters or rogues. They can't dip into casters to create spell-martial hybrids. They can't even afford many feats given that they have three different attributes that affect their core mechanics. No, the barbarian's combat role, play style, primary attribute, and even secondary attributes are decided for you by the mechanics. If you go against the mechanical restrictions, you take a big, pointless hit to your character's potential.

You could remove all of the restrictions above without changing the fluff at all. You'd still have the same picture for and description of barbarians in the PHB. The only thing you would do is allow for other kinds of barbarians, meaning more options for the players.

Let's start with your conclusion.
1) Barbarians are not forced to be strikers. Barbarians are know to be decent tanks. They get to reduce the damage they take which allows them to take more hits. This means a barbarian can have a lower AC and still be more durable than someone with more AC. You seeing them as melee strikers speaks louder as "Despite being able to be great tanks, they can also be built as strikers if the player wants".

2) Barbarians can have high ACs. The Str Barbarian can easily just grab Full Plate with a level of Fighter or a feat (no need for Dex). The deactivation of fast movement is not a big concern. The Dex Barbarian has Unarmored Defense which for them is just under or above Full Plate.

3) Barbarians can be switch hitters. Use a longbow as they close into range and then tear them apart with your Str or Dex weapon of choice. Even if you are a Str Barbarian your shots will still softening them up a bit.

4) Can they dip into casters? You have a point here, however eldritch knight, paladin, ranger, and arcane trickster exist so is it perhaps alright if some of the martial classes don't also cover that concept?

5) They do not need 3 attributes. Str & 14 Con works fine on its own with Breastplate or Fullplate. Dex/Con Barbarians can do fine as a Sword and Board relentless warrior without needing Str (unless they want to multiclass).

Just because a class has abilities that reward multiple different stats, does not mean you need those stats in order to be effective. Nor does it mean that the only effective instance will be the build that twists itself to maximize all of those abilities. Sure that is one effective instance but there are others. You can play the Primal Warrior barbarian (Str/Con/Dex) or the Str Barbarian, or the Dex Barbarian. Even Elf Barbarian/Rogues exist (they act kinda like tough fast and deadly skirmishers).

[Tanarii]

Easy_Lee does have a point in that the majority of Barbarians tend to be very similar. More so than most other classes.

Wood Elf Barbarians kick ass though.

[ZZTRaider]

Easy_Lee does have a point in that the majority of Barbarians tend to be very similar. More so than most other classes.

Wood Elf Barbarians kick ass though.

Sure, Barbarians do tend to be similar.

I could see that being more because of what people tend to think about when they hear the name "barbarian", though. After all, figures like Conan the Barbarian are both well known and very iconic. It could simply be that when many players decide they want to make a more dextrous fighter, they don't even consider the Barbarian as an option simply because the fluff doesn't fit in their mind. Dex-based Barbarians can work quite well, even if they're not necessarily optimal.

It'd be interesting to know how much the average D&D player actually pays attention to the specific mechanics vs the default fluff.

[Unoriginal]

Again, why can't martials have nice things?

Martials have plenty of nice things. You're just saying "why does this restaurant not have the particular dish I like?"

[Talamare]

Easy_Lee does have a point in that the majority of Barbarians tend to be very similar. More so than most other classes.

Wood Elf Barbarians kick ass though.

They are a melee specialist class that has a feature that basically reduces their intelligent options.

It kinda of creates a tight creative area for designers.

Not saying there aren't more options to explore, but it might be trickier to find options than other classes.

[Theodoxus]

It is probably worth noting that the designers explicitly decided to make Monk weapons not gain finesse, even though the only mechanical difference is sneak attack. That suggests that they foresaw potential issues with giving weapons like quarterstaff the ability to sneak attack.

This is the same company that thinks blaster wizards are the way to go. It's pretty apparent that the designers have the same knee jerk reaction to seeing 5d6 attached to an attack as a newbie to RPGs does. Automatically assuming you're going to be doing close to 30 points of damage on a single attack, when in reality, you'll be doing closer to 15 on average. Rolling more dice is fun! But as we all know, it's not that impressive, in a DPR race...

Perhaps we should start putting disclaimers on our posts: "This is meant for seasoned veterans"; "This is meant for up and coming DMs"; "This is meant for fresh faces just coming to the hobby."

Finesse quarterstaves, and all the "issues" with balance, is meant for seasoned veterans who grok the undercarriage of the game, the intrinsic nature of the math that supports it, and can adjudicate on the fly whether something is negatively affecting their specific table.

But if you're coming to a thread like Easy_Lee's and thinking he's talking to new DMs and trying to crap on the game, you're going to come away from the discussion with a wildly different end point than Easy meant - or what most of the discussion is focused on.


Martials have plenty of nice things. You're just saying "why does this restaurant not have the particular dish I like?"

Well, given it's a bloody role playing game, where as a DM, I can create The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, should I so desire, I can in fact, ask "why does this restaurant not have the particular dish I like" and answer it with "boom, now it does."

Look, I get you love your role as the negative nancy of GitP, but maybe you can just not jump in on topics that don't really interest you. This particular comment didn't really add to the conversation.

[Cybren]

WotC doesn't "think blaster wizards are they way to go". They know that blaster wizards are the most popular way to play the class (and have been even when that was mechanically suboptimal)

[Mjolnirbear]

*snip*
(Speaking of which, I would absolutely houserule that the Kobold and Orc don't get those -2s, because that's dumb.)
.

I don't know about the Orc, but for a kobold, the minus is fair. Pack tactics is EXTREMELY STRONG. My last game, we had two Artificers and a sorcerer, and the other two players were putting their squishy bodies in melee range to trigger my Kobold's PT with his gun attacks.

I imagine this is what Barbarians must feel like, without the exhaustion.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I mean... realistically if you are doing away with what you see as ‘limiting fluff’; you’d probably be pulling the weapon limitations on ‘polearm mastery’ and just be using it with a rapier, whip, or greatsword anyways

And skip the limitation of flavouring it as an extra attack and just go directly for the target: more damage.

Harder Hitter
You hit harder, or smarter, or something, that really depends on your character concept I guess. Your attacks do +2 damage. You can take this feat any number of times, because why shouldn't you.

Q: hey sage does Harder Hitter work with magic missle

A: Well it says it works with attacks

Q: Are you sure that's not just a failure of imagination though

A: Um

[Pex]

Can you clarify this distinction a bit for me? I'm not really sure what I apparently want here.

That's the rub. Where's the line drawn between fluff and crunch as a means of justification for a restriction? You don't want any line and are perfectly ok with only humans may be paladins as a rule of the game. I place the line to at least beyond race and gender so am not ok with only humans may be paladins as a rule of the game. Easy sets it farther and doesn't want fluff to be used as justification at all so is not ok with druids don't wear metal armor "just because" (my words).

[Lombra]

A class does what the class does for a multitude of design reasons (balance, appeal, etc...). If your character concept does not fit a class, don't use that class, what's so hard about it? I always fluffed my monks as fighters because the oriental theme didn't quite clicked with me, and didn't feel like fighter mechanics gave what I needed (a bit of mysticism besides arcane power).

As for the barbarian: you can lift restrictions tied to ability scores and orher game objects, but you'd have to rename them to make sense. There's nothing reckless about accurately cutting someone le with a scimitar, nothing brutal about aiming a bow, and nothing feral about embedding yourself in metal and running around the battlefield. The class loses appeal. Play a fighter if you want a dextrous martial artist that can take a beating (samurai is strikingly similar to barbarian). You can fluff battle trance, rage, ultra instinct, whatever without it being supported by mechanics. Hell when my character hits 1 HP and can't flee I do fluff him as plundering in a reckless fury, and when dice luck follows my needs it's epic.

In a simplified martial spectrum between strength and dexterity, fighters are in the middle of it and barbarians and rogues are at the extremes.

[Unoriginal]

Well, given it's a bloody role playing game, where as a DM, I can create The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, should I so desire, I can in fact, ask "why does this restaurant not have the particular dish I like" and answer it with "boom, now it does."

Yes, you can. And if you like it better, you should. I've said it already in this very thread:




If you want to do something and the rules or the fluff don't let you, change them. If your gaming group doesn't want to let you do it, and it's a dealbreaker for you, find a different group that does agree.



The thing is, even if you like your version better, *it does not mean that being different from what you like hurts the game*, which is what this topic is about. By saying "why can't Martials have nice things?", you're implying that the Martials do not have the nice things 5e actually gives to them, and that not fitting your subjective preferences is hurting the game as a whole.

So, as I said before and will say again: change the game as much as you want, but don't act as if not fitting your taste is hurting the game.




Look, I get you love your role as the negative nancy of GitP, but maybe you can just not jump in on topics that don't really interest you. This particular comment didn't really add to the conversation.

Whoa, it's a nice bit of empty rhetoric you have here.

First, "I get you love your role as", used to imply I'm not genuine and am only writing here for disingenuous reasons.

Second, "the negative nancy of GitP", in an attempt to both single me out as "the problematic one on this forum", and to diminish my credibility by implying I'm only here to be negative. Nevermind that "negative nancy" is not used to refer to someone who is a "contrarian for contrarianism's sake", which is what you're implying I am, but means someone who has a negative outlook on life.

Third, "not jump in on topics that don't really interest you", to try to make me look like an outsider of the topic who doesn't get it.

Nice attempt. Ineffective, but nice.

As for my post not adding to the conversation: it reiterated that it's not because someone doesn't like something in a game that this something is hurting the game.

[Tanarii]

Perhaps we should start putting disclaimers on our posts: "This is meant for seasoned veterans"; "This is meant for up and coming DMs"; "This is meant for fresh faces just coming to the hobby."

Look, I get you love your role as the negative nancy of GitP, but maybe you can just not jump in on topics that don't really interest you. This particular comment didn't really add to the conversation.Trying to call out someone else's attitude and saying they aren't contributing to the conversation is the height of hypocrisy after you just tried to claim your position is inherently for those more skilled at the game.

[Rebonack]

To the original post of this topic, one mechanics/fluff disconnect that I find particularly jarring are the abilities granted by the various warlock patrons. Simply put, I can think of no particularly compelling reason why every fiend, fae, or great old one (or demi-lich or celestial or psychopomp) should be shelling out exactly the same set of perks given that these are an absurdly diverse sets of beings. It doesn't help that, barring Hexblade, the different Warlock subtypes really don't play that different from each other. Everything comes down to Boon/Invocation/Spell choice.

The patron should have been a purely fluff option, not a mechanical one. The Boon should have been their subclass, as it does the most to inform the sort of Warlock that's being played even in spite of it being a single level feature with the option to invest an Invocation or two into it. Most of the granted patron abilities work just fine as invocations.

[JackPhoenix]

A class does what the class does for a multitude of design reasons (balance, appeal, etc...). If your character concept does not fit a class, don't use that class, what's so hard about it? I always fluffed my monks as fighters because the oriental theme didn't quite clicked with me, and didn't feel like fighter mechanics gave what I needed (a bit of mysticism besides arcane power).

As for the barbarian: you can lift restrictions tied to ability scores and orher game objects, but you'd have to rename them to make sense. There's nothing reckless about accurately cutting someone le with a scimitar, nothing brutal about aiming a bow, and nothing feral about embedding yourself in metal and running around the battlefield. The class loses appeal. Play a fighter if you want a dextrous martial artist that can take a beating (samurai is strikingly similar to barbarian). You can fluff battle trance, rage, ultra instinct, whatever without it being supported by mechanics. Hell when my character hits 1 HP and can't flee I do fluff him as plundering in a reckless fury, and when dice luck follows my needs it's epic.

In a simplified martial spectrum between strength and dexterity, fighters are in the middle of it and barbarians and rogues are at the extremes.

True. It seems some complaints exist because people think "I want to play barbarian class" first, and "I want to play agile warrior" second, and don't like if the first doesn't support the second well. Instead, people should come up with a character concept first, and then think how to realize it mechanically. And things can always be refluffed without changing the mechanics.


To the original post of this topic, one mechanics/fluff disconnect that I find particularly jarring are the abilities granted by the various warlock patrons. Simply put, I can think of no particularly compelling reason why every fiend, fae, or great old one (or demi-lich or celestial or psychopomp) should be shelling out exactly the same set of perks given that these are an absurdly diverse sets of beings. It doesn't help that, barring Hexblade, the different Warlock subtypes really don't play that different from each other. Everything comes down to Boon/Invocation/Spell choice.

The patron should have been a purely fluff option, not a mechanical one. The Boon should have been their subclass, as it does the most to inform the sort of Warlock that's being played even in spite of it being a single level feature with the option to invest an Invocation or two into it. Most of the granted patron abilities work just fine as invocations.

So, you think warlock offers too much variety, and want less of it?

[2D8HP]

...Games where fluff and mechanics are fully decoupled tend to be for hardcore gamers. GURPS is a hardcore gamer's engine. Hero, perhaps even moreso. They have a steep learning curve, and...

....precisely why such systems have never been as popular as D&D and will never be as popular as D&D. They're not new player friendly.....

....The games that many people want here exist, it's just that most people don't want to play them..
Just chiming in to agree.

I've owned both GURPS (love the "Workbooks"), and HERO, and before them RuneQuest, which are all "classless" systems.

5e D&D does a nice job of having relatively quick character creation (I'd like it to be even quicker), with a variety of classes that do "what it says on the tin", making it easier on those who just want to jump into playing without having to study up on making "builds", but still allows customizations with "Backgrounds", and "Standard Array", and "Standard Equipment" makes it easier to have effective characters, making it relatively newcomer friendly.

I like that.


...Wood Elf Barbarians kick ass though..
As do Wood-Elf Fighters and Rogues.

"Mechanics" wise, WoD Elves are my favorite.

[Easy_Lee]

In a simplified martial spectrum between strength and dexterity, fighters are in the middle of it and barbarians and rogues are at the extremes.

Except that rogues play well in a variety of roles and builds. They can be DPR-focused, or tanky, or even support-oriented (thief + healer). Rogues multiclass well with every class because aside from SA, their features generally have few restrictions.

Barbarians don't multiclass well. Aside from rogue and fighter, who can multiclass with anything, few classes benefit from barbarian levels. The restrictions on their features pigeonhole them into specific builds and playstyles. And there's no need for it.

[2D8HP]

Except that rogues play well in a variety of roles and builds......
That's true, most of my 5e PC's have some levels in Rogue.


....Barbarians don't multiclass well. Aside from rogue and fighter, who can multiclass with anything, few classes benefit from barbarian levels.... ..
While I suppose a PC that's getting a better AC in armor wouldn't benefit from "Unarmored Defense", what PC wouldn't benefit from the highest HP of any class?

Most every combat that I've seen go well for the PC's has involved two things, a high AC and HP PC (usually a Barbarian) that gets within 5' feet of an antagonist, and a Rogue (often with at least one Fighter level, or two Ranger levels for "Archery Fighting Style") that then Sneak Attacks the antagonist.

But for their main role, of standing next to the enemy, Barbarians don't need to multiclass.

[Rebonack]

So, you think warlock offers too much variety, and want less of it?

No, I think their flavor variety is bundled with mechanical baggage that in many cases makes zero in character sense. Making the current Patron features into Invocations is trivial and expanding the Boons into full subclass features is likewise simple enough.

Making patrons a role playing choice rather than a mechanical choice allows the player to define what their patron is about via spell and invocation choices rather than saddling them with four levels worth of mechanical baggage that might have little or nothing to do with their patron.

Not all fae are about charming people. Not all fiends are about being supernaturally resilient. Not all psychopomps are about magical melee combat. Not all great old ones involve telepathy.

These ability should all be AN option rather than THE option.

[OldTrees1]

You want the warlock to get more invocations, from a larger list, with the invocations they choose constructing the theme/fluff of their patron, instead of a patron subclass.

Yeah, that does make sense.

[JackPhoenix]

No, I think their flavor variety is bundled with mechanical baggage that in many cases makes zero in character sense. Making the current Patron features into Invocations is trivial and expanding the Boons into full subclass features is likewise simple enough.

Making patrons a role playing choice rather than a mechanical choice allows the player to define what their patron is about via spell and invocation choices rather than saddling them with four levels worth of mechanical baggage that might have little or nothing to do with their patron.

Not all fae are about charming people. Not all fiends are about being supernaturally resilient. Not all psychopomps are about magical melee combat. Not all great old ones involve telepathy.

These ability should all be AN option rather than THE option.

So, instead of giving them patron choice AND spell and invocation choices, you would take the patron choice from them. How is that not taking variety from the class? Perhaps the fae that are not about charming people don't offer archfey pact. Same with non-fire fiends and non-telepathic GOOs.

Or... you know... how is archfey pact about charming people? Both Fey Presence and Dark Delirium can be used to charm or frighten. Beguiling defense is about turning others' charms against them. Spell list includes outright mind control instead of charming. Fiends? All fiends have resistances to *something*, it's the spell list that's more problematic... less fiends are associated with fire than with being hard to kill. Hexblade is just bad and doesn't make any sense fluff-wise. And how do you know if GOOs aren't all telepathic? They aren't statted in 5e. And "grants exactly one telepathic ability you don't have to use" doesn't really make the telepathy the whole base of their fluff. You may as well complain that your warlock is a scholar that shouldn't know how to wear light armor or use simple weapons.


You want the warlock to get more invocations, from a larger list, with the invocations they choose constructing the theme/fluff of their patron, instead of a patron subclass.

Yeah, that does make sense.

Does it? Nothing stops WotC from including more invocations to flesh out your patron without removing the option to choose patron in itself. There are new invocations in XGtE, after all. Unlike, say, new battlemaster maneuvers. Or elemental monk abilities. Or barbarian totems.

[MxKit]

So, instead of giving them patron choice AND spell and invocation choices, you would take the patron choice from them. How is that not taking variety from the class?

I think what they may be suggesting is that the patron choice should be switched with the pact choice. Making the pact choice the main class focus that grants specific things by level, with the patron choice being the thing that only grants one specific blessing and you otherwise build on it with invocations. I don't think that's a terrible idea for an alternate take on the Warlock, but I like the Warlock the way it is and don't feel like it absolutely needs an alternate take, and definitely doesn't need to be "fixed."


And how do you know if GOOs aren't all telepathic? They aren't statted in 5e. And "grants exactly one telepathic ability you don't have to use" doesn't really make the telepathy the whole base of their fluff.

I agree with the rest of what you said in that paragraph, too, but I especially want to make note of this bit. I've always sort of assumed that the telepathy isn't really specifically to do with the GOO granting a power, and more about your mind basically exploding after being exposed to a GOO. It's not so much a case of "Yig making me telepathic? But he's not telepathic! What a stupid fluff!" and more "your brain touched the presence or even mind of an eldritch being beyond mortal comprehension, you were either going to go completely bat**** insane or your mind was going to adapt somehow to be able to handle the revelation."

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree with the rest of what you said in that paragraph, too, but I especially want to make note of this bit. I've always sort of assumed that the telepathy isn't really specifically to do with the GOO granting a power, and more about your mind basically exploding after being exposed to a GOO. It's not so much a case of "Yig making me telepathic? But he's not telepathic! What a stupid fluff!" and more "your brain touched the presence or even mind of an eldritch being beyond mortal comprehension, you were either going to go completely bat**** insane or your mind was going to adapt somehow to be able to handle the revelation."

I agree with this. GOO warlocks in particular mention that their "pact" may not even really be intentional on either part. A meditating scholar glimpsed beyond the veil of reality while working on equations. His mind was forever altered by that experience, in a way that unlocked power. By focusing on that vision and by experience, he can adapt and learn new powers. All of this without any knowledge or anything on the part of the GOO. Telepathy and weird psychic powers fit this theme of a mind altered by contact with alien realities perfectly well from my point of view.

[OldTrees1]

Does it? Nothing stops WotC from including more invocations to flesh out your patron without removing the option to choose patron in itself. There are new invocations in XGtE, after all. Unlike, say, new battlemaster maneuvers. Or elemental monk abilities. Or barbarian totems.

So? I don't see how that is relevant to my comment.

1) Rebonack's idea is to take the Patron abilities, make them invocations, and grant the Warlock more invocations so they lose nothing between an existing Warlock and one using Rebonack's idea. Neither saying "WotC could add more invocations to the list of invocations" nor saying "WotC could do that without removing the patron subclass" addresses the change involved in Rebonack's idea. Basically instead of creating your patron out of 1 Patron Subclass(of N abilities) and X invocations, you would create your patron out of N+X invocations from a now longer list.

2) I said Rebonack's idea made sense. You attempted to question that by saying the existing system makes sense. Multiple things can make sense.

[Lombra]

Except that rogues play well in a variety of roles and builds. They can be DPR-focused, or tanky, or even support-oriented (thief + healer). Rogues multiclass well with every class because aside from SA, their features generally have few restrictions.

Barbarians don't multiclass well. Aside from rogue and fighter, who can multiclass with anything, few classes benefit from barbarian levels. The restrictions on their features pigeonhole them into specific builds and playstyles. And there's no need for it.

Barbarians too can focus on DPR, tank, and support (control the battlefield with grapples/shoves) roles, but in different ways.

Barbarians do multiclass way worse than rogues, but is this realltly a bad thing? A class that makes you want to stay single classed is a good sign imo. Not to mention that optional rules explicitly did not drive game design. Plus, barbaian 2 is a good dip for a variety of melee builds.

Sometimes more options =/= better game experience.

I understand your view:"give me the pieces and I'll build my game with my tools" and it's an appealing sandbox view, although it does not fit less experienced players, and, let's be honest, when reading a class and thinking "wow that thing makes sense and it's cool", you feel better than "ok this does that and that, if I put it with that other thing it'll make this... oh wait which character was I going to play again?" :tongue:

My opinion is that mechanics and fluff can go together, it's a design choice and a matter of personal taste, and it does not inherently hurt the game, because a mechanic is just a mechanic, regardless of what it means lore-wise.

If you don't like the fact that game mechanics interfere with game objects (like ability scores and equipment) then I'm not sure how to feel about it really, on one hand I think it's cool that (for example, same argument basically) races nudge your character towards some classes, on the other hand I wouldn't mind if a human paladin and a gnome paladin had the same ability scores since they both cover the same class, but then again it's cool to have variaty among characters with the same class... I really can't make up my mind about this.

[Easy_Lee]

Barbarians too can focus on DPR, tank, and support (control the battlefield with grapples/shoves) roles, but in different ways.

Tanking is not a role. Assuming you mean that they are good at soaking damage and preventing allies from taking damage, there are plenty of builds that do that better. As far as support, are you serious? You can't build a barbarian to be an effective support player. Grappling or shoving enemies is not support, that's control. And as far as control, Barbarians are worse at that than any caster.

But that's not the point. The point is that barbarian features lend themselves fully to only one playstyle and set of attributes. Fighters and rogues are not like that, even though rogues have unnecessary restrictions on sneak attack. Monks are almost like that since they require dexterity and wisdom to be effective and can't wear armor. But at least monk features lend themselves to some forms of multiclass.

Contrast barbarians with warlocks, who have multiple patron choices, three pact choices, dozens of invocation choices, over a hundred spell options, and in general can be built to do just about anything except soak damage.

[Lombra]

Tanking is not a role. Assuming you mean that they are good at soaking damage and preventing allies from taking damage, there are plenty of builds that do that better. As far as support, are you serious? You can't build a barbarian to be an effective support player. Grappling or shoving enemies is not support, that's control. And as far as control, Barbarians are worse at that than any caster.

But that's not the point. The point is that barbarian features lend themselves fully to only one playstyle and set of attributes. Fighters and rogues are not like that, even though rogues have unnecessary restrictions on sneak attack. Monks are almost like that since they require dexterity and wisdom to be effective and can't wear armor. But at least monk features lend themselves to some forms of multiclass.

Contrast barbarians with warlocks, who have multiple patron choices, three pact choices, dozens of invocation choices, over a hundred spell options, and in general can be built to do just about anything except soak damage.

I don't get why you think that tying attributes to classes is bad. Casters use an attribute to cast and only work well when that attribute is high. Any non-caster class has less than 100 spells to choose from.

I don't get what you said about tanking not heing a role though, because it clearly seems to me a role in battle, and barbarians can do it well, better than rogues for sure.

Dex barbarian just doesn't make sense to me. Dexterity is about grace, not rage.

Do you like that races influence classes?

[Rebonack]

So, instead of giving them patron choice AND spell and invocation choices, you would take the patron choice from them. How is that not taking variety from the class?

Nah, you still get a patron choice. But the patron choice would inform your chosen mechanical benefits rather than dictating your mechanical benefits. A first level feature and an expanded spell list. Have a bunch of them tied to various domains akin to a cleric. Madness, terror, charm, psionics, healing, curses, domination, resilience, and so on and so forth. Pick one that fits with your patron.

The 6, 10, and 14th level patron features we have now become Invocations. The various Boons become the new subclass, since they are already one of the biggest defining factors in how a warlock is going to play. A Fae and GoO warlock aren't that different, but a Chain and Blade warlock sure are.


Perhaps the fae that are not about charming people don't offer archfey pact. Same with non-fire fiends and non-telepathic GOOs.

Imagine for a moment that all barbarian class features only work if you're wielding a greataxe. Maybe people who don't like greataxes just don't become barbarians?

It's possible to justify any fluff limitation. That doesn't make the limitation a good idea.


Or... you know... how is archfey pact about charming people? Both Fey Presence and Dark Delirium can be used to charm or frighten. Beguiling defense is about turning others' charms against them. Spell list includes outright mind control instead of charming. Fiends? All fiends have resistances to *something*, it's the spell list that's more problematic... less fiends are associated with fire than with being hard to kill. Hexblade is just bad and doesn't make any sense fluff-wise. And how do you know if GOOs aren't all telepathic? They aren't statted in 5e. And "grants exactly one telepathic ability you don't have to use" doesn't really make the telepathy the whole base of their fluff. You may as well complain that your warlock is a scholar that shouldn't know how to wear light armor or use simple weapons.

Again, it's possible to justify why a particular set of mechanics fit with a given patron whether directly or tangentially, but that's completely irrelevant to my point. The otherworldly patron feature is far too specific if it is mean to represent such a broad range of beings. It would be like all possible choices of gods for a Cleric getting crammed into three poorly fitting categories. A domain-like system would feel less forced.


Does it? Nothing stops WotC from including more invocations to flesh out your patron without removing the option to choose patron in itself. There are new invocations in XGtE, after all. Unlike, say, new battlemaster maneuvers. Or elemental monk abilities. Or barbarian totems.

After WotC released the Hexblade Otherworldly Patron rather than just fixing Blade Boon my hopes aren't that high.



I agree with the rest of what you said in that paragraph, too, but I especially want to make note of this bit. I've always sort of assumed that the telepathy isn't really specifically to do with the GOO granting a power, and more about your mind basically exploding after being exposed to a GOO. It's not so much a case of "Yig making me telepathic? But he's not telepathic! What a stupid fluff!" and more "your brain touched the presence or even mind of an eldritch being beyond mortal comprehension, you were either going to go completely bat**** insane or your mind was going to adapt somehow to be able to handle the revelation."

Two thirds of the GoO's mentioned in the warlock entry have nothing to do with the Cthulhu Mythos and even less to do with the Far Realm. Tharuzdon is a god who was corrupted by a shard of pure evil and Dendar is a giant snake that snacks on nightmares whilst chilling on the fugue plane. The 'Great Old One' patron is a catch-all for anything that would fall into the broad category of 'things with god-like power that don't grant divine spells.' Technically, a warlock of Ao would count as a GoO pact provided someone were crazy enough to figure out how to siphon power from Ao.

If 'touching the mind of a god' is sufficient to gain one-way telepathy, then every single cleric should get it too.

OR!

The Warlock's first level feature could work more like cleric domains and they just pick the one that they feel best fits with their chosen patron, regardless of what kind of patron it might be classified as.

[Easy_Lee]

Dex barbarian just doesn't make sense to me. Dexterity is about grace, not rage.

This is exactly what it comes down to. You are on the same wavelength as the designers when it comes to barbarians. A graceful barbarian does not make sense to you, thus you don't think it should be possible in D&D. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

If the barbarian's reckless attack only worked with dexterity, and barbarian unarmored defense was based on dexterity and intelligence, I bet you wouldn't be too happy about that.

I think it's better for the game if you let me do what works for me and I let you do what works for you. All of the barbarian's features could provide the exact same benefit without restricting barbarians to being strength-based non-caster melee strikers. And we could say the same thing about a variety of needlessly restrictive mechanics.

[Gardakan]

I don't get why you think that tying attributes to classes is bad. Casters use an attribute to cast and only work well when that attribute is high. Any non-caster class has less than 100 spells to choose from.

I don't get what you said about tanking not heing a role though, because it clearly seems to me a role in battle, and barbarians can do it well, better than rogues for sure.

Dex barbarian just doesn't make sense to me. Dexterity is about grace, not rage.

Do you like that races influence classes?

Dexterity Barbarian can make senses. They're not as common, but they make sense.

I have a barbarian who has a higher Dexterity then Strenght and use finesse weapons while raging. She knows it's a subpar build, but she still wants to fight with kitchen knives as her barbarian was a wench who got tired of fighting with drunkards.

Everything goes if you're having fun.

[Caelic]

I think it's better for the game if you let me do what works for me and I let you do what works for you. All of the barbarian's features could provide the exact same benefit without restricting barbarians to being strength-based non-caster melee strikers. And we could say the same thing about a variety of needlessly restrictive mechanics.


Sure. And a wizard could work with any casting stat just as well as intelligence. And why aren't healing spells on a wizard's spell list? Who decided that a wizard can't heal? Who decided that a cleric can't cast fireball, or that a bard can't smite?

Clearly, we can just have "the spell list." Everyone gets all their spells from the same spell list, and any class can choose any spell, and use any casting stat.

And why shouldn't a wizard be able to use metamagic? They study magic. And why shouldn't an Arcana cleric? Clearly, restricting metamagic to sorcerers is needlessly restrictive.

See, the thing is, you can make this argument for just about ANY ability--and, in the end, what you wind up with is a poor man's GURPS, which tries hard to be a generic universal system, and isn't. What you wind up with is a system where people simply cherry pick the most mechanically efficient elements, and thus, cookie-cutter builds become even more of a thing. In the name of maximizing diversity, you destroy diversity.

[Easy_Lee]

Sure. And a wizard could work with any casting stat just as well as intelligence. And why aren't healing spells on a wizard's spell list? Who decided that a wizard can't heal? Who decided that a cleric can't cast fireball, or that a bard can't smite?

Clearly, we can just have "the spell list." Everyone gets all their spells from the same spell list, and any class can choose any spell, and use any casting stat.

And why shouldn't a wizard be able to use metamagic? They study magic. And why shouldn't an Arcana cleric? Clearly, restricting metamagic to sorcerers is needlessly restrictive.

See, the thing is, you can make this argument for just about ANY ability--and, in the end, what you wind up with is a poor man's GURPS, which tries hard to be a generic universal system, and isn't. What you wind up with is a system where people simply cherry pick the most mechanically efficient elements, and thus, cookie-cutter builds become even more of a thing. In the name of maximizing diversity, you destroy diversity.

Strawmen are born when you take an argument to its extreme, then pretend as though people are arguing for that extreme. If you read my posts, it's clear that I'm not arguing for the extreme you suggested. To quote another poster, this isn't a black and white topic. There are shades of gray here. It doesn't do any good to think of your side as white or to call the other side black.

[ORione]

Strawmen are born when you take an argument to its extreme, then pretend as though people are arguing for that extreme. If you read my posts, it's clear that I'm not arguing for the extreme you suggested. To quote another poster, this isn't a black and white topic. There are shades of gray here. It doesn't do any good to think of your side as white or to call the other side black.

I don't see how letting a wizard heal is any more extreme than letting a barbarian use reckless attacks with finesse weapons.

Edit: And if you don't want mechanics and fluff to go together, why not make a rogue and call it a barbarian? Then you've got a barbarian who benefits from dexterity.

[Easy_Lee]

I don't see how letting a wizard heal is any more extreme than letting a barbarian use reckless attacks with finesse weapons.

Edit: And if you don't want mechanics and fluff to go together, why not make a rogue and call it a barbarian? Then you've got a barbarian who benefits from dexterity.

Spells are mechanics. Allowing a barbarian to reckless attack with dexterity would be akin to allowing a wizard to use some other attribute for his casting - which I wouldn't have a problem with. That's completely different from giving wizards new spells. What you're saying would be akin to giving barbarians sneak attack, a new mechanic. It's nothing like letting them use their existing mechanics in different ways.

In short, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Class mechanics should say what the class does, not how.

[Theodoxus]

That's just semantics. Once you start calling your rogue a barbarian, it might work at your table fine, but you'll no longer have anyone on an online forum understanding anything you say.

You can call a barbarian a Grizgrong, for all it matters. But don't expect us to be able to help you build the best Grizgrong we can.

Swapping caster stats has been talked about to death. It's fine. Making metamagic universal is fine, either get rid of the sorcerer; have the bloodlines become wizard traditions or grant sorcerers bonus spells equal to their charisma - each works fine. Giving wizards healing spells is fine. Heck, you could have a master spell list of all spells, and just let the player decide if he wants a spellbook, a patron, or native spellcasting and inspiration. Magical Secrets just provide bonus spells in this scenario, but there's no reason it can't work.

I toyed around with playing a dex based barbarian; a noble with a rapier and shield in a breastplate with medium armor mastery. He had a snuffbox with "magical" snuff that increased his damage resistance - a bit of Dr Jekyll, Mr Hide with less transforming. This was when 5E just came out and I didn't realize both Rage damage and Reckless attack required strength to attack to activate. I decided, for me, it was too limiting for what I was envisioning... I could see an option where you'd choose str or dex... afterall, you can use strength with finesse, thus strength rogues lose nothing other than being a bit more MAD than otherwise - and if you're rolling stats, it might not actually matter with decent rolls. Where a strength rogue gains MADness, a dex barbarian (with a dex rage option) loses MADness. Now, the irony could be too much for some folk, and I totally get that. But in a mechanical balance perspective, there's no reason it couldn't work.

Heck, I think more people have an issue with a dex barbarian than with a homebrewed heavy armored barbarian inspired by the Pathfinder version of the same.

[Lombra]

This is exactly what it comes down to. You are on the same wavelength as the designers when it comes to barbarians. A graceful barbarian does not make sense to you, thus you don't think it should be possible in D&D. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

If the barbarian's reckless attack only worked with dexterity, and barbarian unarmored defense was based on dexterity and intelligence, I bet you wouldn't be too happy about that.

I think it's better for the game if you let me do what works for me and I let you do what works for you. All of the barbarian's features could provide the exact same benefit without restricting barbarians to being strength-based non-caster melee strikers. And we could say the same thing about a variety of needlessly restrictive mechanics.

I simultaneously understand and not understand.

I'm not trying to purposely word it negatively, but: do you really think that a game where classes are just sterile mechanics is better than a game with flavorful classes designed to express the idea behind the class itself just by reading their abilities?

Why can't barbarians benefit from dex for some class features? I don't know. Why can't fighters benefit from wisdom for some class features? I don't know.

Is it really a better game if the classes don't explicitly depict a fictional trope? A strong barbarian is effective, an intelligent wizard is effective, if you don't want to play an intelligent caster you can play sorcerer, if you want to play a dextrous frontliner you may find fighter better suited for your needs. I struggle to see any differences.

[Easy_Lee]

That's just semantics. Once you start calling your rogue a barbarian, it might work at your table fine, but you'll no longer have anyone on an online forum understanding anything you say.

If I chose the rogue class, gave him the outlander background, said that he hailed from a barbarian tribe, took athletics and survival expertise, and wanted to use a battleaxe, would there really be any doubt as to what I was playing?

Unfortunately, the build I just described is not really possible due to sneak attack. I either need special DM permission or I have to refluff some other weapon (scimitar, etc.) as a battleaxe and just pretend that's what it is. That's the best I can do, and there's no reason for it other than fluff.


I simultaneously understand and not understand.

I'm not trying to purposely word it negatively, but: do you really think that a game where classes are just sterile mechanics is better than a game with flavorful classes designed to express the idea behind the class itself just by reading their abilities?

Why can't barbarians benefit from dex for some class features? I don't know. Why can't fighters benefit from wisdom for some class features? I don't know.

Is it really a better game if the classes don't explicitly depict a fictional trope? A strong barbarian is effective, an intelligent wizard is effective, if you don't want to play an intelligent caster you can play sorcerer, if you want to play a dextrous frontliner you may find fighter better suited for your needs. I struggle to see any differences.

It's possible to have fluff for the classes without the mechanics enforcing that fluff. The fluff wouldn't change, and the effects of the mechanics wouldn't change. The only thing I would lift is fluff-based restrictions.

And for the record, I'm fine with intelligence-based fighters. In fact, that sort of thing is the only way you could make a tiefling fighter, for instance, without statistically paying for it.

[Lombra]

Dexterity Barbarian can make senses. They're not as common, but they make sense.

I have a barbarian who has a higher Dexterity then Strenght and use finesse weapons while raging. She knows it's a subpar build, but she still wants to fight with kitchen knives as her barbarian was a wench who got tired of fighting with drunkards.

Everything goes if you're having fun.

Yes, your last sentence is true for every single TTRPG rules discussion and it's the ovbious solution to every problem that ever arises. No irony or offense intended, but since it's so universally true, it also isn't useful to discussions about rules. I appreciate that your table embraces it, because it means that you are genuinely having fun.

It also depends on what you think stats represent, the book describes what they mean but hey, why can't we see them as we want? I can be a skinny/tubby/whatever shape wench and still have 20 strength.

Personally I like to depict stats as close to reality as possible to make my mental engine work, i.e: strong warriors are muscular, nimble warriors are lean, wise characters are wise etc... etc... but everyone can see it differently. Why is strength better than dexterity for a barbarian? Why does it matter? What is the difference that you want between strength and dexterity?

I'm not implying that you are playing wrong, the character concept sounds fun.

[Cynthaer]

Games where fluff and mechanics are fully decoupled tend to be for hardcore gamers. GURPS is a hardcore gamer's engine. Hero, perhaps even moreso. They have a steep learning curve, and require a DM who really knows what he or she is doing, because it's easy to break the game when you have control over the mechanics at that granular a level.

This, I would argue, is precisely why such systems have never been as popular as D&D and will never be as popular as D&D. They're not new player friendly.

The reality is that new players may not have a clear idea of what they want to play. New players frequently welcome the same archetypes that are being decried as boring and restrictive here. A new player may well WANT a straightforward, clear-cut archetype like "big strong barbarian," rather than "Well, what sort of barbarian do you envision? Do you want to go with the light cavalry horse-archer barbarian, or the heavily armored Landsknecht, or the medium-armor and dexterity based barbarian, or..."

One of 5e's strengths--a strength it shares with, for instance, BECMI--is that it's easy to learn right out of the box. In a hobby that relies on a steady stream of new players, many of them young, in order to stay vital, that's a critical thing.


The games that many people want here exist, it's just that most people don't want to play them.


5e D&D does a nice job of having relatively quick character creation (I'd like it to be even quicker), with a variety of classes that do "what it says on the tin", making it easier on those who just want to jump into playing without having to study up on making "builds", but still allows customizations with "Backgrounds", and "Standard Array", and "Standard Equipment" makes it easier to have effective characters, making it relatively newcomer friendly.

I like that.

I'll...fourth this?

D&D has fairly strong fluff attached to classes because it offers a lot of benefits to new (EDIT: but not only new!) players.


It lets newbies figure out what class fits their character concept without having to understand the mechanics first.
It offers built-in character ideas, plot hooks, etc for people who aren't used to creating and role-playing characters.
It's a strong mnemonic tool for remembering powers and traits—for inexperienced players, it's vastly easier to remember a bunch of features related to a single coherent archetype than an arbitrary set of features.
It reduces the number of distinct choices a player must make. For new players, this is an unequivocal good.
It guides players towards making correct/useful/fun decisions. The archetype of a Barbarian is pretty well-defined, and if you do the things you would intuitively expect a Barbarian to do—like charging straight into the enemy with the biggest weapon you can find—you'll find it is supported by the mechanics.


None of these are absolutes, and they're not all executed perfectly. The Beastmaster Ranger is notorious for being a poor execution of the concept, and something of a "trap" option. And sometimes the optimal choice isn't in line with the fluff, like Hexblade being a powerful choice for a ranged blasting Warlock. And there are a handful of outright traps, like True Strike for your "helpful support caster" archetype.

But on the whole, a brand new player can pick up the 5e PHB, look at the quick summary of each class in the class table, follow their intuition for that character archetype, and get basically the expected result.

Now, this can (note: can) grow to feel stifling for very experienced players, or players who prefer more dials to tweak on their characters/the game as a whole. But unfortunately, it's an integral part of the base game, and it had to be this way to be as successful as it's been.

There's nothing to be done except rework the system into your own, 5e-based homebrew (nothing wrong with that) or find another system that's actually designed to be mechanically fluff-agnostic (nothing wrong with that either).

[ad_hoc]

It's a strong mnemonic tool for remembering powers and traits—for inexperienced players, it's vastly easier to remember a bunch of features related to a single coherent archetype than an arbitrary set of features.


I'm agreeing with you but using your post as a talking point.

I see 'helpful for new players' mentioned a lot. It's also helpful for people who don't have a lot of time for gaming.

I play with people whose sole interaction with the game is when we sit down to play. They don't have time to learn the rules and are so focused on other things in their lives that they mostly just remember their abilities because they are intuitive and have vague memories of using them. We use spell cards so that they don't need to memorize their spell lists.

For example, the busiest person at the table is currently in the process of preparing their doctoral dissertation. They've been playing with us for almost a year but they really don't have the time or energy to think about the game outside of the table. Still, they are able to play just fine and use all of their abilities.

[Cynthaer]

I'm agreeing with you but using your post as a talking point.

I see 'helpful for new players' mentioned a lot. It's also helpful for people who don't have a lot of time for gaming.

I play with people whose sole interaction with the game is when we sit down to play. They don't have time to learn the rules and are so focused on other things in their lives that they mostly just remember their abilities because they are intuitive and have vague memories of using them. We use spell cards so that they don't need to memorize their spell lists.

For example, the busiest person at the table is currently in the process of preparing their doctoral dissertation. They've been playing with us for almost a year but they really don't have the time or energy to think about the game outside of the table. Still, they are able to play just fine and use all of their abilities.

That's a good point, and honestly, nearly all players benefit from these things.

There's a similar principle in play with things like disability access. The ADA requires things like ramps in certain areas, primarily for wheelchairs and the like, but they're equally useful when I'm walking around with a stroller.

Or in technology, user interfaces with very small buttons can make them nearly impossible to click for people with impaired fine motor skills. When developers have changed these in response to feedback from disabled users, they generally find that all users preferred the change, because if it's too hard for people with disabilities, it's probably still pretty hard for the average user.

I think the same thing applies to a lot of aspects of 5e design that are most obviously helpful for new players. People sometimes claim that WotC is overly focused on new players, and sacrificing the longevity and replayability of the game by only making it fun for new players.

I would argue the opposite is generally true: Things that make the game more accessible to new players also make it more accessible to most players.

[Kurald Galain]

I would argue the opposite is generally true: Things that make the game more accessible to new players also make it more accessible to most players.

Absolutely.

Many players basically want to engage in cooperative storytelling and/or tabletop battles without minding the rules too much. "Many" players is by no means all of them, but I'll wager that the people participating in this (or any) game-related forum are already a bit more rules-minded than the average player.

On the one hand, fluff-based rules make it easier to play a role, because you can keep thinking in-character instead of in-rule. In fact, any rule not rooted in fluff (or worse, contradictory to fluff) can break suspension-of-disbelief and remind players that they're playing a game rather than a role. Numerous players dislike that.

On the other hand, rules rooted firmly in fluff are easier to understand and remember, and are a big boon to any player who's not so rules-minded. In fact, even highly legalistic games like Magic the Gathering do that. For instance, mechanically speaking there's no reason for a "bird" creature to have the "flying" ability, but the designers clued in years ago that players intuitively expect birds to be able to fly, and get confused if they're not. So they decided to make all future bird cards flying. Of course MtG does a lot of things that aren't fluff based, but its designers do know that fluff-based rules are easier to remember.

Roleplaying is about fluff, after all.

[Easy_Lee]

On the one hand, fluff-based rules make it easier to play a role, because you can keep thinking in-character instead of in-rule. In fact, any rule not rooted in fluff (or worse, contradictory to fluff) can break suspension-of-disbelief and remind players that they're playing a game rather than a role. Numerous players dislike that.

On the other hand, rules rooted firmly in fluff are easier to understand and remember, and are a big boon to any player who's not so rules-minded. In fact, even highly legalistic games like Magic the Gathering do that. For instance, mechanically speaking there's no reason for a "bird" creature to have the "flying" ability, but the designers clued in years ago that players intuitively expect birds to be able to fly, and get confused if they're not. So they decided to make all future bird cards flying. Of course MtG does a lot of things that aren't fluff based, but its designers do know that fluff-based rules are easier to remember.

Roleplaying is about fluff, after all.

How? You and I must not be talking about the same thing. Let me give an example to be absolutely clear.

Imagine the Rogue section of the PHB. Now, imagine the Rogue section exactly the same except that Sneak Attack no longer includes the line "The Attack must use a Finesse or a ranged weapon."

Now, you tell me how removing a restriction without changing the fluff at all makes Rogue mechanics more difficult for new players to understand and remember.

[Kurald Galain]

Imagine the Rogue section of the PHB. Now, imagine the Rogue section exactly the same except that Sneak Attack no longer includes the line "The Attack must use a Finesse or a ranged weapon."

Now, you tell me how removing a restriction without changing the fluff at all makes Rogue mechanics more difficult for new players to understand and remember.

That's because the former has a clear in-character logic to it and the latter does not. "I deal extra damage by shanking somebody in the vitals" is easier to remember for certain kinds of players than "I deal extra damage by shanking somebody in the vitals, but this somehow also works by whacking them with a giant hammer, I don't know why but it just works, ok? It's just a game after all."

Are you familiar with the five player archetypes? I'd expect that Timmy and Vorthos find the former easier to remember; Spike would find the latter easier to remember; and Johnny and Melvin probably don't see any difference. If you're not familiar with these five, I find that reading up on them really helps in discussions like this one.

[Laurefindel]

(snip) In short, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Class mechanics should say what the class does, not how.

I don't think he is Lee.

Ability stats are mechanics. Barbarian features being based on STR is a mechanical balance thing, not fluff. The fact that rage is based on anger, or that all barbarians are frothing-at-the-mouth psychopaths; that is fluff.

On the other hand, the fact that even if you fluff rage as the elve's bladesong fighting style, it still relies on STR, is not fluff. It's game mechanics. Why? Because DEX is already a crazy good stat? The designers though DEX barbarian would just be superior? I don't know, and you can refute the wisdom of this rule (like I do), just like you can refute the reliance of wizards on INT for casting, but it is still a mechanical tool more than a fluff restriction.

I think that people here disagree with what you call fluff, not with your premise that fluff hurts the game (for which I think you have significant support).

[Easy_Lee]

That's because the former has a clear in-character logic to it and the latter does not. "I deal extra damage by shanking somebody in the vitals" is easier to remember for certain kinds of players than "I deal extra damage by shanking somebody in the vitals, but this somehow also works by whacking them with a giant hammer, I don't know why but it just works, ok? It's just a game after all."

Are you familiar with the five player archetypes? I'd expect that Timmy and Vorthos find the former easier to remember; Spike would find the latter easier to remember; and Johnny and Melvin probably don't see any difference. If you're not familiar with these five, I find that reading up on them really helps in discussions like this one.

I don't agree with your logic. But, assuming I did, I still don't think making the game easier for certain kinds of players is enough to justify invalidating the way other players would like to play it.

Also, sneak attack doesn't say anything about shaking people in the vitals. The phrase is "exploit a foe's distraction." You've inserted your own headcannon into the fluff and used that as a mechanical justification.

[Cybren]

That's because the former has a clear in-character logic to it and the latter does not. "I deal extra damage by shanking somebody in the vitals" is easier to remember for certain kinds of players than "I deal extra damage by shanking somebody in the vitals, but this somehow also works by whacking them with a giant hammer, I don't know why but it just works, ok? It's just a game after all."

Are you familiar with the five player archetypes? I'd expect that Timmy and Vorthos find the former easier to remember; Spike would find the latter easier to remember; and Johnny and Melvin probably don't see any difference. If you're not familiar with these five, I find that reading up on them really helps in discussions like this one.

Point of order: There are three psychographic profiles: Timmy, Johnny, Spike. These are specifically about why players specifically like the game Magic the Gathering. There are two aesthetic profiles: Mel(vin/anie) and Vorthos: These have to do with how players find beauty. Players can be both or neither of mel and vorthos. That is a completely different axis from the psychographic profiles, where players tend to fall mostly into one or two of them. You can use these terms for other games as a pedagogical tool, but they are not a single set of 5 characteristics. They're two different things and they're about magic the gathering.

[MadBear]

Whose archetype, and why did we decide to choose that one? Also, you just misused the word archetypal.

In the context of this sort of fiction, archetypal specifically means a recurrent symbol or motif, a typical example. An archetype is something you observe, not something you dictate. The archetypal rogue is sneaky and wields a dagger because that's how people imagine rogues, not because all rogues must fit that image.

And like I said on page 1 or 2, this is where we just disagree. I'm happy and prefer that the game limit characters to fit certain roles, that move them towards fitting the traditional fantasy tropes. I'm also happy that in this edition, the DM is encouraged to allow characters that break the normal mold.

So to answer the original question. No, I don't think fluff restrictions hurt the game at all.

[Kurald Galain]

Point of order: There are three psychographic profiles: Timmy, Johnny, Spike. These are specifically about

If you actually understand the reasoning behind these five profiles, you'll understand that they are generally about what certain people are looking for in games in general, and therefore useful for analyzing game design as a whole. If you want, you can instead use the classic five D&D profiles (Real Man, Thespian, Brain, Loonie, Munchkin); as it turns out, there are considerable parallels between these five and the other five.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't agree with your logic. But, assuming I did, I still don't think making the game easier for certain kinds of players is enough to justify invalidating the way other players would like to play it.
If you'd do it the other way around, as you suggest, then you're also making the game easier for certain kinds of players and invalidating the way other players would like to play it. Basically, every design decision makes the game easier for some players and harder for some others.


Also, sneak attack doesn't say anything about shaking people in the vitals. The phrase is "exploit a foe's distraction." You've inserted your own headcannon into the fluff and used that as a mechanical justification.
This is simply an exceedingly common way to describe roguish attacks in all kinds of fiction. Like it or not, many players base their expectations on that.

(edit) That this restriction exists suggests that this was in fact the headcanon of at least one of the developers.

[Easy_Lee]

If you'd do it the other way around, as you suggest, then you're also making the game easier for certain kinds of players and invalidating the way other players would like to play it. Basically, every design decision makes the game easier for some players and harder for some others.


This is simply an exceedingly common way to describe roguish attacks in all kinds of fiction. Like it or not, many players base their expectations on that.

Your argument makes no sense. Removing a restriction cannot invalidate a playstyle. That is impossible. It can only open up other playstyles.

As for your "exceedingly common" statement, prove it. Prove to me that rogues all throughout fiction are depicted specifically as "shanking" people with finesse and not bashing, hacking, or otherwise maiming an unaware target. You can't prove it. And that's the point. You're using your idea of rogues as justification for invalidating mine, then claiming that if my playstyle was possible it would harm you, or some other unspecified player, somehow. You can't be serious.

[MadBear]

Your argument makes no sense. Removing a restriction cannot invalidate a playstyle. That is impossible. It can only open up other playstyles.

As for your "exceedingly common" statement, prove it. Prove to me that rogues all throughout fiction are depicted specifically as "shanking" people with finesse and not bashing, hacking, or otherwise maiming an unaware target. You can't prove it. And that's the point. You're using your idea of rogues as justification for invalidating mine, then claiming that if my playstyle was possible it would harm you, or some other unspecified player, somehow. You can't be serious.

I think this article sums up, why more choices isn't always better.

https://hbr.org/2006/06/more-isnt-always-better

[smcmike]

Wow, this thing is nine pages? I still don’t understand what a “fluff restriction” is, and how one is supposed to differentiate it from a non-fluff restriction.

[Dudewithknives]

Wow, this thing is nine pages? I still don’t understand what a “fluff restriction” is, and how one is supposed to differentiate it from a non-fluff restriction.

That was kind of the point, it is not a fluff restriction argument.

This was a thread started as trying to be a topic to convince people to remove mechanical restrictions in order to greatly increase the power of certain builds but was attempted to be disguised as removing fluff restrictions with the only really 2 fluff restrictions in the game that even those are labeled in the book that DM's don't have to use them.

Fluff: Elves as blade singers and dwarves as battleragers.
Every other complaint about getting rid of a restriction is based on power gaming and mechanics.

[Cynthaer]

If you'd do it the other way around, as you suggest, then you're also making the game easier for certain kinds of players and invalidating the way other players would like to play it. Basically, every design decision makes the game easier for some players and harder for some others.


Your argument makes no sense. Removing a restriction cannot invalidate a playstyle. That is impossible. It can only open up other playstyles.

If I may, I don't think it's particularly useful to frame this in terms of "allowing" vs "invalidating" playstyles, as though it's a matter of individual freedom. The end result of that is invariably going to be "nobody can stop you from doing whatever you like, just don't bring it to Adventurers' League".


This is simply an exceedingly common way to describe roguish attacks in all kinds of fiction. Like it or not, many players base their expectations on that.

(edit) That this restriction exists suggests that this was in fact the headcanon of at least one of the developers.


As for your "exceedingly common" statement, prove it. Prove to me that rogues all throughout fiction are depicted specifically as "shanking" people with finesse and not bashing, hacking, or otherwise maiming an unaware target. You can't prove it. And that's the point. You're using your idea of rogues as justification for invalidating mine, then claiming that if my playstyle was possible it would harm you, or some other unspecified player, somehow. You can't be serious.

This argument I feel is the relevant one, because the designer's motivation is to fulfill a strong character archetype that resonates with the average player.

We don't have to guess what the archetypal rogue looks like, because it's there in the basic rules (http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop/players-basic-rules):


Rogue: A scoundrel who uses stealth and trickery to overcome obstacles and enemies [...]

Rogues rely on skill, stealth, and their foes’ vulnerabilities to get the upper hand in any situation. They have a knack for finding the solution to just about any problem, demonstrating a resourcefulness and versatility that is the cornerstone of any successful adventuring party. [...]

Rogues devote as much effort to mastering the use of a variety of skills as they do to perfecting their combat abilities, giving them a broad expertise that few other characters can match. Many rogues focus on stealth and deception, while others refine the skills that help them in a dungeon environment, such as climbing, finding and disarming traps, and opening locks.

When it comes to combat, rogues prioritize cunning over brute strength. A rogue would rather make one precise strike, placing it exactly where the attack will hurt the target most, than wear an opponent down with a barrage of attacks. Rogues have an almost supernatural knack for avoiding danger, and a few learn magical tricks to supplement their other abilities.

The parts I've bolded sketch out a pretty clear image of the character archetype that the rogue class is intended to let you mechanically embody. The names of class abilities like "Sneak Attack" all align with that same archetype.

Now, does that mean you can't play against type? Of course not. The first page on character creation explicitly calls this out:


You might be a courageous fighter, a skulking rogue, a fervent cleric, or a flamboyant wizard. Or you might be more interested in an unconventional character, such as a brawny rogue who likes hand-to-hand combat, or a sharpshooter who picks off enemies from afar.

I expect your response might be that by punishing Str rogues (i.e., forcing them to keep using finesse weapons), they're restricting the "unconventional characters" that they say are allowed. But my point is that:

If Str rogues didn't have obvious downsides over Dex rogues, they wouldn't be "unconventional".
It is good for the game to have both strong conventional archetypes and feasible unconventional builds.

That second point might not be obvious if you don't like having conventional/unconventional archetypes, but it's true for most players.

Example: I'm playing a Half-Orc Abjurer Wizard who primarily fights in melee with a two-handed quarterstaff right now. In 5e, the decision to make her a melee brawler with Int casting as an Abjurer Wizard instead of an Eldritch Knight brings a lot of mechanical baggage—she has no armor, lower hit dice, and a weaker weapon, but way more spells. Those spells in turn mostly get used to keep her alive with Mage Armor and Shield, and she'll be relying on SCAG cantrips to deal damage when the Eldritch Knight would be getting an extra attack. She's objectively weaker overall than the Eldritch Knight in combat, but she gets a bunch of other stuff as a Wizard that EKs don't have, like a familiar and utility spells. And all of these mechanics, and the fluff attached, contribute to her character.

My point is that in another, more fluff-generic system, she wouldn't be as clearly "playing against type" by being a brawler Wizard. And that's fine! That world would have a different feel, and some people would like that better. But for most people, having these archetypes built in to the setting is what makes it fun to go against the archetype.

(Note: All of this assumes a system where playing against type still yields a feasible, if slightly "suboptimal" character. 5e's bounded accuracy helps with this a lot, because—for example—playing a Wizard doesn't mean sacrificing any hope of hitting in melee due to no BAB.)

[Cybren]

If you actually understand the reasoning behind these five profiles, you'll understand that they are generally about what certain people are looking for in games in general, and therefore useful for analyzing game design as a whole. If you want, you can instead use the classic five D&D profiles (Real Man, Thespian, Brain, Loonie, Munchkin); as it turns out, there are considerable parallels between these five and the other five.
They're spefically about magic the gathering, formed by magic the gathering developers after doing formal market research and informal observations about magic the gathering. Yes, it has applicability outside of magic. No, it is not a universal concept. You may as well ask people to look at the Bartle Test.

Additionally, it is not "five archetypes". You can't be a vorthos but not a Timmy/Johnny/Spike. Because they're two different questions. You're misapplying the tool if you think that they are a single set of five.