Classes that may or may not get along [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

OldTrees1

2023-10-25, 12:32 PM

The "other classes" part of 3.5 PHB was generalizing how class A views the other classes. All the classes can get along, but generally the Fighter and Wizard see the Sorcerer through different points of view.

I think most of the descriptions still work. I would update the Paladin (since it has branched out from a single Oath) and include new ones for Artificer and Warlock. There would be ripple effects. For example Rogue used to say:

Rogues love and hate working with members of other classes. They excel when protected by warriors and supported by spellcasters. There are plenty of times, however, that they wish everyone else was as quiet, guileful, and patient as they. Rogues are particularly wary of paladins, so they endeavor to prove themselves useful when contact with a paladin is unavoidable.

For the most part this still holds. What it doesn't say also speaks volumes. It talks about the Rogues being quiet, guileful, and patient rather than typecast them as Thieves & Assassins. Even the part about paladins is somewhat relevant, but the reason changed. Rogues might see 5E Paladins as stubborn regardless of oath. They are a known quantity which is generally useful, however sometimes an inconvenience. Sure the vengeance paladin is a stalwart protector, but they can really slow down a rescue/escape plan if their quarry appears.

I might amend it to say: Rogues are particularly wary of paladins because inflexible oaths will cause inconveniences. So they endeavor to have more flexible plans to accommodate surprise oath related inconvieneces.

Joshthemanwich

2023-10-25, 12:34 PM

Devotion Paladin and Fiend pact Warlock immediately come to mind as classes that would have some beef.
I personally see most monks likely trying to get an artificer to stop relying on their gear so much and try to improve with a more inward focus.
Wizard and Sorcerer is the rivalry that will forever define 21st century D&D for me.
Horizon Walker likely despises anyone who permanently binds an Extra-Planar creature to a location

RogueJK

2023-10-25, 12:35 PM

For the most part this still holds. What it doesn't say also speaks volumes. It talks about the Rogues being quiet, guileful, and patient rather than typecast them as Thieves & Assassins.

But even labeling Rogues as a whole as "quiet, guileful, and patient" is itself typecasting. Not all Rogues are sneaky and cunning. Not all Fighters/Paladins/etc. are strong, heavily armored, and brash. You can just as easily have a sneaky, patient, and cunning Fighter or Paladin as you could a strong, armored, loudmouthed Rogue.

OldTrees1

2023-10-25, 12:44 PM

But even labeling Rogues as a whole as "quiet, guileful, and patient" is itself typecasting. Not all Rogues are sneaky and cunning. Not all Fighters/Paladins/etc. are strong, heavily armored, and brash. You can just as easily have a sneaky, patient, and cunning Fighter or Paladin as you could a strong, armored, loudmouthed Rogue.

I agree and did mention that those sections are generalizing. In the part you quoted, I was highlighting that even when it was speaking in generalities, it covered a lot of variation.

Unoriginal

2023-10-25, 01:38 PM

Amnestic

2023-10-25, 02:16 PM

I would struggle to find an Assassin Rogue who'd get on with a Redemption Paladin. Ditto for Life + Death clerics, they're kinda opposites. Most paladins probably wouldn't get on that well with Oathbreaker paladins.

Yeah, yeah, "individuals" I know, and for the most part it doesn't matter, but there are some subclass combos which are fairly directly opposed and you have to really play against type to make that work.

Also everyone hates Chronurgist wizards because they're made out of cheese and unfortunately we're lactose intolerant.

Arkhios

2023-10-25, 02:48 PM

Can't come up with a comprehensive list, mainly because it's just impossible due to there being several factors other than the class and subclass alone. Especially since in 5th edition there is no restrictions for character alignments, which was earlier one of the key reasons why some classes would work better with others, and worse with the rest.

For example, in 5th edition, a Paladin could be anything from Lawful to Chaotic and at the very least anything from Good to Neutral. Outright Evil paladins are probably quite rare, most of them likely Oathbreakers, or Maybe - with big 'M' - Paladins of the Oaths of Conquest or Vengeance.

I'd say it's actually easier to say which subclasses will or won't work well together, rather than the base classes themselves.

Oath of Devotion Paladin and just about any Cleric would work well with each other, if their convictions and beliefs are more or less aligned. Likewise, Oath of the Ancients Paladin and especially Life or Nature Domain clerics would work well together, feeling certain kinship in regards to their relationships with protecting life and nature.

Oddly enough, Clerics and Warlocks could feel certain kinship with each other, because of their relationships with their deities and patrons, even though those relationships are more like the two sides of the same coin. Clerics are the chosen of the deities and are granted powers (whether they like it or not) while warlocks seek out the Patron to gain powers (whether they like it or not).

There are, of course, some base classes that do make very good pairings. For example, bard and rogue (Elan and Haley).
Barbarians and fighters are like pot and kettle, obviously. Same applies to druids and rangers.

Unoriginal

2023-10-25, 03:40 PM

I would struggle to find an Assassin Rogue who'd get on with a Redemption Paladin.

Don't see why. Redemption Paladins are not opposed to killing people (only to killing people without giving them a chance), and Assassin Rogues don't require to have worked as a career killer or the like.

Ditto for Life + Death clerics, they're kinda opposites.

The same god could have both Life Clerics and Death Clerics.

Most paladins probably wouldn't get on that well with Oathbreaker paladins.

True, but only because most of everyone wouldn't get on that well with Oathbreaker Paladins.

Oathbreaker Paladins are the kind of people actual Fiends are either admirative, wary or disgusted about.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-25, 04:39 PM

Schwann145

2023-10-25, 06:28 PM

How you define "class" will determine the answer here.

If class doesn't mean anything inherently, and it's only a grab-bag of otherwise neutral abilities, then any class can get along with any other class without any issues.
If class does indeed mean more than that, then you have to start looking at individual classes and the reason(s) why they may not get along.

The obvious example, as always, is a Paladin, because their oaths are so strict (they have to be, after all; that's what makes them magical oaths instead of just words!) An Oath of Devotion Paladin won't be associating with evil fellows, not because of any hard mechanical limitation, but because doing so would be so wildly out of character for such a Paladin.
Likewise, a Necromancer and a Grave Domain Cleric aren't going to work together.
Clerics of conflicting faiths.
Etc.

(Of course, nothing is forcing you to roleplay out what the class expects of you... But then, why are you playing a class-based game? :smalltongue: )

Psyren

2023-10-25, 07:39 PM

Yeah it was a silly/dumb practice even back in 3.5, and it's especially silly now in 5e where classes have a wide variety of permutations and PCs can come from a wide variety of backgrounds and cultures.

Concerning Assassin - this might be surprising, but 5e Assassins don't have to kill anyone, especially not the "kill someone for no reason" like their 3.5 counterparts. As long as you're using melee you can knock all your targets unconscious, and their Assassinate and Death Strike features work just fine with a nonlethal approach. So you could be a neutral or possibly even good assassin who specializes in neutralizing dangerous fugitives for trial and incarceration just fine.

Catullus64

2023-10-25, 07:47 PM

Based on class flavor text, there could actually be some tension between Ranger & Druid, with the former having a greater emphasis on protecting civilization from the wilderness, vs. the latter protecting the wilderness from civilization.

Cleric & Monk represent very different spiritual traditions, one centered around ritual and overt worship of a deity, while the other centers around inner enlightenment and personal discipline.

With the emphasis 5e puts on Bards harnessing the music of creation, I can see many Clerics viewing that as one step removed from usurping the creative functions of the gods.

Barbarian & Wizard is a classic. Or at least is was, before every other Barbarian had a magical power source. Now it seems kinda hypocritical.

JackPhoenix

2023-10-25, 08:44 PM

Ditto for Life + Death clerics, they're kinda opposites.

Blood of Vol would like a word. Life/death dichotomy is not that unusual in a fantasy god, though it's somewhat rare in 5e, with only 4 deities (spread out between different settings) granting both domains.

Witty Username

2023-10-26, 12:20 AM

Neither class nor subclass are personality traits, and they don't inform who the PC is beyond a percentage of their capacities.

Two PCs could have identical builds and be very, very different people.

Capacities lend themselves to personalities though.

A rogue will evaluate a fight with an ogre in a very different way than a barbarian. The rogue by nessesity be trying to leaverage skills and sneak attack. While the barbarian on the other hand likely has no issue simply fighting an ogre head on.

Sure you can play a reckless, agressive rogue, and a calculating, patient barbarian, but the mechanics are stacked against you to do so.

We further see this in background recommendations for classes:
Soldier for fighter
Outlander for barbarian and ranger
Charlatan for rogue

And these all have examples of outlooks on life, societal standing, and common character goals and flaws.

Sure a character won't match the mold 1 to 1, but that is a very different then their being no trends in personality and theme for characters that share a class.
Finding a druid that things civilization is part of the natural order and common ground between it and wildlife along with a druid that believes civilization is a threat to nature that must be opposed is certainly possible. Finding a druid that has no interest in the natural order is not.

And then from there how does a druid see a barbarian, defined by predatory like rage and power, but no need for the nature order beyond honed insticts?
Or sees a Ranger, that seeks and has understanding of the natural order but isn't devoted to its preservation?

If a class doesn’t inform anything about a character, why does it exist at all? The sum up of why I dislike sorcerer.

Joshthemanwich

2023-10-26, 02:31 AM

Amnestic

2023-10-26, 03:21 AM

Samurai Fighters don't get on with Shadow Monks (Ninjas)
Swashbuckler Rogues (Pirates) also don't get on with Shadow Monks (Ninjas)
Wizards don't get on with Sorcerers (stuffy nerds vs. unstable idiots playing with fire they don't understand)
Ancients Paladins don't get on with Artificers (Obsessed with old stuff vs. new experimentation)
Eldritch Knights hate Bladesingers for having a version of Extra Attack that they'd like.

Mastikator

2023-10-26, 03:34 AM

IMO it's not the classes that clash but the subclasses. Vengeance vs Redemption paladins may have opposing oaths to uphold. War domain and peace domain may have different roleplay choices they want to follow. Life/light cleric and death cleric may have different opinions on "should the undead be allowed to exist". If one cleric wants to destroy the undead and the other is animating the dead then their relationship will be strained. An ancients paladin would also not be happy with a necromancer animating the dead. The roleplay of preserving life and destroying the undead gets hollowed out when their ally is killing and animating with impunity.
If the only thing keeping two characters from fighting is the fact that they're both player characters and PVP is forbidden then the roleplay loses all credulity.

I think the best way to deal with that situation is for the group to get together and decide as a group what their theme should be, and make characters together. (which is why I don't believe in mixing good and evil characters in the same party, when I DM I force the players to pick whether they have a good+neutral or a neutral+evil party)

Muad'dib

2023-10-26, 05:52 AM

Unoriginal

2023-10-26, 07:10 AM

Capacities lend themselves to personalities though.

A rogue will evaluate a fight with an ogre in a very different way than a barbarian. The rogue by nessesity be trying to leaverage skills and sneak attack. While the barbarian on the other hand likely has no issue simply fighting an ogre head on.

Sure you can play a reckless, agressive rogue, and a calculating, patient barbarian, but the mechanics are stacked against you to do so.

You can easily argue that since the Rogue only needs to have a friend nearby to do their Sneak Attack all day every day, it encourages them to rush enemies and attack without a second thought once that one criteria is met, while a Barbarian needs to be careful with how they spend their Rages since it is a limited ressource, and they also need to calculate the risks vs rewards before choosing to do Reckless Attack or not every single turn.

So the mechanics are stacked against the careful Rogue and the thoughtlessly violent Barbarian.

Capacities don't particularly lend themselves to personalities, they just inform how those personalities will express themselves.

We further see this in background recommendations for classes:
Soldier for fighter
Outlander for barbarian and ranger
Charlatan for rogue

Those recommendations are recommendations for how to create a character quickly, nothing else. Charlatan, Sage or Archeologist all fit the Fighter class equally as well as the Sorcerer class or the Rogue class.

Even going by the Backgrounds themselves, two characters with the same Background will likely be widely different.

Finding a druid that things civilization is part of the natural order and common ground between it and wildlife along with a druid that believes civilization is a threat to nature that must be opposed is certainly possible. Finding a druid that has no interest in the natural order is not.

A Druid could think nature went wrong on a fundamental level and so everything needs to be rebooted from day 1, or they could be an opportunist who only went into Druidism because that was an easier way to secure power in the circumstances they found themselves in, or they could be bitter and full of resentment about Druidism because their father threatened them with exile if they didn't become a Druid while their sibling inherited the throne, or they could be a military officier who attuned themselves to the wild only in order to survive after getting shipwrecked on a desert island.

Having an interest in something can take too many form to make any sweeping statement about who the interested person is.

If a class doesnÂ’t inform anything about a character, why does it exist at all?

The class informs plenty about the character, it just doesn't inform anything about the *personality* of the character.

You could just as well ask "if the Personality Trait, Bond and Flaw section of the character sheet doesn't inform anything about a character's capacities, why does it exist at all?"

All of the answers that state something along the line of "Classes don't define personality" seem like "Cop Out" answers to me."

It isn't a cop-out to point out that the premise of the question does not make sense and as such cannot be answered.

If someone asked "I'm playing a medical doctor in Call of Cthulhu, how would they get along with the other characters who are of X, Y and Z professions?", then one could at least start to answer the question because:

- Call of Cthulhu takes place in a specific historical context which inform the culture and the society of the characters, which in turn would affect the interpersonal relationships of the characters (even if personal history and specific personality play a big role in that)

-Being a medical doctor in that historical context comes with a specific cultural and societal baggage that does affect who the character will be one way or another.

Meanwhile, a Redemption Paladin could as well be:

- A compassionate beggar who came across a dead mercenary and decided to do some good in the world with the arms and armor they just found

- A furniture merchant who was swayed into a new life path after witnessing a battle between a Solar and a Pit Fiend

- A stern academic who committed a crime due to a desire for knowledge, but was spared the consequences by a Paladin and decided to pay that forward,

- An hermit who came to the conclusion that meditating in the woods alone was not the solution and that true wisdom came from interacting with all and hearing them out

- A cowardly battle-scarred veteran who copes with their fear by entrusting their life to something bigger than themselves.

diplomancer

2023-10-26, 08:13 AM

All Clerics hate Twilight Clerics, but it's pure envy at how much more generous the Twilight Cleric's God is.

Psyren

2023-10-26, 09:53 AM

All of the answers that state something along the line of "Classes don't define personality" seem like "Cop Out" answers to me. What is the point of saying that when the OP asked what classes may or may not which seems to imply that the OP understands the lack of rigidity in 5e's Class/Subclass structure.

If I asked "What do you think is each classes favorite Ice cream flavor" and a ton of people just said "Class doesn't define taste buds" I would be pretty frustrated when I wanted people to use their imagination to come up with an interesting response like "Wizards and Sorcerers both like Neapolitan but they hold the cone to oppose the others flavor pattern because they want to seem different" and "Artificers don't have a favorite Ice cream flavor so much as favorite toppings and cones"

Not swallowing whole a premise we find to be misleading, misguided, or wrong doesn't mean we lack imagination. "Wizards and Sorcerers both like Neapolitan" is as sweeping and baseless as saying "Artists and Lawyers both like Neapolitan." Or "Doctors don't like Poets."

What the OP could try to do is to narrow it down to a specific setting or culture, but even that would likely be inadequate because classes in 5e are more game constructs than in-universe professions. An "assassin" for example could be the literal rogue subclass with that name, or it could be a Shadow Monk, or it could be a Swords or Whispers Bard, or it could be a Hunter or Gloomstalker Ranger... and that's just the straight-clasesd stuff.

Because asking which classes they get along with feels as absurd as asking what they're favorite ice cream flavors are for some of us. It's not a cop out, there's simply not enough context to answer the question within the given parameters. It's like asking what a brown bear thinks of other bears. It feels like the set up for a hike because we don't have enough information to take the question seriously.

Yep. Pointing out the flaws of the premise or that it needs refinement are valid answers.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-26, 10:06 AM

All of the answers that state something along the line of "Classes don't define personality" seem like "Cop Out" answers to me. What is the point of saying that when the OP asked what classes may or may not which seems to imply that the OP understands the lack of rigidity in 5e's Class/Subclass structure.

If I asked "What do you think is each classes favorite Ice cream flavor" and a ton of people just said "Class doesn't define taste buds" I would be pretty frustrated when I wanted people to use their imagination to come up with an interesting response like "Wizards and Sorcerers both like Neapolitan but they hold the cone to oppose the others flavor pattern because they want to seem different" and "Artificers don't have a favorite Ice cream flavor so much as favorite toppings and cones"
Indeed. Some people have trouble accepting a premise they don't agree with, and engaging in the exercise. Reading the "Um ackchyually" responses gets tiresome on this forum.

Samurai Fighters don't get on with Shadow Monks (Ninjas)
Swashbuckler Rogues (Pirates) also don't get on with Shadow Monks (Ninjas)
Wizards don't get on with Sorcerers (stuffy nerds vs. unstable idiots playing with fire they don't understand)
Ancients Paladins don't get on with Artificers (Obsessed with old stuff vs. new experimentation)
Eldritch Knights hate Bladesingers for having a version of Extra Attack that they'd like.
These are great! For some reason I thought of:

Oath of Crown Paladin: I took an oath to serve the crown, protect the borders of the kingdom, and collect its taxes.
Thief Rogue: Oh I too am a thief!
Paladin: Excuse me?

All Clerics hate Twilight Clerics, but it's pure envy at how much more generous the Twilight Cleric's God is.
Lol

Maybe opposite to what's asked for in the OP:

War Cleric: I can get extra attacks.
Peace Cleric: I can add 1d4 to those attacks.
War Cleric: Did we just become best friends?!

Muad'dib

2023-10-26, 10:40 AM

Indeed. Some people have trouble accepting a premise they don't agree with, and engaging in the exercise. Reading the "Um ackchyually" responses gets tiresome on this forum.

Or, some of us challenge ideas we disagree, because we find the directions it can lead to be more interesting. There's no impetus in any discussion or forum to simply accept the given premise so that no one feels challenged. But I suppose it's easier for you to simply accuse those of us on the other side of being pedantic nitpickers.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-26, 10:48 AM

Or, some of us challenge ideas we disagree, because we find the directions it can lead to be more interesting.
Hopefully the OP finds it more interesting as well, since they started the thread to discuss what they thought would be interesting.

There's no impetus in any discussion or forum to simply accept the given premise so that no one feels challenged.
Not so no one feels challenged, but out of respect of the person asking the question and their intent behind the conversation they are starting. You are more than capable of starting your own thread on the topic that you find to be "more interesting" instead of attempting to force someone else's conversation in that direction.

But I suppose it's easier for you to simply accuse those of us on the other side of being pedantic nitpickers.
I don't think you're nitpicking. I even said in my first post that I agree with others that say these types of class comparisons don't actually make sense. But like... who the **** cares if I disagree with the OP? That's not the point of the thread.

Let's loosen up, accept the premise, and have some fun :smallbiggrin:

Amnestic

2023-10-26, 10:49 AM

Or, some of us challenge ideas we disagree, because we find the directions it can lead to be more interesting. There's no impetus in any discussion or forum to simply accept the given premise so that no one feels challenged. But I suppose it's easier for you to simply accuse those of us on the other side of being pedantic nitpickers.

What more-interesting direction did you anticipate your objection would lead to?

Unoriginal

2023-10-26, 10:53 AM

An incorrect premise makes a question fundamentally unanswerable, as any answer would be equally correct.

It is a principle of logic.

An "assassin" for example could be the literal rogue subclass with that name, or it could be a Shadow Monk, or it could be a Swords or Whispers Bard, or it could be a Hunter or Gloomstalker Ranger... and that's just the straight-clasesd stuff..

Or an Artificier who uses bombs, or a Barbarian who grab people and throw them off buildings, or a Wizard who uses Fabricate to create deadly poisons on the spot, or a Warlock with Spell Sniper who Eldritch Blast people from far away, or a Fighter in armor who stabs people in the face.

The only thing being an assassin requires is being able and willing to kill people.

Muad'dib

2023-10-26, 11:13 AM

What more-interesting direction did you anticipate your objection would lead to?
There are already a great number of posts pointing out ways to roleplay classes challenging the premise in this very thread. Like all the different ways someone could play an assassin without being a rogue/assassin, or how a rogue/assassin may not actually be an assassin. I personally like the idea of a barbarian not being a raging warrior of a tribe, but rather a professional soldier that loses themselves in battle. Or even just a lumberjack with tunnel vision.

Muad'dib

2023-10-26, 11:14 AM

An incorrect premise makes a question fundamentally unanswerable, as any answer would be equally correct.

It is a principle of logic.

Or an Artificier who uses bombs, or a Barbarian who grab people and throw them off buildings, or a Wizard who uses Fabricate to create deadly poisons on the spot, or a Warlock with Spell Sniper who Eldritch Blast people from far away, or a Fighter in armor who stabs people in the face.

The only thing being an assassin requires is being able and willing to kill people.

Or a bard who incites a mob to go kill the target.

Muad'dib

2023-10-26, 11:21 AM

Let's loosen up, accept the premise, and have some fun :smallbiggrin:

Don't mistake my rejection of the premise as not having fun. I am. I like a number of the other ideas my other malcontents have proposed. The only way to really get a thread on this topic without those injection coming up is to focus either on requiring the premise with what class stereotypes/tropes don't get along, or what kind of roleplayers don't get along. But given that this is a forum, any proposed topic is going to be open to challenges.

Psyren

2023-10-26, 11:45 AM

What more-interesting direction did you anticipate your objection would lead to?

I think a valid discussion to have here, and what I would think we need to align around to even begin to address the OP's premise, would be the question of what class even means in 5e. How much of a class is an in-universe profession vs a metagame construct? It's a tension that has existed long before this edition (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html), but 5e makes it even more prominent. For example, how would you represent a Witch in 5e? Maybe it's some flavor of Wizard, like Tasha. Maybe it's a Warlock (say, Fathomless, like Callisto.) Maybe it's a Land Druid, like Madam Mim. Maybe it's a Glamor Bard that lures children to a candy cottage.

And because class and profession are so divorced in 5e, that speaks to why class attitudes to one another might vary wildly in practice. "Druids hate Artificers because Artificers = technology!" neglects the fact that an Artificer can draw power from bottling plant essence, or carving runes into wood, or refracting light through natural crystals. "Devotion Paladins don't get along with Grave Clerics" neglects the fact that Grave Clerics can be Doomguides who lay the undead to rest, or Aerenei who prevent their dead from being misused by necromancy in the first place.

So when we're saying "hey, the premise needs work" that's a good faith criticism.

Hopefully the OP finds it more interesting as well, since they started the thread to discuss what they thought would be interesting.

Outside of curated threads, the mods don't recognize thread ownership; challenging or requesting clarification on the premise of a topic is still on-topic, especially if we're also (like I did) suggesting ways to further enhance or refine that premise. The OP is free to choose to only engage with those posts that accept their stated premise if they wish.

Let's loosen up, accept the premise, and have some fun :smallbiggrin:

There is more than one way to have fun.

Joshthemanwich

2023-10-26, 12:06 PM

An incorrect premise makes a question fundamentally unanswerable, as any answer would be equally correct.
Isn't that the point of opinions? Am I misunderstanding something? :smallconfused:

What is so incorrect about the premise? The PHB gives short descriptions of each class and assumptions made about them. Classes have abilities that can assist other classes. Classes also can have abilities that may not assist some classes (Paladin auras not reaching other characters comes to mind). Classes even have abilities that can step on other classes toes (Twilight cleric and any other temp HP source:smallbiggrin:).

And if it is impossible to answer how have people provided answers to the prompt?

Xihirli

2023-10-26, 12:32 PM

Muad'dib

2023-10-26, 12:40 PM

I always liked the wizards’ derision for sorcerers in OOTS (and maybe 3.5?) and most of my wizards feel it. Disdain and superiority to sorcerers and warlocks, "that’s not for me" for clerics, and everything else varies by character.
I can just as easily see a wizard being absolutely fascinated to study sorcerers and warlocks trying to figure out what makes their arcane magic different. And even more fascinated by divine casters. If they're truly interested in magic on the academic level that they are, why would they abhor alternate pathways when they can instead study them?

Pex

2023-10-26, 12:58 PM

People like to complain about paladins who need operations, but many fail to respect the paladin's point of view. You have the disruptive players who do things deliberately to tick people off, but that's universal. In this case the people who complain paladins ruin their fun don't consider that maybe they're ruining the paladin player's fun. The paladin wants to be the hero who saves the day, but another player will rob the empty store of the villager they're helping. The bandit surrenders and will accompany the party to town for arrest hoping for a light sentence for cooperating, but when the paladin is sleeping someone slits the bandit's throat. Not just the paladin. Could be any Lawful Good character, but paladin is the stereotype. Then there are the players who refuse to take the obvious plot hook to save the orphans or whomever because there's no reward offered and want to leave town to attend to whatever personal quest they have in mind for their character.

Those players are just as offensive, in my opinion, as the self-righteous who need that operation.

Amnestic

2023-10-26, 01:22 PM

Rangers hate Fighters because forumites are constantly saying "Ranger should be a fighter subclass". It's not fair to the Fighters, really, but hatred doesn't have to be logical.

Ancients ("kindle the light of hope in the world") and Conquest ("Douse the Flame of Hope") paladins pretty directly do not get on, they have opposing tenets. Though I'm sure some people in this thread will be along momentarily to tell me about how actually those two can go together just fine.

So when we're saying "hey, the premise needs work" that's a good faith criticism.

But some subclasses very clearly do have specific lore aspects to them, and acting like they don't and that everything is mutable is as much a flawed premise.

The OP asked "which classes or subclasses might not get along" and a bunch of the replies just come across as "uhm actually it's all about individual choice and subclass choice has no impact whatsoever on characters"

As if the idea of archetypes just...what, got forgotten?

Druids and rangers are more likely to get along - more specific for an example, Dreams Druid and Fey Wanderer Ranger are both pretty clearly aligned, so what's with all the "nuh-uh, it's just down to individual choices for characters"?

Druid:
Druids who are members of the Circle of Dreams hail from regions that have strong ties to the Feywild and its dreamlike realms. The druids’ guardianship of the natural world makes for a natural alliance between them and good-aligned fey. These druids seek to fill the world with dreamy wonder. Their magic mends wounds and brings joy to downcast hearts, and the realms they protect are gleaming, fruitful places, where dream and reality blur together and where the weary can find rest.

Ranger:
A fey mystique surrounds you, thanks to the boon of an archfey, the shining fruit you ate from a talking tree, the magic spring you swam in, or some other auspicious event. However you acquired your fey magic, you are now a Fey Wanderer, a ranger who represents both the mortal and the fey realms. As you wander the multiverse, your joyful laughter brightens the hearts of the downtrodden, and your martial prowess strikes terror in your foes, for great is the mirth of the fey and dreadful is their fury.

Monks and Paladins are both disciplined warriors with martial bends, there's an inbuilt kinship there. Bards and rogues are birds of a feather, of course they'll flock together.

Plus all my examples from elsewhere in the thread, all decidedly serious without a single joke.

Psyren

2023-10-26, 01:49 PM

I can just as easily see a wizard being absolutely fascinated to study sorcerers and warlocks trying to figure out what makes their arcane magic different. And even more fascinated by divine casters. If they're truly interested in magic on the academic level that they are, why would they abhor alternate pathways when they can instead study them?

Not to mention, wizards who venerate Mystra for example could just as easily be envious or fascinated by Sorcerers as disdainful. Clearly the Weave has touched them, after all. So we're right back to the questions around culture and setting.

But some subclasses very clearly do have specific lore aspects to them, and acting like they don't and that everything is mutable is as much a flawed premise.

Which ones do you think have specific lore and which ones not? That's exactly the kind of thing I'd have fun discussing.

The OP asked "which classes or subclasses might not get along" and a bunch of the replies just come across as "uhm actually it's all about individual choice and subclass choice has no impact whatsoever on characters"

As if the idea of archetypes just...what, got forgotten?

Archetypes exist, but the idea that a given subclass (never mind class) can only have one archetype or even a handful of archetypes is the point of contention here.

Druids and rangers are more likely to get along - more specific for an example, Dreams Druid and Fey Wanderer Ranger are both pretty clearly aligned, so what's with all the "nuh-uh, it's just down to individual choices for characters"?

Just because they can both be tied to Fey doesn't mean they'll get along; Fey have factions and cross-purposes too. Moreover, a Dreams Druid can just as easily be tied to a place like Dal Quor or Elysium as they could the Feywild itself.

Monks and Paladins are both disciplined warriors with martial bends, there's an inbuilt kinship there. Bards and rogues are birds of a feather, of course they'll flock together.

Plus all my examples from elsewhere in the thread, all decidedly serious without a single joke.

Monks could also look with disdain on Paladins, who depend on the twin crutches of external power and man-made equipment. Bards could easily annoy Rogues who value subtlety and quiet. There is no one answer to any of these.

Amnestic

2023-10-26, 02:17 PM

There is no one answer to any of these.

Better to provide oneanswer than the absolute nothing that is "oh none of it matters because it's all individuals".

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-26, 02:21 PM

And if it is impossible to answer how have people provided answers to the prompt?
Exactly. We're being led to believe that some inherent flaw in the OP means we cannot accept it and engage with it as intended.

But clearly that is not true. It's just a choice to do so or not.

I always liked the wizards’ derision for sorcerers in OOTS (and maybe 3.5?) and most of my wizards feel it. Disdain and superiority to sorcerers and warlocks, "that’s not for me" for clerics, and everything else varies by character.
This is a good example!

I can just as easily see a wizard being absolutely fascinated to study sorcerers and warlocks trying to figure out what makes their arcane magic different. And even more fascinated by divine casters.
Sure, it could be. But that's not the point of the thread.

If they're truly interested in magic on the academic level that they are, why would they abhor alternate pathways when they can instead study them?
Because they deride, have disdain for, and feel superior to the sorcerers and warlocks. It's in the quote...

Rangers hate Fighters because forumites are constantly saying "Ranger should be a fighter subclass". It's not fair to the Fighters, really, but hatred doesn't have to be logical.
Lol, I waffle between agreeing and disagreeing with this.

Ancients ("kindle the light of hope in the world") and Conquest ("Douse the Flame of Hope") paladins pretty directly do not get on, they have opposing tenets. Though I'm sure some people in this thread will be along momentarily to tell me about how actually those two can go together just fine.
This is a good example as well and likely EXACTLY what the OP is looking for.

But some subclasses very clearly do have specific lore aspects to them, and acting like they don't and that everything is mutable is as much a flawed premise.

The OP asked "which classes or subclasses might not get along" and a bunch of the replies just come across as "uhm actually it's all about individual choice and subclass choice has no impact whatsoever on characters"

As if the idea of archetypes just...what, got forgotten?
That's correct; people think archetypes, tropes, and stereotpyes have no place here for... reasons...

Witty Username

2023-10-26, 02:46 PM

You could just as well ask "if the Personality Trait, Bond and Flaw section of the character sheet doesn't inform anything about a character's capacities, why does it exist at all?"
Sure, we could, but then we would have to address that bonds, ideals and flaws inform the inspiration mechanics which is part of a characters capabilities. And are part of the larger system of backgrounds which do change the capabilities of a character.

And we already have this point in 5e, Alignment, which has been increasingly forgone in new materials and is looking like it may get the axe in One.
If it doesn't affect the character, why is it here? Is a perfectly valid question, which alignment has been failing recently.

Then there is that whole class description thing, which describes the character in archetype, which does inform all sorts of character traits.

Psyren

2023-10-26, 02:48 PM

Amnestic

2023-10-26, 03:01 PM

Unseelie Fey Green Knights. Want to reclaim civilization for nature, by force if necessary. Bonus points if both multiclass Warlock.

Would an Unseelie Fey swear to these tenets:

Kindle the Light. Through your acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle the light of hope in the world, beating back despair.

Shelter the Light. Where there is good, beauty, love, and laughter in the world, stand against the wickedness that would swallow it. Where life flourishes, stand against the forces that would render it barren.

Preserve Your Own Light. Delight in song and laughter, in beauty and art. If you allow the light to die in your own heart, you can't preserve it in the world.

Be the Light. Be a glorious beacon for all who live in despair. Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth in all your deeds.

because idk, when I google "Unseelie Fey" and see "this is an organisation of evil fey creatures" and then look at these tenets about bringing joy, mercy, kindness, forgiveness, those don't sound like they gel very well.

Being an Ancients paladin is more than just "the nature one".

Unoriginal

2023-10-26, 03:03 PM

Ancients ("kindle the light of hope in the world") and Conquest ("Douse the Flame of Hope") paladins pretty directly do not get on, they have opposing tenets. Though I'm sure some people in this thread will be along momentarily to tell me about how actually those two can go together just fine.

Douse the Flame of Hope refers to the hope of the Conquest Paladin's enemies.

Both the Ancient and the Conquest Paladin wants the same people to be hopeful and the same people to not be.

It's not like an Ancient Paladin tell their enemies they should face them with bravery because there is always a chance for them to kill the Paladin if they fight all together and believe in their friends, or as if the Conquest Paladin makes speeches to their own troops about how they're going to be slaughtered and there is nothing they can do about it, so they might as well just throw down their weapons and wait for death.

Muad'dib

2023-10-26, 03:07 PM

Sure, it could be. But that's not the point of the thread.

Because they deride, have disdain for, and feel superior to the sorcerers and warlocks. It's in the quote...

So you're not happy with participation if it doesn't fit your viewpoint then? Do you think maybe you shouldn't be policing the thread?

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-26, 03:11 PM

Douse the Flame of Hope refers to the hope of the Conquest Paladin's enemies.

Both the Ancient and the Conquest Paladin wants the same people to be hopeful and the same people to not be.
I think you've blocked me so you won't see this but... this is not necessarily true.

An Ancients paladin has a particular aim of rekindling hope in people. There is no reason to think that dousing the hope of "enemies" would be a suitable tactic in their opinion, because rekindling hope is what they've taken an oath to do.

Secondly, the conquest paladin DOES NOT want anyone to be hopeful. That isn't stated anywhere. Rather, they have a strong bent toward authority and hierarchy. The ancients paladin on the other hand literally says that they care about Good over Law and Chaos.

Amnestic

2023-10-26, 03:12 PM

Douse the Flame of Hope refers to the hope of the Conquest Paladin's enemies.

Both the Ancient and the Conquest Paladin wants the same people to be hopeful and the same people to not be.

It's not like an Ancient Paladin tell their enemies they should face them with bravery because there is always a chance for them to kill the Paladin if they fight all together and believe in their friends, or as if the Conquest Paladin makes speeches to their own troops about how they're going to be slaughtered and there is nothing they can do about it, so they might as well just throw down their weapons and wait for death.

Oh yeah, Conquest paladin is inspiring a lot of hope in their friends with

Rule with an Iron Fist. Once you have conquered, tolerate no dissent. Your word is law. Those who obey it shall be favored. Those who defy it shall be punished as an example to all who might follow.

You think Tolerate no dissent gels perfectly well with "Through your acts of mercy, kindness, and forgiveness, kindle the light of hope in the world"? You think a dude dedicated to beauty, love, and laughter and being a glorious beacon for all who live in despair is like "oh yeah, conquering is great, I love conquering, we're gonna get on great!"

I'm not saying they can't theoretically be in a party together but acting like there's not a significant roleplay barrier to them that objectively is not there for a bunch of other (sub)class combos is frankly very silly.

Psyren

2023-10-26, 03:14 PM

Would an Unseelie Fey swear to these tenets:

because idk, when I google "Unseelie Fey" and see "this is an organisation of evil fey creatures" and then look at these tenets about bringing joy, mercy, kindness, forgiveness, those don't sound like they gel very well.

Being an Ancients paladin is more than just "the nature one".

Hope is relative. An extreme viewpoint of song, laughter, and beauty could be viewing industrial civilization as the antithesis of those things (and in a place like Ravnica, they might even be right to think so), and the source of "wickedness." At the very least, desperation could make those two paladins work together for a time. If a good adventuring party can get along with Belkar, you can justify any association under dangerous enough circumstances, especially in an edition where paladins no longer Fall by association.

Better to provide oneanswer than the absolute nothing that is "oh none of it matters because it's all individuals".

No one is stopping you from providing one answer.

Muad'dib

2023-10-26, 03:16 PM

I think a valid discussion to have here, and what I would think we need to align around to even begin to address the OP's premise, would be the question of what class even means in 5e. How much of a class is an in-universe profession vs a metagame construct? It's a tension that has existed long before this edition (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html), but 5e makes it even more prominent. For example, how would you represent a Witch in 5e? Maybe it's some flavor of Wizard, like Tasha. Maybe it's a Warlock (say, Fathomless, like Callisto.) Maybe it's a Land Druid, like Madam Mim. Maybe it's a Glamor Bard that lures children to a candy cottage.

And because class and profession are so divorced in 5e, that speaks to why class attitudes to one another might vary wildly in practice. "Druids hate Artificers because Artificers = technology!" neglects the fact that an Artificer can draw power from bottling plant essence, or carving runes into wood, or refracting light through natural crystals. "Devotion Paladins don't get along with Grave Clerics" neglects the fact that Grave Clerics can be Doomguides who lay the undead to rest, or Aerenei who prevent their dead from being misused by necromancy in the first place.

So when we're saying "hey, the premise needs work" that's a good faith criticism.

I submit that my witch is a barbarian that took alchemy and brews potions in a very angry state of mind. The anger makes them work better.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-26, 03:29 PM

Do you think maybe you shouldn't be policing the thread?
Hello Mr. Pot, I am Mr. Kettle.

Just consider what I'm doing to be "challenging" your premise, and then everything should be okay :smallwink:. It's a forum after all, expect people to "challenge" your ideas, etc etc.

When someone gives an example, and you guys give a counter-example, you are acting as if people think that only their example can be true. Like... everyone understands that all of the classes can get along, or might have different traits, etc. We're engaging with the OP, and people are like "oh, but what if instead... they DO get along??".

Stop policing the responses :smallwink:.

I'm not saying they can't theoretically be in a party together but acting like there's not a significant roleplay barrier to them that objectively is not there for a bunch of other (sub)class combos is frankly very silly.
When everything is mutable and relative, it tends to get silly.

Ancients Paladin: Look, he's surrendered. Let's bring him with us and I will show him the beauty in this world, rekindle his hope, and make him a force for the light.
Conquest Paladin: Alternatively, I douse whatever hope he might have left, knock another tooth out of his skull, and turn him into a sniveling minion that obeys my authority.
Ancients Paladin: I guess that's fine too.

Amnestic

2023-10-26, 03:35 PM

Hope is relative. An extreme viewpoint of song, laughter, and beauty could be viewing industrial civilization as the antithesis of those things (and in a place like Ravnica, they might even be right to think so), and the source of "wickedness." At the very least, desperation could make those two paladins work together for a time. If a good adventuring party can get along with Belkar, you can justify any association under dangerous enough circumstances, especially in an edition where paladins no longer Fall by association.

Just 'for a time'? You mean that they might not get along? No one's said they can't have similar goals or even work together, just that they might not get along. For all the talk about how the OP's premise is "flawed" you seem to have assumed that meant they won't be able to ever work together, which isn't what was said or even suggested.

You've had to stretch so far to even suggest that Ancients and Conquest might be able to temporarily work together without breaking their tenets. It seems pretty clear to me that a great many others do not suffer from these same hurdles and limiting concepts in order to get along with one another.

I therefore conclude that no, the OP's premise is not flawed as has been suggested. My example has shown that some subclasses combinations do, by virtue of their narrative description/archetype, get on better with one another than another subclass combination. Gloomstalker Ranger and Shadow Monk are probably more likely to vibe based on shared professionalism compared to how Peace Cleric and Berserker Barbarian might just find themselves on opposite spectrums of a philosophical debate.

The suggestion that all are equal under the sun, as was suggested as a counterpoint, is the flawed premise, and that while you can refluff or make adjustments to your heart's content, the standard written narrative informs a great many characters and shouldn't be disregarded immediately in favour of "it doesn't matter, it's all indvidual."

This is not to say that they cannot join the same party.
It is to say that they will likely not be best buddies (i.e. "get along").

Psyren

2023-10-26, 03:36 PM

Just 'for a time'? You mean that they might not get along?

"A time" can be the entire campaign.

Amnestic

2023-10-26, 03:46 PM

"A time" can be the entire campaign.

Yes, they can work together for a time, including the whole campaign. That doesn't mean they're getting along.

Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham can team up against Thanos but that doesn't mean they get along with each other.

Psyren

2023-10-26, 03:48 PM

Yes, they can work together for a time, including the whole campaign. That doesn't mean they're getting along.

Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham can team up against Thanos but that doesn't mean they get along with each other.

You're right - "get along" is another hole in the OP's premise that begs definition. Thanks!

Unoriginal

2023-10-26, 03:56 PM

You think a dude dedicated to beauty, love, and laughter and being a glorious beacon for all who live in despair is like "oh yeah, conquering is great, I love conquering, we're gonna get on great!"

I don't think that, no, I was only commenting on the hope part.

I'm not saying they can't theoretically be in a party together but acting like there's not a significant roleplay barrier to them that objectively is not there for a bunch of other (sub)class combos is frankly very silly.

Paladin's Oaths are not personalities, even if they do inform one's conduct. So yes, it's a RP barrier, but it's still not an "yeah, those two subclasses don't get along because that's what everyone in that subclass think".

You could have an Ancient Paladin and a Conquest Paladin who are very similar. For example, they could be cynics thinking the world is in a crummy state and that people aren't as benevolent as they should be. So they could go along on that point. But one think people needs to be encouraged toward good while the other think people will only do good if you forbid them from doing evil, so there are philosophical tensions between them on how to better the world, even if they are in agreement on everything else.

Or you could have an Ancient Paladin who is an idealistic optimist wishing to share with everyone and a Conquest Paladin who is a sadist only tempered by a pathological need for structure, which would mean those two are likely too opposed to ever wish to work together.

Amnestic

2023-10-26, 03:56 PM

You're right - "get along" is another hole in the OP's premise that begs definition. Thanks!

It has a definition. You can search it up on any search engine of your choice for multiple dictionaries if you care to. I will provide a number of them below.

Cambridge: (BE FRIENDLY) / If two or more people get along, they like each other and are friendly to each other:
Merriam Webster: to be or remain on congenial terms
Collins: If you get along with someone, you have a friendly relationship with them. You can also say that two people get along.
Vocabulary.com: When you get along with someone, you're friendly or compatible with them
Dictionary.com: to be friendly or compatible

Unless you're of the opinion that all party members need to be friendly with one another/like one another, I think it's fair to say that they can work together without getting along.

Glad we could clear that up.

Joshthemanwich

2023-10-26, 03:59 PM

You're right - "get along" is another hole in the OP's premise that begs definition. Thanks!

I will be the first person to admit that I am an idiot. 100% no doubt about it. But it seem pretty well defined and easily understandable in the original post. Examples provided and everything. But hey, I could be wrong and have misconstrued the whole prompt.

Psyren

2023-10-26, 04:10 PM

It has a definition. You can search it up on any search engine of your choice for multiple dictionaries if you care to. I will provide a number of them below.

Cambridge: (BE FRIENDLY) / If two or more people get along, they like each other and are friendly to each other:
Merriam Webster: to be or remain on congenial terms
Collins: If you get along with someone, you have a friendly relationship with them. You can also say that two people get along.
Vocabulary.com: When you get along with someone, you're friendly or compatible with them
Dictionary.com: to be friendly or compatible

Unless you're of the opinion that all party members need to be friendly with one another/like one another, I think it's fair to say that they can work together without getting along.

Glad we could clear that up.

Exactly, any two classes ever in all of 5e D&D can "get along" or "not get along" using definitions that broad. I too am glad we could clear that up.

I will be the first person to admit that I am an idiot. 100% no doubt about it. But it seem pretty well defined and easily understandable in the original post. Examples provided and everything. But hey, I could be wrong and have misconstrued the whole prompt.

So a druid and a ranger can never oppose one another either? Doesn't seem to be a very workable example.

OldTrees1

2023-10-26, 04:38 PM

Okay, I THOUGHT giving 1 example from the 3.5E PHB would have been enough context to help the 5E forum understand the Opening Poster's request. That was too optimistic. So here are the 12 example paragraphs the Opening Poster was referencing. We can all see by reading any of them, that while they speak in non universal generalities, they also don't oversimply as far as an erroneously literal reading of the thread's title would lead you to believe. So I urge all but 1 of you to read at least 1 of these 12 and think about how the updated 5E classes might be described at a similar level of generality. We don't have to boil it down to a binary or reject the thread merely because we reject boiling it down to a binary. And these descriptions can be improved upon in more ways than merely updating them for the changes in the classes. However I hope context will help evaporate the wasteful argument.

For me, I think the 5E Rogue's description would be fairly similar to the 3.5E Rogue's descriptor but with the final sentence tweaked. (I elaborated in my 1st post)

Thank you for anyone that does take the time to read even 1 of these examples. I think having the context will help the thread , and it was troublesome to type it out since my PDF is images instead of text.

Other Classes: As people of the wild, barbarians are most comfortable in the company of rangers, druids, and clerics of nature deities, such as Obad-Hai or Ehlonna. Many barbarians admire the talents and spontaneity of bards, and some are enthusiastic lovers of music. Barbarians don’t trust that which they don’t understand, and that includes wizardry, which they call “book magic.” They find sorcerers more understandable than wizards, but maybe that’s just because sorcerers tend to be more charismatic. Monks, with their studied, practiced, deliberate approach to combat, sometimes have a hard time seeing eye to eye with barbarians, but members of these classes aren’t necessarily hostile to each other. Barbarians have no special attitudes toward fighters, paladins, clerics, or rogues.

Other Classes: A bard works well with companions of other classes. He often serves as the spokesman of the party, using his social skills for the party’s benefit. In a party without a wizard or sorcerer, the bard contributes his magic. In a party without a rogue, he uses his skills. A bard is curious about the ways of more focused or dedicated adventurers, so he often tries to pick up pointers from fighters, sorcerers, and rogues

Other Classes: In an adventuring party, the cleric is everybody’s friend and often the glue that holds the party together. As the one who can channel divine energy, a cleric is a capable healer, and adventurers of every class appreciate being put back together after they’ve taken some hard knocks. Clerics sometimes clash with druids, since druids represent an older, more primal relationship between the mortal and the divine. Mostly, though, the religion of a cleric determines how he gets along with others. A cleric of Olidammara (god of thieves), gets along fine with rogues and ne’er-do-wells, for example, while a cleric of Heironeous (god of valor) rankles at such company.

Other Classes: The druid shares with rangers and many barbarians a reverence for nature and a familiarity with natural lands. She doesn’t much understand the urban mannerism typical of a rogue, and she finds arcane magic disruptive and slightly distasteful. The typical druid also dislikes the paladin’s devotion to abstract ideals instead of “the real world.” Druids, however, are nothing if not accepting of diversity, and they take little offense at other characters, even those very different from them.

Other Classes: The fighter excels in a straight fight, but he relies on others for magical support, healing, and scouting. On a team, it is his job to man the front lines, protect the other party members, and bring the tough opponents down. Fighters might not understand
the arcane ways of wizards or share the faith of clerics, but they recognize the value of teamwork.

Other Classes: Monks sometimes seem distant because they often have neither motivation nor skills in common with members of other classes. Monks do, however, work well with the support of others, and they usually prove themselves reliable companions.

Other Classes: Even though paladins are in some ways set apart from others, they eagerly team up with those whose skills and capabilities complement their own. They work well with good and lawful clerics, and they appreciate working with those who are brave, honest, and committed to good. While they cannot abide evil acts by their companions, they are otherwise willing to work with a variety of people quite different from themselves. Charismatic, trustworthy, and well respected, the paladin makes a fine leader for a team.

Classes: Rangers get along well with druids and to some extent with barbarians. They are known to bicker with paladins, mostly because they often share goals but differ in style, tactics, approach, philosophy, and esthetics. Since rangers don’t often look to other
people for support or friendship, they find it easy to tolerate people who are quite different from themselves, such as bookish wizards and preachy clerics. They just don’t care enough to get upset about others’ differences.
Edit: Yes there is a typo. Ranger talks about "Classes" instead of "Other Classes".

Other Classes: Rogues love and hate working with members of other classes. They excel when protected by warriors and supported by spellcasters. There are plenty of times, however, that they wish everyone else was as quiet, guileful, and patient as they. Rogues are particularly wary of paladins, so they endeavor to prove themselves useful when contact with paladins is unavoidable.

Other Classes: Sorcerers find that they have the most in common with members of other largely self-taught classes, such as druids and rogues. They sometimes find themselves at odds with members of the more disciplined classes, such as paladins and monks. Since they cast the same spells as wizards but do so in a different way, they sometimes find themselves in competition with wizards

Other Classes: Wizards prefer to work with members of other classes. They love to cast their spells from behind strong fighters, to “magic up” rogues and send them out to scout, and to rely on the divine healing of clerics. They may find members of certain classes (such as sorcerers, rogues, and bards) to be not quite serious enough, but they’re not judgmental.

Unoriginal

2023-10-26, 04:44 PM

Okay, I THOUGHT giving 1 example from the 3.5E PHB would have been enough context to help the 5E forum understand the Opening Poster's request. That was too optimistic.

What is requested is understood.

But what is requested was as much a problem during the 3.5 years as it is now.

OldTrees1

2023-10-26, 04:49 PM

What is requested is understood.

But what is requested was as much a problem during the 3.5 years as it is now.

Then give me an improved example. Or is there nothing that is even generally speaking relevant? Is the following not generally relevant despite not being always true? Has everything blurred together so much we can't say anything?

The druid shares with rangers and many barbarians a reverence for nature and a familiarity with natural lands.

Edit:
Or since your other posts imply a reading of the classes that is derived from only their mechanics, maybe:

Many Rogues appreciate many Monks for opening up opportunities for the Rogue to sneak attack.

Xihirli

2023-10-26, 05:32 PM

Bobthewizard

2023-10-26, 05:33 PM

I agree with the argument that classes don't define the character, but I find it more fun to just answer the OPs question.

So my antagonist pairs:

Druids and Artificers. Nature vs. Industry
Barbarians vs. Bards. Brute strength vs. charm
Clerics vs. Warlocks. True faith vs. contractual benefits
Fighter vs. Ranger. Loyal soldier vs. loner
Paladin vs. Rogue. Rule follower vs. rule breaker
Sorcerer vs. Wizard. Natural talent vs. hard work and study

That leaves monks as the odd class out, so I guess everyone likes monks in my world.

Edit: Oh wait. I have one.
Monks vs. Blood Hunters. Channeling vitality vs using it as a curse

So every NPC has these stereotypes and can't understand another class' prejudices.

Barbarian: "I don't understand why you hate rangers. They're fine. It's those squishy bards I can't stand. They're the worst."
Fighter: "Have you met any rangers? They think their so cool cause they can walk around in the woods."

Unoriginal

2023-10-26, 05:34 PM

Then give me an improved example.

Alright:

Relationships Between Classes:

Classes are neither characters nor personalities for characters. Classes cannot get along with one another, only characters can, and people from the same classes can be widely different.

Anything more would devolve into something like:

Some Wizards resent Sorcerers for being born with the power they themselves had to acquire through study, while other Wizards admire Sorcerers for training their inherent magic to obey their every commands, which Wizards' studies allowing them to appreciate how difficult doing that is. Similarly, some Wizards enjoy working with Fighters, appreciating that the might of their martial prowess help their spellcasting, while other Wizards think that Fighters are at best hired muscles just one step above pack animals and at worse disposable minions that won't need to be paid if they 'accidentally' are caught in a fireball's radius.

or

Some Artificers think that Druids are backward yokels trying to push the world back into mediocrity because it's the only way for them to have power, while other Artificers think that Druids are natural philosophers in tune with the deeper truths of the world, and yet another kind of Artificiers are completely ambivalent toward Druids.

or

Some Rogues like working with Shadow Monks, sharing a professional respect for all that the Monks can bring to the table, while others Rogues think that dedicating oneself to spiritual enlightenment is a waste of time when being a Rogue let you be a skill expert and accomplish feats of speed and agility without having to spend ki. Some Rogues even think that what Monks bring to the table is superfluous and would rather have a Chain Pact Warlock with an Imp familiar in the team than a Monk any day of the week.

Sweeping statements are either stereotypical or vague to the point of uselessness, and more developed statements just describe "people are complicated and have diverging opinions even if they share some capacities" in a wordier manner.

Or since your other posts imply a reading of the classes that is derived from only their mechanics

That is the opposite of what I am saying.

OldTrees1

2023-10-26, 05:47 PM

Alright:

-snip- 4 examples

Sweeping statements are either stereotypical or vague to the point of uselessness, and more developed statements just describe "people are complicated and have diverging opinions even if they share some capacities" in a wordier manner.

I think examples 2-4, despite not being what you would be looking for, are something similar to what the opening poster might be looking for.

So, thank you.

Edit:
You value the most concise and universal wording (your example #1). I think the opening poster was looking for the wordier more developed statements despite the increased generalization making them less universal and prone to exceptions. Personally I value having both because my characters are more likely to be those exceptions.

So, since this was a request thread, I think the context helps our replies fulfill the request. Again, thank you.

Psyren

2023-10-26, 06:05 PM

Or is there nothing that is even generally speaking relevant? Is the following not generally relevant despite not being always true? Has everything blurred together so much we can't say anything?

You can say anything; submit whatever examples you think fit the OP, and question or refute the ones you dislike or otherwise see gaps in. Nobody is preventing anyone from doing or saying anything.

Sweeping statements are either stereotypical or vague to the point of uselessness, and more developed statements just describe "people are complicated and have diverging opinions even if they share some capacities" in a wordier manner.

Indeed - and just because some of us are aligned with this point of view (and are saying as much) doesn't mean everyone has to be.

Speaking for myself, I happen to think it's a fun exercise to devise or discuss scenarios in which other folks' "antagonist pairs" would feasibly work together, so the thread is proving engaging on that front.

So my antagonist pairs:

Druids and Artificers. Nature vs. Industry
Barbarians vs. Bards. Brute strength vs. charm
Clerics vs. Warlocks. True faith vs. contractual benefits
Fighter vs. Ranger. Loyal soldier vs. loner
Paladin vs. Rogue. Rule follower vs. rule breaker
Sorcerer vs. Wizard. Natural talent vs. hard work and study

Case in point, numbered for convenience:

Artificers don't have to be industrialists or machinists - they can be herbalists, totemic shamans, chefs, and other professions that are compatible/synergistic with nature.
Both Barbarians and Bards could be or value Skalds, Warrior-Poets, War Drummers etc. In addition, both can draw overt power from primal emotion.
In multiple settings, Warlock patrons are themselves servants of deities, and some are powerful enough to grant spells in their own right. A given deity might not merely be okay with their cleric working alongside an allied warlock, they may even mandate it.
A fighter can be just as itinerant/loner as any stereotypical ranger, and rangers can serve in military companies and other squads e.g. as scouts, trappers or saboteurs.
Rogues can ply their skills toward enforcing the law and catching criminals as much as rulebreaking and criminality. (Also, see my "nonlethal assassin rogue" example from earlier in the thread.)
Wizardry can be just as much a function of talented ease as Sorcery, and similarly sorcery can require just as much dedication and practice as wizardry.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-26, 06:58 PM

The death spiral of this forum continues, one "um akchooally" at a time.

How about Redemption Paladin vs Vengeance Paladin. Also, Watchers Paladin and maybe a Conjurer Wizard?

OldTrees1

2023-10-26, 08:05 PM

The death spiral of this forum continues, one "um akchooally" at a time.

How about Redemption Paladin vs Vengeance Paladin. Also, Watchers Paladin and maybe a Conjurer Wizard?

Other Classes: Even though paladins are in some ways set apart from others, they eagerly team up with those whose skills and capabilities complement their own. They work well with good and lawful clerics, and they appreciate working with those who are brave, honest, and committed to good. While they cannot abide evil acts by their companions, they are otherwise willing to work with a variety of people quite different from themselves. Charismatic, trustworthy, and well respected, the paladin makes a fine leader for a team.

Redemption Paladin:
The Redemption Paladin will eagerly team up with those whose skills and capabilities complement their own. They appreciate working with those that are empathetic, or resolute. They readily understand the convictions and oaths of other paladins, and together will seek to avoid clashes in moral obligations by preparing more around those potential conflicts of interest. They are especially wary of conflicts with Vengeance Paladins since those differences of philosophies take longer to preempt when possible.

In practice I expect a Redemption & Vengeance pair to come to one of 3 accords:
1) The Redemption Paladin has to wisdom to know there are those that can be redeemed but are not worth the collateral damage that would be incurred. Vengeance Paladins are drawn to those unfortunates, so they make great allies once the tragedy is fully understood.
2) The path to redemption is not an easy one. There will be many cases where it might be a severe enough punishment to satisfy the vengeance paladin's call to vengeance. A tyrant brought low to serve the community will suffer much under the yoke of their unrepentant pride for as long as they hold onto it.
3) Individuals are partially the products of systems. Sometimes the Redemption and Vengeance paladins can compromise by redeeming one and punishing the other (both ways work).

And of course there will be exceptions to that generalization, but it is just a generalization.

Watcher Paladin:
The Watcher Paladin will eagerly team up with those whose skills and capabilities complement their own. They appreciate those that are honest, perceptive, and willing to consider new threats. They value the support of spellcasters, especially those that are knowledgeable or cautious as they draw on other planes. The planar knowledge of Clerics and Conjurors is especially appreciated but it is worth offering a peer review before any risky conjurations.

This Watcher & Conjuror paradigm is much less contentious. Sure the Watcher is worried about incursions of Slaadi, Modrons, and Fiends, but Conjurors don't want incursions either. While together the Conjuror would avoid fiendish summons, and be very careful about controlling their summons. On the other hand it definately helps when they both fully understand the extraplanar threat they are fighting together.

And of course there will be exceptions to that generalization, but it is just a generalization.

Schwann145

2023-10-26, 08:06 PM

I'd like to applaud all the posters who have managed the impossible: answering the OPs question, despite it being so fundamentally flawed a premise that it is unanswerable. :smallwink:

Psyren

2023-10-26, 08:18 PM

The death spiral of this forum continues, one "um akchooally" at a time.

I'd say it's probably a good idea to not get overly invested in a single forum or community anyway :smallsmile:

How about Redemption Paladin vs Vengeance Paladin.

Those are both aspects of Justice (forgiveness and punishment, respectively), so I would expect them both to be found in Tyr's church, among others.

Also, Watchers Paladin and maybe a Conjurer Wizard?

Let's make this even more fun and go with the "Watchers hate all extraplanar creatures" interpretation - no fiends, no celestials, no aberrations, and no fey. Let's even go a step further and say conjure animals/beasts are out too because they are originally fey spirits that take the shape of animals during the conjuration process.

There is one summon that almost certainly comes from the Material Plane itself - Summon Construct. (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/summon-construct) Constructs are also, conveniently, not mentioned anywhere as being opponents of a Watchers' Paladin, and they still benefit from the Conjurer'subclass techniques. I could therefore see both of these classes partnering up to take on extraplanar interlopers - say, being in the Church of Helm in FR, or Gatekeepers in Eberron.

The overarching point is this - any class or subclass can be justified to work with any other class or subclass; if not innately, then by circumstance (and what is adventuring but one big circumstance?)

Witty Username

2023-10-26, 09:32 PM

I'd say it's probably a good idea to not get overly invested in a single forum or community anyway :smallsmile:

This community is routinely one of my favorites though, pretty civil, has a lot of interesting people and ideas, etc.

--
I am very much against the idea that classes have no meaning to a character. capabilities (sounds a lot like mechanics to me) are part of it, but so are themes. And characters will have motivations that pull and push towards classes.

Take for example a warlock, with a fiend patron, already we know something about the character, something drove them to make a pact with a fiend. Recall that this is not required to access magic, sorcerer, wizard, bard, cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, and arificer all prove that. So there must be a factor of, why this one? Sorcerer is easy, no spark, no dice, but all the others are more complex.
Let's go with cleric just to have some focus,
there is aptitude, wis is a thing, and if you have wis 8 and cha 16, the character will be a better warlock
also opportunity, maybe your community has no religions, sure why not
but also,
Devotion and Endorsement, Cleric needs a God and a God needs a Cleric. This is a necessity, a cleric that looses faith or a god that loses patience, will end a cleric. Warlock doesn't have this issue,
most people tend to assume a one and done deal, and the warlock has the power regardless of the patron's opinions - even if one can still have a ongoing thing, like a contract to fullfill their end for.
So we have some natural answers,
- the gods available were not helpful,
- the character was not interested in following a god beyond the abilities

this leaves a question, how does say a light cleric, see a fiend warlock? and vice versa,
does the cleric see easy power? someone that lacks faith taking making a deal with dangerous consequences
does the warlock see thoughtless sacrifice? Someone who gives a lot to gain little

even if you take the reactive answer, that characters don't make choices, force or opportunity were involved, then we still have things to infer, depending on if you have opinions of cleric and warlock as better/worse (I personally doubt most see dealing with a devil being the favorable outcome, but that is a bit beyond the PHB and more into literature and folklore).

Unoriginal

2023-10-26, 09:33 PM

I'd like to applaud all the posters who have managed the impossible: answering the OPs question, despite it being so fundamentally flawed a premise that it is unanswerable.

False premise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise)

It is unanswerable because you can answer anything and it'd be equally valid.

Want to say Barbarians get along with Rogues? It's correct.

Want to say Barbarians do not get along with Rogues? It's correct.

Want to say Barbarians have no strong feelings about Rogues? It's correct.

Want to say Barbarians like to eat Rogues's brains and livers? It's correct.

I am very much against the idea that classes have no meaning to a character. capabilities (sounds a lot like mechanics to me) are part of it, but so are themes. And characters will have motivations that pull and push towards classes.

Classes do have themes, but themes don't dictate personalities either.

A Cleric can be a devoted worshiper, an opportunistic person who jumped on the occasion to further personal ambitions, or someone chosen by a god without their opinion having been consulted.

A Warlock can be a devoted worshiper, an opportunistic person who jumped on the occasion to further personal ambition, or someone chosen chosen by a Patron without their opinion having been consulted.

You can have Clerics with unremarkable to terrible WIS and Warlocks with unremarkable to terrible CHA, just because some people aren't that suited for their powerset. On the other hand you can have people who are *extremely* suited for their powerset but have no interest in them, like the Warlock who's trying really hard to break their Pacts or the Cleric who very much prefers not obeying the god's dictates.

Asking "how would a Cleric who was made a Cleric against their wishes react to a Warlock who actively worship their Patron despite not needing to do so to keep their power?" can be an interesting question. But "how would a Cleric react to a Warlock?" is too large.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-26, 10:00 PM

But "how would a Cleric react to a Warlock?" is too large.
Clearly not.

Once again, you are simply choosing to ignore tropes and stereotypes.

You, and others, are focusing on reasons why classes would get along, and choosing to only respond to this thread with those answers, instead of focusing on reasons why they might not get along (the point of the thread).

Somehow you have no problem saying "class x would get along with class y" as a rebuttal to other posters, but can't make some similar generalization about why "class x would not get along with class y".

It's a choice. That you and others are making. And pretending it must be so. It is obvious you don't *have to* engage in this way, despite spamming words like "flawed" "logic" and "premise".

How about Berserker Barbarian vs Mastermind Rogue :smallconfused:

Unoriginal

2023-10-26, 10:17 PM

Once again, you are simply choosing to ignore tropes and stereotypes.

Tropes are tools, stereotypes are a burden.

You, and others, are focusing on reasons why classes would get along, and choosing to only respond to this thread with those answers, instead of focusing on reasons why they might not get along (the point of the thread).

That claim is blatantly false. My point has always been that PCs may get along with, may not get along with or can be entirely apathetic about other PCs.

Somehow you have no problem saying "class x would get along with class y" as a rebuttal to other posters, but can't make some similar generalization about why "class x would not get along with class y".

Again, that is blatantly not what I have been saying.

My point has been since my first post in this thread that class X has no opinion on class Y, because classes are not people nor personalities for people, and that if you talk about [individuals who happen to have class X] then they may get along with [individuals who happen to have class Y] as plausibly as they may not get along.

How about Berserker Barbarian vs Mastermind Rogue :smallconfused:

Berserker Barbarians and Mastermind Rogues do not get along at all, because Berserkers are give-everything-you-have brawlers who favors getting in the thick of things and Masterminds are careful thinkers who prefer handling things without taking direct risks. Since they are so different, they constantly step on each other's toes, resulting in animosity.

Berserker Barbarians and Mastermind Rogues get along swimmingly, because Berserkers are give-everything-you-have brawlers who favors getting in the thick of things and Masterminds are careful thinkers who prefer handling things taking direct risks. Since they are so different, they complete each other's styles, resulting in a strong bond between the two.

Berserker Barbarians and Mastermind Rogues have no strong opinions about each other, because Berserkers are give-everything-you-have brawlers who favors getting in the thick of things and Masterminds are careful thinkers who prefer handling things taking direct risks. Since they are so different, they can't really comment on each other's methods, resulting in mostly ambivalence outside of professional courtesy.

Psyren

2023-10-26, 10:25 PM

This community is routinely one of my favorites though, pretty civil, has a lot of interesting people and ideas, etc.

Don't let any doomsaying worry you. Rich runs a tight ship, even if some might chafe at that.

I am very much against the idea that classes have no meaning to a character. capabilities (sounds a lot like mechanics to me) are part of it, but so are themes. And characters will have motivations that pull and push towards classes.

I'm not (and I think Muad'dib / Unoriginal are not) saying that class has no meaning. Rather we are saying that class can have multiple meanings, perhaps even approaching infinite. There is not just one boring flat "X can only love Y and can only hate Z." The creative mind can justify many combinations and permutations. D&D is a game about expression after all.

Take for example a warlock, with a fiend patron, already we know something about the character, something drove them to make a pact with a fiend. Recall that this is not required to access magic, sorcerer, wizard, bard, cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, and arificer all prove that. So there must be a factor of, why this one? Sorcerer is easy, no spark, no dice, but all the others are more complex.

1) Warlock patrons do not actually have to be sought out. In fact, Warlocks "can stumble into pacts without being fully aware of it." You can even end up in a pact just by reading the wrong book too long!

2) Sorcerers don't have to come from a "spark" either. You can be a person of ordinary heritage who suffers "exposure to cosmic forces."

this leaves a question, how does say a light cleric, see a fiend warlock? and vice versa,

Light Domain is also Fire Domain in 5e. Kossuth's clerics would be Light, and he has no problem with fiends.

Witty Username

2023-10-26, 10:27 PM

I believe I have found the contention,

To classes inform, personalities? You don't need an if and only if statement to have a trend line.

A cleric that was chosen by compulsion? does that mean they cannot be devoted to that god? Obviously not, in fact it is easier to be compel those that are devoted. A paladin grumbling that they were hoping to enjoy retirement instead of having to save the world, again, does not mean they don't place any value in their oaths or deeds.

But classes don't dictate capabilities, a light cleric's fireball is exactly as capable as a fiend warlock's. Why would I play one over the other if they are functionally the same?

Unoriginal

2023-10-26, 10:42 PM

But classes don't dictate capabilities, a light cleric's fireball is exactly as capable as a fiend warlock's. Why would I play one over the other if they are functionally the same?

There are many paths to have one specific capability. The reason you choose one over the other is for every other capabilities that are on this path or excluded from it.

Maybe you want Fireball but don't want the Warlock's spell slots. Maybe you want Fireball but you don't want having healing as an option. Maybe you prefers the thematics and tropes associated with one over the other. Maybe it's Tuesday and you tried one of the classes on Monday already.

Schwann145

2023-10-26, 10:50 PM

1) Warlock patrons do not actually have to be sought out. In fact, Warlocks "can stumble into pacts without being fully aware of it." You can even end up in a pact just by reading the wrong book too long!

Gonna hard disagree here. You can "sign without reading," as it were, but you still have to willfully sign. You can't accidentally-a-pact. It's officially a formal agreement between two (or more) parties; that's why it's called a pact.

Witty Username

2023-10-26, 10:50 PM

There are many paths to have one specific capability. The reason you choose one over the other is for every other capabilities that are on this path or excluded from it.

Maybe you want Fireball but don't want the Warlock's spell slots. Maybe you want Fireball but you don't want having healing as an option. Maybe you prefers the thematics and tropes associated with one over the other. Maybe it's Tuesday and you tried one of the classes on Monday already.

Why not just cast two spells a combat? Or not prepare healing spells, or theme your character as warlock and use those tropes?

You could play a light cleric functionally the same as a fiend warlock. Therefore, we can't speak to the differences between cleric and warlock, or how they behave usually. As such a thing doesn't exist.
--
Or perhaps, a class is a combination of capabilities, themes, and common personality traits to form an archetype. That we can then discuss, even if we acknowledge exceptions.

Psyren

2023-10-26, 10:56 PM

Why not just cast two spells a combat? Or not prepare healing spells, or theme your character as warlock and use those tropes?

You could play a light cleric functionally the same as a fiend warlock. Therefore, we can't speak to the differences between cleric and warlock, or how they behave usually. As such a thing doesn't exist.
--
Or perhaps, a class is a combination of capabilities, themes, and common personality traits to form an archetype. That we can then discuss, even if we acknowledge exceptions.

I really can't follow your logic. How does having one single ability in common (fireball), or even a handful of common abilities, mean the two subclasses are identical?

Gonna hard disagree here. You can "sign without reading," as it were, but you still have to willfully sign. You can't accidentally-a-pact. It's officially a formal agreement between two (or more) parties; that's why it's called a pact.

You're "hard disagreeing" with the PHB? I used quotation marks for a reason there :smallconfused:

There are many paths to have one specific capability. The reason you choose one over the other is for every other capabilities that are on this path or excluded from it.

Maybe you want Fireball but don't want the Warlock's spell slots. Maybe you want Fireball but you don't want having healing as an option. Maybe you prefers the thematics and tropes associated with one over the other. Maybe it's Tuesday and you tried one of the classes on Monday already.

This.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-26, 10:59 PM

Tropes are tools, stereotypes are a burden.
Both are tools. Either way, stop ignoring them.

Berserker Barbarians and Mastermind Rogues do not get along at all, because Berserkers are give-everything-you-have brawlers who favors getting in the thick of things and Masterminds are careful thinkers who prefer handling things without taking direct risks. Since they are so different, they constantly step on each other's toes, resulting in animosity.

Berserker Barbarians and Mastermind Rogues get along swimmingly, because Berserkers are give-everything-you-have brawlers who favors getting in the thick of things and Masterminds are careful thinkers who prefer handling things taking direct risks. Since they are so different, they complete each other's styles, resulting in a strong bond between the two.

Berserker Barbarians and Mastermind Rogues have no strong opinions about each other, because Berserkers are give-everything-you-have brawlers who favors getting in the thick of things and Masterminds are careful thinkers who prefer handling things taking direct risks. Since they are so different, they can't really comment on each other's methods, resulting in mostly ambivalence outside of professional courtesy.
The OP only asked for one of these though, so not sure on the compulsion to provide this package deal, however generous it is.

Gonna hard disagree here. You can "sign without reading," as it were, but you still have to willfully sign. You can't accidentally-a-pact. It's officially a formal agreement between two (or more) parties; that's why it's called a pact.
We were treated to the "but what does it really mean?" game earlier so I suspect a repeat performance with "pact" lol.

Gloomstalker Ranger and Light Cleric

Cleric: Let me risk a little more light.
Ranger: ... dude, really?

Unoriginal

2023-10-26, 11:00 PM

The PHB makes clear that a Pact does not have to be a fornal agreement or an agreement at all.

It is directly stated that some Patrons are unaware that a Warlock is leeching of their power, for example.

Or perhaps, a class is a combination of capabilities, themes, and common personality traits to form an archetype.

They are not.

Classes are a combination of capabilities and themes. Personality traits are absent from the "class" equation.

There is a reason why 5e places the personality traits suggestions with the Backgrounds.

Psyren

2023-10-26, 11:03 PM

We were treated to the "but what does it really mean?" game earlier so I suspect a repeat performance with "pact" lol.

Again, I'm literally quoting the book. You know, the Player's Handbook? The one with the Warlock entry in it? :smalltongue:

They are not.

Classes are a combination of capabilities and themes. Personality traits are absent from the "class" equation.

There is a reason why 5e places the personality traits suggestions with the Backgrounds.

Right again.

Schwann145

2023-10-26, 11:11 PM

They are not.

Classes are a combination of capabilities and themes. Personality traits are absent from the "class" equation.

There is a reason why 5e places the personality traits suggestions with the Backgrounds.

This is true.
However, themes can clash with one another. It is examples of this that OP is looking for. Ignoring that to exclaim that a clash isn't guaranteed or necessary is entirely outside of the topic.
OP doesn't own the thread, but this branch of dialogue is off-topic all the same.

You're "hard disagreeing" with the PHB? I used quotation marks for a reason there :smallconfused:

It would seem I am. :smalltongue:

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-26, 11:25 PM

It would seem I am. :smalltongue:
If we make a comparison assuming the warlock meant to enter a pact, the "accidental warlock" is referenced as a rebuttal. If we make a comparison with the accidental warlock, the "faustian bargain" is referenced as a rebuttal.

To quote the Operative: That is a trap. I offer money, you'll play the man of honor and take umbrage; I ask you to do what is right and you'll play the brigand. I have no stomach for games.

The whole point of this exchange is that some people need to say "nuh-uh".

How about Long Death Monk, and halfling Life Cleric?

That way you have Long Death vs Short Life.

Okay... I'll see myself out :smallsigh::smallamused:

Psyren

2023-10-26, 11:36 PM

The whole point of this exchange is that some people need to say "nuh-uh".

The "yeah-huh" isn't exactly compulsory either.

It would seem I am. :smalltongue:

I was going to say that's like disagreeing water is wet, but then I remembered a huge reddit/tiktok debate on that very topic so... okay then! :smallbiggrin:

The PHB makes clear that a Pact does not have to be a fornal agreement or an agreement at all.

It is directly stated that some Patrons are unaware that a Warlock is leeching of their power, for example.

This is why borders like setting and culture are so useful for this topic. You could mandate for instance that every Warlock in say, Ravenloft requires a conscious, bidirectional pact - just like Forgotten Realms requires every cleric to have one explicit patron rather than a philosophy or pantheon. But trying to extrapolate such rules to the entirety of the D&D multiverse is how we end up with provisos, caveats, counterarguments and disagreements out to the horizon.

Witty Username

2023-10-27, 12:11 AM

Classes are a combination of capabilities and themes. Personality traits are absent from the "class" equation.

" a warlock's thirst for knowledge and power can't be slated with mere study and research"

"When it comes to combat, rogue's prioritize cunning over brute strength"

"This fierce independence makes rangers well suited to adventuring"

"A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness"

"Monks care little for material wealth"

"Druids revere nature above all"

Reference to clerics - "The Gods don't grant this power to anyone who seeks it, but only those who have chosen to fullfill a higher calling"

"Only rarely do bards settle in one place for long, and their natural desire to travel - to find new tales to tell..." (bards apparently like run on sentences)

"Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged by walls and crowds"

"The lure of knowledge and power calls even the most unadventurous wizard"

Hm, we must have different PHBs.

--
Dr. Samurai you have been a joy this thread with your quips. Needs to be said.

Arkhios

2023-10-27, 12:58 AM

" a warlock's thirst for knowledge and power can't be slated with mere study and research"

"When it comes to combat, rogue's prioritize cunning over brute strength"

"This fierce independence makes rangers well suited to adventuring"

"A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness"

"Monks care little for material wealth"

"Druids revere nature above all"

Reference to clerics - "The Gods don't grant this power to anyone who seeks it, but only those who have chosen to fullfill a higher calling"

"Only rarely do bards settle in one place for long, and their natural desire to travel - to find new tales to tell..." (bards apparently like run on sentences)

"Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged by walls and crowds"

"The lure of knowledge and power calls even the most unadventurous wizard"

Hm, we must have different PHBs.

Those are not personality traits. They are habits.

Dr. Samurai you have been a joy this thread with your quips. Needs to be said.

A quip a day keeps the doctor away, that's what I always say. (trust me! :smalltongue:)

That is to say, I agree! :)

Witty Username

2023-10-27, 02:11 AM

I really can't follow your logic. How does having one single ability in common (fireball), or even a handful of common abilities, mean the two subclasses are identical?

It means they can perform the same function when applied to a character mechanicaly. This is only an issue if classes having traits outside of abilities is rejected, as themes and common traits provide different ways for characters to feel distinct.
It also is a demonstration that while characters have trends with features, it is not scripted. But we can still describe them as having a common mold, and have commentary on that.
If common traits can be rejected, than mechanics and themes can be rejected as well.

Then again, I do recognize I tend to see these things as connected. Theme, personality, temperament, tactics and powers bleed into eachother.
Rogue had to pick up backstabing for a reason, the simplest answer is because they wanted to. Which then lens itself to cunning, violent, possibly skittish around direct confrontation etc.

And if one leens to heavily on, didn't have a choice in the matter, then you naturally hit the, if they did what would they choose. And multiclassing and such happens when the game inevitabily gets them a more controlled position.

Amnestic

2023-10-27, 05:00 AM

They are not.

Classes are a combination of capabilities and themes. Personality traits are absent from the "class" equation.

That doesn't seem true at all? From the first page of the first class in the PHB:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/694162563092578364/1167400070627463239/image.png

"I am uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds" is exactly the sort of personality trait you'd expect to see listed in the Backgrounds section, but it's right there, in the class description. In fact it is pretty close to the Suggested Characteristics of an Outlander background.

"Often considered rude and uncouth among civilized folk, outlanders have little respect for the niceties of life in the cities", and their personality trait "I feel far more comfortable around animals than people."

The next page ("Barbarians charge headlong into danger so their people don't have to. Their courage in the face of danger makes Barbarians perfectly suited for adventuring".) likewise looks pretty clearly like a personality trait. In fact, it is. "I can stare down a hell hound without flinching" is one of the suggested personality traits for a soldier.

It certainly seems that the class description includes personality traits, and they are not absent as you claim.

Muad'dib

2023-10-27, 07:07 AM

Gonna hard disagree here. You can "sign without reading," as it were, but you still have to willfully sign. You can't accidentally-a-pact. It's officially a formal agreement between two (or more) parties; that's why it's called a pact.
Willfully does not mean not coerced. The warlock may have willingly signed the pact because they saw no other option to save themselves or a loved one. They may have signed while being lied to about the ramifications. These are options that inform the character's personality and make them more interesting and, more importantly, make them different than other warlocks.

Muad'dib

2023-10-27, 07:15 AM

Clearly not.

Once again, you are simply choosing to ignore tropes and stereotypes.

There is no one trope that describes a class. There are many. The cleric can be the willing devotee, the god's chosen, the reluctant pacifist, the saint, the pessimistic follower, etc. The fact that all of these and more can be tropes found within the broad category of cleric and similarly with all other classes is why this is such a contentious topic in the first place. It's silly to treat all "class" or all "subclass" as the same when there's so much variation even within one category.

Muad'dib

2023-10-27, 07:21 AM

That doesn't seem true at all? From the first page of the first class in the PHB:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/694162563092578364/1167400070627463239/image.png

"I am uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds" is exactly the sort of personality trait you'd expect to see listed in the Backgrounds section, but it's right there, in the class description. In fact it is pretty close to the Suggested Characteristics of an Outlander background.

"Often considered rude and uncouth among civilized folk, outlanders have little respect for the niceties of life in the cities", and their personality trait "I feel far more comfortable around animals than people."

The next page ("Barbarians charge headlong into danger so their people don't have to. Their courage in the face of danger makes Barbarians perfectly suited for adventuring".) likewise looks pretty clearly like a personality trait. In fact, it is. "I can stare down a hell hound without flinching" is one of the suggested personality traits for a soldier.

It certainly seems that the class description includes personality traits, and they are not absent as you claim.

I've played a barbarian reluctant to go into the fray. And likewise, all these traits are suggested, not required. A barbarian doesn't have to be any of these to be a barbarian.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-27, 07:35 AM

Dr. Samurai you have been a joy this thread with your quips. Needs to be said.

A quip a day keeps the doctor away, that's what I always say. (trust me! :smalltongue:)

That is to say, I agree! :)
Ay, many thanks! This thread should be a fun exercise I think :smallbiggrin:

That doesn't seem true at all? From the first page of the first class in the PHB:
Not to put too fine a point on it but... everything they are saying is wrong lol.

There is no one trope that describes a class. There are many. The cleric can be the willing devotee, the god's chosen, the reluctant pacifist, the saint, the pessimistic follower, etc. The fact that all of these and more can be tropes found within the broad category of cleric and similarly with all other classes is why this is such a contentious topic in the first place. It's silly to treat all "class" or all "subclass" as the same when there's so much variation even within one category.
There is NO POINT that you and others can make that will demonstrate a futility in answering the OP's questions as intended, because all the points you've all made are a house of cards.

You are not educating anyone; we understand that barbarians could be cowards, or like cramped places, or shy away from monsters. We know that players can play all types of different characters, regardless of the class, and regardless of any pre-existing tropes.

We all know that, and can still set that aside to answer the OP's question. I literally said as much in my first post. Someone else said something along the lines of "I don't think this makes sense but it's more fun to go with it".

We know. We get it.

Amnestic

2023-10-27, 07:58 AM

I've played a barbarian reluctant to go into the fray. And likewise, all these traits are suggested, not required. A barbarian doesn't have to be any of these to be a barbarian.

That's not a rebuttal to the point though, respectfully.

Unoriginal said "personality traits are absent from the class equation" which is why "personality traits are in the background section of the PHB".

Yet the very first page of the very first class clearly lists personality traits, and I'm sure the other classes have similar things too. Suggestions for personality as part of the archetype (just as much as the Background personality traits are suggestions - you don't need to pick one of the 1d6 options on there), rather than binding restrictions, yes, but they're still there.

And I think it should not go unsaid that such suggestions are crucial for the vast majority of players. While I'm as much a fan of anyone as playing subversive or against grain characters, archetypes (courageous barbarian who loves fighting, knight in shining armour paladin, etc.) are both cultural and player touchstones for so many people and the characters they make. Ignoring how people play the game in favour of technical exceptions seems to me like missing the forest for the trees.

SpikeFightwicky

2023-10-27, 08:31 AM

I may or may not weigh in on my takes, but I feel it needs to be mentioned that right on page 1 of this thread, we have:

Yeah it was a silly/dumb practice even back in 3.5, and it's especially silly now in 5e where classes have a wide variety of permutations and PCs can come from a wide variety of backgrounds and cultures.

This type of comment doesn't encourage discourage discussion. It's basically saying "the OP's question is silly/dumb". It's very dismissive and is a great way to make the OP regret starting a thread, while also providing very little to the discussion. That point could have very easily been made without debasing the original question.

Many of the answers seem to be given with the assumption that the OP meant that there should be zero leeway. Myself, I didn't assume the OP meant "all classes must always abide by these views". Maybe I'm wrong or missed someone's reply? I couldn't see any reply asking for clarification on the original premise. The closest thing was something like "that's another hole in the OP's post".

Witty Username

2023-10-27, 08:39 AM

To untangle my thoughts from the argument, because we have found a few.

Rogues tend to see barbarians as a mixed bag, on the one hand the unbridled fury of the barbarian can quickly turn a controlled situation into chaos, but on the other hand that chaos is useful for exposing enemies to the rogue's deadly skillset.

On the surface clerics and warlocks have similar relationships to gods and patrons, and some do. But many clerics note the conflicts that are all too common between warlocks and their patrons. This can lead to guarded opinions of the warlock, seeing them as deceitful or weak of spirit. Warlocks however, can note the strict tenants of the gods, seeing clerics as diluted or gods being little better than the worst of patrons. Past posturing, are two roles with similar advantages and flaws, and can lead to a mutual feeling of sympathy for the other's situation.

And a bonus one, a druid, monk, ranger and barbarian is probably the best team for a full crowd of introverts. As independence and disconnection from people is kinda a theme of all of them.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-27, 08:42 AM

For clerics and warlocks, I'd say it's less about they both have patrons, and more about the clerics are servants of their gods and do their will, whereas the warlock enters into an arrangement or agreement with the patrons.

For one, it's a calling or devotion, for the other, it's a deal. A cleric might be offended at the thought of approaching their deity or pantheon in such a cavalier manner as to say "Let's make a deal".

@SpiteFightwicky: I agree with your take. Shameful to see a response like that in a discussion forum.

Psyren

2023-10-27, 09:12 AM

I may or may not weigh in on my takes, but I feel it needs to be mentioned that right on page 1 of this thread, we have:

This type of comment doesn't encourage discourage discussion. It's basically saying "the OP's question is silly/dumb". It's very dismissive and is a great way to make the OP regret starting a thread, while also providing very little to the discussion. That point could have very easily been made without debasing the original question.

I wasn't debasing the question or the OP :smallconfused: I was criticizing a legacy WotC practice of padding their books with overly restrictive fluff as chaff, because I genuinely believe sweeping statements like "Druids don't get along with Artificers" and "Barbarians hate Wizards!" to be harmful to the game.

It's exactly that sort of pablum that has contributed to the persistent belief to this very day/edition that, say, artificers have to be technologists/roboticists, and therefore don't belong in the majority of D&D's pseudo-medieval settings when they absolutely do.

Many of the answers seem to be given with the assumption that the OP meant that there should be zero leeway. Myself, I didn't assume the OP meant "all classes must always abide by these views". Maybe I'm wrong or missed someone's reply? I couldn't see any reply asking for clarification on the original premise. The closest thing was something like "that's another hole in the OP's post".

Speaking for myself, I've suggested ways the OP could clarify their premise or focus the discussion throughout the thread. Examples:

I think a valid discussion to have here, and what I would think we need to align around to even begin to address the OP's premise, would be the question of what class even means in 5e. How much of a class is an in-universe profession vs a metagame construct? It's a tension that has existed long before this edition (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html), but 5e makes it even more prominent. For example, how would you represent a Witch in 5e? Maybe it's some flavor of Wizard, like Tasha. Maybe it's a Warlock (say, Fathomless, like Callisto.) Maybe it's a Land Druid, like Madam Mim. Maybe it's a Glamor Bard that lures children to a candy cottage.

What the OP could try to do is to narrow it down to a specific setting or culture, but even that would likely be inadequate because classes in 5e are more game constructs than in-universe professions. An "assassin" for example could be the literal rogue subclass with that name, or it could be a Shadow Monk, or it could be a Swords or Whispers Bard, or it could be a Hunter or Gloomstalker Ranger... and that's just the straight-classed stuff.

Which ones do you think have specific lore and which ones not? That's exactly the kind of thing I'd have fun discussing.

Obviously they're not forced to take any of my suggestions, but that's not the same as saying none were offered.

It means they can perform the same function when applied to a character mechanicaly. This is only an issue if classes having traits outside of abilities is rejected, as themes and common traits provide different ways for characters to feel distinct.
It also is a demonstration that while characters have trends with features, it is not scripted. But we can still describe them as having a common mold, and have commentary on that.
If common traits can be rejected, than mechanics and themes can be rejected as well.

Then again, I do recognize I tend to see these things as connected. Theme, personality, temperament, tactics and powers bleed into eachother.
Rogue had to pick up backstabing for a reason, the simplest answer is because they wanted to. Which then lens itself to cunning, violent, possibly skittish around direct confrontation etc.

And if one leens to heavily on, didn't have a choice in the matter, then you naturally hit the, if they did what would they choose. And multiclassing and such happens when the game inevitabily gets them a more controlled position.

The problem is that I think you're being too rigid when it comes to these "common traits." Let's use your rogue example; you're interpreting sneak attack as just a "backstab" (which hasn't been the case since 1E) and therefore that rogues are "skittish around direct confrontation." Whereas in 5e, Rogues not only benefit from being right on the frontline (because then they get 2-3 chances of sneak attack per round due to their melee allies) they can even just get sneak attack entirely solo now thanks to Steady Aim. And we even have tanky rogues now that want to be targeted directly, like Swashbuckler, or Arcane Trickster with Mirror Image+Shield, and I'm not even bothering with feats or multiclassing.

There is no one trope that describes a class. There are many. The cleric can be the willing devotee, the god's chosen, the reluctant pacifist, the saint, the pessimistic follower, etc. The fact that all of these and more can be tropes found within the broad category of cleric and similarly with all other classes is why this is such a contentious topic in the first place. It's silly to treat all "class" or all "subclass" as the same when there's so much variation even within one category.

Exactly this.

Those are not personality traits. They are habits.

And even these are not universal or inviolate.

OldTrees1

2023-10-27, 10:30 AM

Many of the answers seem to be given with the assumption that the OP meant that there should be zero leeway. Myself, I didn't assume the OP meant "all classes must always abide by these views". Maybe I'm wrong or missed someone's reply? I couldn't see any reply asking for clarification on the original premise. The closest thing was something like "that's another hole in the OP's post".

Agreed. The Opening Poster specifically referenced sections of the 3.5E PHB to convey what they were asking about. I provided those paragraphs for reference. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25895586&postcount=60)

None of those references have zero leeway. For example instead of "Barbarians would not get along with Sorcerers" it gave a generalization of.

Barbarians don’t trust that which they don’t understand, and that includes wizardry, which they call “book magic.” They find sorcerers more understandable than wizards, but maybe that’s just because sorcerers tend to be more charismatic.
The context of these paragraphs is everyone knows they are generalizations (not "zero-leeway"), and even as generalizations they are nuanced rather than being "zero leeway". This example talks about generally Barbarians don't trust what they don't understand and that includes wizardry, and sorcery to a lesser extent. This implies they can get along with Wizards/Sorcerers but generally struggle with distrust of the wizardry/sorcery. The larger context implies that this is merely a generalized example and thus it is not restrictive fluff (overly or otherwise).

However too many skipped over the context and thus we are seeing constructive posts that assume it is asking for non restrictive binaries, destructive posts trying to spam the thread rather than answer the request (although the same posters have given constructive posts when pressed), and REDACTED posts that I am ignoring.

Unfortunately the Opening Poster was requesting constructive posts that assume it is asking for non restrictive nuanced relations. However at least the constructive posts are constructive.

Xihirli

2023-10-27, 12:18 PM

I’m a big fan of the (first four books of the) Knight and Rogue series where the core dynamic basically is your raised-on-the-mean-streets-and-doesn’t-trust-anyone Rogue getting along with the Knight-Errant-in-search-of-adventure-and-good-deeds.
They first meet when the Rogue is destined for the lash and the Knight pays his fine and essentially becomes his probation officer. The relationship between the two characters is the huge selling point of the book and it’s my ideal, I suppose, of a Paladin and Rogue’s relationship.
The rogue at first distrusts the knight, thinking no one could genuinely be this naive. The knight at first sees the rogue as someone who needs saving from himself. But they both learn a lot from each other and become more complete people in a foil-type way.

AHF

2023-10-27, 12:27 PM

Im wondering what classes or subclasses would get along or not in your opinion. For example 3.5 player handbook each class has a paragraph or more under "other classes" about how said class gets along with others(like a druid would most likely get along with a ranger)that's what I'm wondering

Apparently this will come across as destructive heresy but my first reaction was that people get along or not rather than classes or subclasses. Along the line of imagining how clerics worshipping the same god in the same physical church with the same subclass might get along perfectly with common goals or conflict with each other even violently due to any variety of reasons like conflicting interpretations of church scripture or dogma, conflicting ambitions for power within the church heirarchy, judgments on the character of one another, etc.

I think it is a fairly unusual position where there would be a built in harmony or conflict between characters of different classes or subclasses apart from their personalities and positions. That said, here are a few things that I think would lead to natural conflicts:

* followers of gods, leaders, patrons, etc. that are openly antagonistic to one another where those relationships are driven by class or subclass within the game world (example: all clerics of Shar are a particular subclass and are ordered to wipe out all clerics of Selune who are all a different subclass in this setting or a setting where you become a Watcher Paladin only by joining a particular group and that group seeks to exterminate all Fiend patron warlocks in that setting or a setting where all the wizard schools / institutions are pledged to eliminate sorcery as a threat to the realm in that setting and the mere cooperation with a sorcerer puts the wizard in harmÂ’s way);

* subclasses that the DM interprets to have hard conflicts in how things are done (like a Vengeance Paladin must kill the opponent without hesitation or become an oath breaker while the Redemption Paladin must try to redeem the opponent before killing or become an oath breaker in this setting);

Etc.

But I will say that I see most of the issues that would drive a wedge between people as being fundamentally disconnected from class or dependent on the DM being highly restrictive in how the PC is allowed to role play. Similarly you could look at classes that suggest common goals as a basis for why they might get along due to class but I feel like that falls apart at a momentÂ’s examination when compared against the real world where players on the same sports team or employees of the same company or members of the same church routinely do not like everyone in that same class of people for a host of reasons (jealousy, insecurity, conflicting ideals or methods, one person just being a jerk, etc.)

I think it would be far more interesting to move away from high level discussions of why someoneÂ’s class might drive their ability to get along with someone else and more interesting to focus on a particular situation given the multitude of factors outside of class that can impact how well two people get along.

OldTrees1

2023-10-27, 01:16 PM

I think it would be far more interesting to move away from high level discussions of why someoneÂ’s class might drive their ability to get along with someone else and more interesting to focus on a particular situation given the multitude of factors outside of class that can impact how well two people get along.

It might be wise to create a new thread for that topic. Start the conversation off with a clearer opening post and hope for a better conversational tone to emerge.

However since I am replying, I should also contribute to the discussion you are requesting. (Just like you did answer the OP's question by talking about Clerics and Paladins). I will admit I took a shortcut and boiled down some of the 3.5 PHB excerpts (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25895586&postcount=60) I had typed up as context. Those excerpts were talking about the intersection between these more abstract factors and the classes. So these more abstract factors are probably a good fit for your discussion. As we all know, these are still generalizations and individuals will be exceptions to these factors, but that hardly matters if the discussion is asking about the generalizations.

People might feel more comfortable around those with similar interests and backgrounds. The similarities an create a comforting familiarity. It can also cause them to be more critical because the higher standard you hold for yourself can sometimes accidentally be applied to those that feel familiar. Of course vice versa people might feel less comfortable around those that they have less in common with.
People might admire the talents of others, especially those that seem the furthest out of their own reach. Especially true when cooperation is involved. However the further away a talent is, the less understood it is. They are likely to under and over estimate its merits and challenges. This admiration can be easily turned into dismissal if they start to underestimate the effort or skill.
People are more distrusting of what they know they don't understand. It is easy to imagine danger in the unknown.
People with a little skill in an area might find themselves wanting to learn from or assist those with a greater skill in that area.
People that are comfortable readily supporting others may end up being relied on. They can find themselves as a social glue that the others appreciate but this demonstrated capacity to support others can result in them not having the support they need themselves as others take their resilient health for granted.
People with stronger thoughts about philosophy are more inclined to disagreement than those that have fuzzy opinions about philosophy. While they usual are more proficient talking about the subject, this usually makes the easier disagreements harder despite enabling solving the harder disagreements.
People that differ in concrete thinking vs abstract thinking might have trouble communicating. The abstract concepts are "real" to some but to others they are distraction from the "real" world.
People can appreciate others with diverse skills and can regret their own skills not being as widely shared. It is the consequence of changing circumstances rewarding different skills.
People with similar skills can enter an uncanny valley where those small differences in methodology suddenly matter more than the bulk of the commonality.

Psyren

2023-10-27, 02:23 PM

The larger context implies that this is merely a generalized example and thus it is not restrictive fluff (overly or otherwise).

I am of the belief that generalities and stereotypes, especially ones that indicate or even dictate character behavior and reinforce unquestioned tradition, can be harmful. I am therefore pleased that the kind of sweeping statements about class relations (especially negative ones) that the OP referenced from 3.5 were not brought over to 5e. They may not be physical restrictions, no - but I don't see them adding more good to the game than bad either (see my Artificer example above.)

I think it is a fairly unusual position where there would be a built in harmony or conflict between characters of different classes or subclasses apart from their personalities and positions.

I think it could be quite common, and even beneficial... in a specific setting. For example in Athas/Dark Sun, Druids strongly dislike arcanists of all stripes, because arcane magic there is actively deleterious to the natural world; even the so-called "preservers" who are careful about their magic use are merely 'carbon-neutral' rather than improving the world in many cases. not least because a lot of them need to hide their magic use anyway (from both angry mobs who can't tell the difference, and defilers trying to eliminate possible challenges to their entrenched power) so their ability to use their abilities for good is limited.

But again, that example works because it's a consciously-designed element of that setting's culture, rather than a blanket attribute of the multiverse devoid of such context.

I’m a big fan of the (first four books of the) Knight and Rogue series where the core dynamic basically is your raised-on-the-mean-streets-and-doesn’t-trust-anyone Rogue getting along with the Knight-Errant-in-search-of-adventure-and-good-deeds.
They first meet when the Rogue is destined for the lash and the Knight pays his fine and essentially becomes his probation officer. The relationship between the two characters is the huge selling point of the book and it’s my ideal, I suppose, of a Paladin and Rogue’s relationship.
The rogue at first distrusts the knight, thinking no one could genuinely be this naive. The knight at first sees the rogue as someone who needs saving from himself. But they both learn a lot from each other and become more complete people in a foil-type way.

Naive rogues and street-smart paladins are just as possible as the reverse, though. Backgrounds are especially useful here.

Witty Username

2023-10-27, 02:47 PM

The problem is that I think you're being too rigid when it comes to these "common traits." Let's use your rogue example; you're interpreting sneak attack as just a "backstab" (which hasn't been the case since 1E) and therefore that rogues are "skittish around direct confrontation." Whereas in 5e, Rogues not only benefit from being right on the frontline (because then they get 2-3 chances of sneak attack per round due to their melee allies) they can even just get sneak attack entirely solo now thanks to Steady Aim. And we even have tanky rogues now that want to be targeted directly, like Swashbuckler, or Arcane Trickster with Mirror Image+Shield, and I'm not even bothering with feats or multiclassing.

My issue with this kind of thinking, is the implied statement that classes are not intended to inform play, or provide distinction between eachother.
Like say comparing EK fighter to an AT rogue,
We can say they are almost the same from a gameplay standpoint.

If this is a good thing and we shouldn't be able to make general statements about classes. Why should there be any differences at all?

Unoriginal

2023-10-27, 03:01 PM

My issue with this kind of thinking, is the implied statement that classes are not intended to inform play, or provide distinction between eachother.

There is no such implied statement.

The part of Psyren's post you quoted directly describes how the Rogue class informs play.

A Rogue and a Fighter are pretty distinct in term of play. An Arcane Trickster Rogue and an Eldritch Knight Fighter are even more distinct.

But two characters who are distinct in term of play can be near identical in term of personality, and two mechanically identical characters can be as night and day in term of mindsets, ideals and preferences for adventuring companions.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-27, 03:06 PM

My issue with this kind of thinking, is the implied statement that classes are not intended to inform play, or provide distinction between eachother.
Like say comparing EK fighter to an AT rogue,
We can say they are almost the same from a gameplay standpoint.

If this is a good thing and we shouldn't be able to make general statements about classes. Why should there be any differences at all?
The issue is this:

We are taking class blurbs, feature names, and tropes, and using these to assist the OP.

Others are saying none of it means anything, and you can describe it any which way, so this is all futile and pointless.

Case in point... "SNEAK" Attack cannot imply someone being sneaky with their method of fighting because... maybe they aren't. The words don't mean anything. It's just a name for a feature, ignore it. Nevermind that this particular warrior is most effective when they're double teaming someone, or attacking from hiding, or have some other form of advantage over their foe.

We are wrong for entertaining this idea because... not all rogues have to be played this way.

Most irritating about this conversation is that the other side hasn't even bothered to prove the claim that "If a rogue can be played a multitude of ways, it is wrong to engage in conversation that assumes one type of play". But here we are... three steps ahead of ourselves acting like we're all on equal footing lol.

Mastikator

2023-10-27, 03:08 PM

Naive rogues and street-smart paladins are just as possible as the reverse, though. Backgrounds are especially useful here.
Eh I'd argue they're less possible, paladins are MAD and rogues have expertise+rogue's cant. A street smart paladin has to give something important up, a rogue gets street smart for free.

I'm not saying you can't, but I am saying that if you do you're playing badwrongfun

Psyren

2023-10-27, 03:26 PM

My issue with this kind of thinking, is the implied statement that classes are not intended to inform play, or provide distinction between each other.

I'm neither stating nor implying any such thing; classes are clearly distinct from one another even without the 3.5 blurbs.

Case in point... "SNEAK" Attack cannot imply someone being sneaky with their method of fighting because... maybe they aren't. The words don't mean anything. It's just a name for a feature, ignore it.

...It IS just a name for a feature though! You don't have to be "sneaky" to sneak attack at all, all you need is advantage or an adjacent ally. You could be yelling at the top of your lungs and banging a pair of cymbals together with your knees at the center of a brightly lit room and still use the feature, as long as you have advantage or an adjacent ally.

A more accurate name for it would probably be something like "Opportune Attack" because what you're actually doing is capitalizing on an opportunity of some kind (represented by the advantage or the ally) - but the reasons they didn't go for that are pretty obvious.

Unoriginal

2023-10-27, 05:02 PM

Eh I'd argue they're less possible, paladins are MAD and rogues have expertise+rogue's cant. A street smart paladin has to give something important up, a rogue gets street smart for free.

I'm not saying you can't, but I am saying that if you do you're playing badwrongfun

A Paladin can have the Criminal background, which makes them more in tune with the street than the Rogue who has the Archaeologist background.

AHF

2023-10-27, 05:43 PM

I'm neither stating nor implying any such thing; classes are clearly distinct from one another even without the 3.5 blurbs.

...It IS just a name for a feature though! You don't have to be "sneaky" to sneak attack at all, all you need is advantage or an adjacent ally. You could be yelling at the top of your lungs and banging a pair of cymbals together with your knees at the center of a brightly lit room and still use the feature, as long as you have advantage or an adjacent ally.

A more accurate name for it would probably be something like "Opportune Attack" because what you're actually doing is capitalizing on an opportunity of some kind (represented by the advantage or the ally) - but the reasons they didn't go for that are pretty obvious.

This is a good example. I DMÂ’d a character whose concept was that he was a pirate swashbuckler with anger issues. He did just what you are describing - raged and attacked with sneak attack with zero interest in or effort at being stealthy.

This is why the conversation is best started from a place of more specificity. Here are a handful of very different rogue centric people who will have different interests and points of conflict in the world and all use sneak attack:

* a gunslinger who rejects the gods and corrupt priests who support them, seeks to impose his own order in a corrupt land, and fires shots with his hand crossbow with such deadly precision that they inflict sneak attack damage - sometimes from cover and sometimes just taking steady aim at the target;

* a rich noble fencer who supports the aristocracy and believes himself to be superior to the less fortunate and seeks to crush the rebellious poor who dances around opponents in combat attacking with startling speed and uses dash/swsh to disengage and avoid reprisals from melee opponents;

* a halfling orphan with a heart of gold who grew up on the streets and looks out for the burly drunk who saves her once from being assaulted by a group of guild thieves and now they pull jobs to keep themselves fed and to stay one step ahead of the authorities and the guild; she hides behind her mate to get advantage in combat;

* a studious bookworm who has worked as a security staff member in a magic academy and picked up some skills for investigating and interrogating threats as well as some magic of his own; he protects the students and the school he has sworn on his life to serve with a blend of magic and his twinned scimitars;

* a holy woman who believes in the maker and knows that even someone as unworthy as herself can serve the divine as a spy and agent of the church to tear down the enemies of the church and to promote the message and will of the maker - she seeks to get the drop on her targets by adopting the appearance of a servant, a beggar, a noble or even a mistress and then strikes fast and hard with her sneak attack;

* the youngest member of the thieves guild, this Dragonborn has a chip on his shoulder, a nose for treasure, and the aspiration to one day run the entire guild himself; in the meantime he aims to steal everything not nailed to the ground and to avoid combat wherever possible but when he must he will either strike from the shadows from afar or attempt to bash his opponents prone with his shield and then sneak attack to deliver the fatal blow.

Etc.

All of these people could have completely different reactions to the same person. They could all have different tactics, different goals, support of oppose different factions, etc.

It is fine to come up with hypotheticals but there is no bog standard trope that defines rogue. Is it Han Solo? Is it Tasslehoff?

Look at the rogues in the Dragon Age series and think how much you know about how they will get along with anyone in particular simply by virtue of their class with radical differences between Varic, Sera, Leliana, Isabell, etc.

It is perfectly fine to want to play to a specific archetype or trope, etc. Nobody is stopping anyone from being the rage monster Barbarian or seducing Bard but there are a million ways to play and whether you would be aligned any faction has little to do with your class in most cases. So things like whether you have common interests with someone or if you are an abstract or linear thinker or if you are selfless or self centered or if you are a believer or a skeptic, etc. is simply not driven by your class unless you choose to lean into some specific interpretation of that class or your DM has some very specific (and not generally applicable) world ala the Dark Sun reference above. So starting from an understanding of what the world is about and this character’s background, interests and values will get you a lot farther (or doing that in reverse starting from a state that you want a character who is aligned with certain factions or interests and then figuring out interesting ways that can happen).

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-27, 06:55 PM

This is why the conversation is best started from a place of more specificity.
The OP was specific though.

The PHB does stereotype the rogue in certain ways, lurking the shadows to ambush people, using cunning over brute strength, being criminals, etc. That is specificity. You guys don't appear to like when specificity is pulled out of the aether to provide the OP with examples, but here you are asking for specificity.

The PHB mentions that some rogues are lawful and are locksmiths. If that's the trope you'd like to go with, provide that as an example.

But I find it absolutely bizarre that others are insisting on having a different conversation that they would find more interesting, or insisting that the specific examples being given are too specific, and then turning around and asking for specificity. I feel like people are simply forcing us to have a different conversation that they would prefer to engage in.

Witty Username

2023-10-27, 10:05 PM

I'm neither stating nor implying any such thing; classes are clearly distinct from one another even without the 3.5 blurbs.

Generally,
but many classes overlap and lose significant distinction.
An Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster can be build in very similar ways, and often care about similar things. A fighter will generaly prefer advantange and avoid disadvantage much like a rogue will, for example.

And as you say swashbuckler has potential for a play pattern much closer to a fighter, able to ignore the traditional sneak attack.

We can't make sweeping statements like this without being more specific to the character, can we not?
--
This may be some influence from previous editions, not so much a particular edition but being familiar with several.
Mechanics being sacrosanct feels odd to me, defining rogue by sneak attack feels odd, as has been brought up its very different than the backstab of old, or even 3.5s sneak attack. Heck, in 3.5 and Ad&d, not all rogues (thieves in oldspeak) got those features.

5e is less explicit than that, but subclasses, alternative features, and guidance for making new subclasses in the DMG.

Now, this isn't an issue for me, mechanics are only a part of a classes appeal, and a pretty small part. What matters more is what the mechanics convey.
Ignoring the themes and trends of a class has its place, (I feel like any of us that use hexblade without particular interests in the Raven queen can relate), but Ignoring them and pointing to mechanics as definitional feels disingenuous.
--
Hm,
Arcane Trickster: " We need a plan of attack."
Eldritch Knight: " I have a plan, Attack."

We can at least agree that a rogue wants a plan to how to get sneak attack before comiting to a course of action, and a fighter will be more inclined to move without such considerations. Can't we.

Even if plan is, "group up, and hit it till it dies"

NontheistCleric

2023-10-27, 10:16 PM

If the fighter doesn’t have a plan for a fight, I’d say something went wrong. Part of being a capable combatant is knowing how to use your strengths, and yes, sometimes things are as simple as running up and swinging at the enemy, but I wouldn’t automatically assume rogues fight more tactically than fighters.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-27, 10:19 PM

Mechanics being sacrosanct feels odd to me, defining rogue by sneak attack feels odd, as has been brought up its very different than the backstab of old, or even 3.5s sneak attack. Heck, in 3.5 and Ad&d, not all rogues (thieves in oldspeak) got those features.
I think multiple things are true:

1. Players can choose to describe their PCs in whatever way they want, despite the suggested fluff/information in the PHB and other books.
2. Players can refluff features however they want.
3. There seems to be some intent behind the theme of the classes. Rogues do not get "brawler damage" or "skilled master damage". They get Sneak Attack. That implies something, just as much as Backstab did.
4. There may be a dissonance between what the devs see for the classes, and what players want to do with the classes, and that's fine.
5. For the purposes of this discussion, there is nothing wrong or preventing us from using the descriptions provided to us by the devs and traditional stereotypes and tropes to assume certain types of characters simply by their class.
6. Engaging in the exercise described in point 5 does not preclude other types of characters with different traits of the same classes being possible, it's just assuming certain types for the purposes of discussion.

Psyren

2023-10-27, 10:59 PM

I feel like people are simply forcing us to have a different conversation that they would prefer to engage in.

Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything.

You guys don't appear to like when specificity is pulled out of the aether to provide the OP with examples, but here you are asking for specificity.

Specific examples... like Warlocks stumbling into pacts unaware, or Sneak Attack not needing you to sneak? :smalltongue:

We can at least agree that a rogue wants a plan to how to get sneak attack before comiting to a course of action, and a fighter will be more inclined to move without such considerations. Can't we.

So... you agree they're distinct? :smalltongue:

3. There seems to be some intent behind the theme of the classes. Rogues do not get "brawler damage" or "skilled master damage". They get Sneak Attack. That implies something, just as much as Backstab did.

The range of possibilities it implies is broader than you, and possibly the OP, believe it to be. That's all we're saying.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-27, 11:31 PM

Psyren, you're fighting shadows and ghosts. No one said this is the only way it can be. You and others are simply choosing to interpret the intent of this thread in that way.

I'm currently playing an artificer armorer that is a spelljammer bionoid heavily influenced by Guyver. I'm also playing a Rune Knight that has nothing to do with giants and has his powers come from his god of violence. No one needs to explain to me that fluff is mutable and character concepts can deviate from what's written in the books. It seems more to me that you guys are taking offense that anyone would talk about the various classes within the boundaries of their tropes. Don't worry, no one is coming to your table and telling you how to play your characters. We're just trying to have a conversation.

Schwann145

2023-10-27, 11:52 PM

...It IS just a name for a feature though! You don't have to be "sneaky" to sneak attack at all, all you need is advantage or an adjacent ally. You could be yelling at the top of your lungs and banging a pair of cymbals together with your knees at the center of a brightly lit room and still use the feature, as long as you have advantage or an adjacent ally.

A more accurate name for it would probably be something like "Opportune Attack" because what you're actually doing is capitalizing on an opportunity of some kind (represented by the advantage or the ally) - but the reasons they didn't go for that are pretty obvious.

Pardon me while I pick some nits:
The Rogue doesn't have to be Sneaky, but the attack does. Every attack that lands is an attack that successfully took advantage of an opportunity, so Sneak Attack has to go above and beyond simply that. It cannot be done with heavy/bulky and obvious weapons. It requires some sort of advantageous setup beyond simply finding an opening during combat. You have to sneak past your opponent's typical defenses (with whatever is granting you advantage) or you have to sneak past your opponent's attention with the distraction provided by an adjacent ally.
It's mechanically relevant, and certainly not "just" a name for a feature. The flavor is baked right in, and while you're free to adjust that flavor to suit the table, you're generally not free to adjust the ability entirely to avoid it's requirements (DM homebrew excepting).

Psyren

2023-10-28, 01:24 AM

Psyren, you're fighting shadows and ghosts. No one said this is the only way it can be. You and others are simply choosing to interpret the intent of this thread in that way.

If you agree there are alternatives, why is describing those alternatives a problem?

Only one side is trying to silence the other.

It cannot be done with heavy/bulky and obvious weapon

Longbows and Heavy Crossbows are Heavy and bulky (2H).

MonochromeTiger

2023-10-28, 01:50 AM

Pardon me while I pick some nits:
The Rogue doesn't have to be Sneaky, but the attack does. Every attack that lands is an attack that successfully took advantage of an opportunity, so Sneak Attack has to go above and beyond simply that.

Not really. Sneak Attack is weird because when you get down to it it really is just saying "they hit but we wanted Rogue to do more than open doors so we gave them a little extra."

It cannot be done with heavy/bulky and obvious weapons.

As Psyren mentions, Crossbows. Bows for that matter. Shortswords aren't particularly light and subtle either, they're just a step between daggers and longswords so that Rogues aren't stuck with just one standard weapon. And heavy/bulky or obvious shouldn't really matter when what's being done is just hitting an exposed enemy.

The weapon restrictions are one part "this is what the Rogue has access to" and one part "well we need to incentivize these things somehow when they don't do the same damage as something bigger and heavier."

It requires some sort of advantageous setup beyond simply finding an opening during combat. You have to sneak past your opponent's typical defenses (with whatever is granting you advantage) or you have to sneak past your opponent's attention with the distraction provided by an adjacent ally.

Again, not really or everyone would be pulling out Sneak Attack dice when their opponent is completely unaware of them or has a friend is flanking for them. "I'm stuck defending against your friend and you stab me in the side" or "I was looking the other way and you shot me in the back while I did the dishes" doesn't really require some mastery of stealth and cunning that any other Class is incapable of.

It's mechanically relevant, and certainly not "just" a name for a feature. The flavor is baked right in, and while you're free to adjust that flavor to suit the table, you're generally not free to adjust the ability entirely to avoid it's requirements (DM homebrew excepting).

It is just a name for a feature though. There's not actually a good reason why Rogues are just naturally better at stabbing/hitting/shooting someone who is slightly inconvenienced or not expecting it than anyone else. They aren't taking advantage of things others aren't, that's kind of the point of it being called advantage. It's just a case where they needed something unique and instead of finding something really impressive or flavorful they decided "we'll make them do more damage" and put it behind something simple to achieve with a flimsy justification.

You could bring up the Assassin subclass where they try to give it a bit more flavor but that still boils down to "they're good at hitting when they go first" which still isn't exactly unique and special, and "they're really good at killing in one hit" which every Martial class is trying to be. In every case it's the Rogues getting bonus damage not because it's a grand and thematic thing for the Class but because they needed something so "lets just let them do what everyone else can do but a bit better."

The Feature is mechanically relevant because without it Rogue really would just be about throwing as many skills as possible at the game and maybe dodging. The name is just something to call it and an unspoken hope nobody thinks too long about a guy with a knife stabbing someone magically doing more than the guy strong enough to punch down brick walls driving an axe into someone under the exact same conditions.

Witty Username

2023-10-28, 02:02 AM

I think multiple things are true:

1. Players can choose to describe their PCs in whatever way they want, despite the suggested fluff/information in the PHB and other books.
2. Players can refluff features however they want.
3. There seems to be some intent behind the theme of the classes. Rogues do not get "brawler damage" or "skilled master damage". They get Sneak Attack. That implies something, just as much as Backstab did.
4. There may be a dissonance between what the devs see for the classes, and what players want to do with the classes, and that's fine.
5. For the purposes of this discussion, there is nothing wrong or preventing us from using the descriptions provided to us by the devs and traditional stereotypes and tropes to assume certain types of characters simply by their class.
6. Engaging in the exercise described in point 5 does not preclude other types of characters with different traits of the same classes being possible, it's just assuming certain types for the purposes of discussion.

Yeah, pretty much,
The only thing I would add is that modifying class features to better fit a character is as valid as re flavoring themes and fluff information of a class.
--
Anywho,
Rogue as they tend towards scheming, opportunism and underhandedness, could easily come of as lacking grit to other more direct classes.
Fighter is probably the least affected by this as skill is their focus, rather than might, so opportunism is another way of saying, winner, the rogue may get some shade if they skipped arm day as dex builds are want to do though
Barbarian and Ranger probably the most, as they tend towards valuing strength in brute fashion on the barbarian's end and having a lot of self-sufficiency on the ranger's end, given rogues tend to need other people eventually even if they are good at the sneaky sneaky.
All rogue's get thieves tools and the non-criminal examples tend towards the more mundane (lockpicking due to being a locksmith, rather than a home invader). This suggests technical mindedness, which could easily be appealing to Artificers and Wizards, as they value the pursuit of knowledge, which could be generalized to vocations beyond magic. This can also inform how a rogue might react to magic classes.
Clerics, Paladins and Druids could come of as rigid in thinking, as strong convictions and devotions naturally conflict with the adaptability rogues rely on to function,
Meanwhile Sorcerers and Warlocks could come off as dull witted, playing with things the rogue and even they don't necessarily understand
But an Artificer or Wizard, an approach to magic with a clear methodology, could put a rogue's mind at ease, seeing magic as a technical skill the Artificer or Wizard is an Expert in, in a similar way they are an Expert in a different but certain set of skills (lockpicking, acrobatics, murder, whatever's your fancy)
Bards and Rogues are pretty similar in a bunch of ways, skill oriented, interested in what the party is doing as much as themselves, even if magic trends othering, it is presented in a familiar package.

A Trickery Cleric, Whispers Bard, Mastermind Rogue, and an Illusionist wizard, probably get along like a house on fire, as they all get a cunning, planning, adaptability, and support. They may need a designated hitter though, like a gloomstalker ranger, or shadow monk.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-28, 06:22 AM

D&D: Short swords are light weapons.
A forum somewhere: Short swords are not light weapons in D&D.

Words mean nothing folks :).

Witty Username

2023-10-28, 10:34 AM

So... you agree they're distinct? :smalltongue:

Well yes, I agree that classes determine fundamental things about how a character thinks and acts.
A rogue is methodical, sneaky, opportunistic, and encourages teamwork is not a statement that bothers me.

MonochromeTiger

2023-10-28, 02:43 PM

D&D: Short swords are light weapons.
A forum somewhere: Short swords are not light weapons in D&D.

Words mean nothing folks :).

I do love how every time someone says something you find a way to twist it then still feel perfectly fine saying "words mean nothing they aren't taking them seriously."

Nowhere in that did I say that Shortswords aren't labeled light weapons in D&D. My exact words were "Shortswords aren't particularly light and subtle either, they're just a step between daggers and longswords so that Rogues aren't stuck with just one standard weapon." That's not "oh they don't have the right tags" that's "they're shoehorned into having the right tags so Rogues have options in another sign of now nonsensical Sneak Attack actually is and how little it really has to do with sneaking. It's an attempt at giving Rogues weapon variety and options, which ironically the narrow interpretation of "Sneak Attack needs to be sneaky" seems pretty set on undoing if it wants to make sense.

But by all means, continue your brave and heroic crusade against us evil internet people who are just so mean that we refuse to use the words you want us to in the exact ways you want us to.

Psyren

2023-10-28, 03:12 PM

Well yes, I agree that classes determine fundamental things about how a character thinks and acts.

I think the disconnect between us is that "determine" is too definitive for me. If your intent is to highlight what is at most a tendency rather than a determination, then we're aligned, but that's not what I'm reading from statements like this.

Moreover, if it's truly a tendency, then downplaying it (as 5e chose to do relative to 3.5e) was the right call - not dredging up D&D's past.

Schwann145

2023-10-28, 07:01 PM

I do love how every time someone says something you find a way to twist it then still feel perfectly fine saying "words mean nothing they aren't taking them seriously."

Nowhere in that did I say that Shortswords aren't labeled light weapons in D&D. My exact words were "Shortswords aren't particularly light and subtle either, they're just a step between daggers and longswords so that Rogues aren't stuck with just one standard weapon." That's not "oh they don't have the right tags" that's "they're shoehorned into having the right tags so Rogues have options in another sign of now nonsensical Sneak Attack actually is and how little it really has to do with sneaking. It's an attempt at giving Rogues weapon variety and options, which ironically the narrow interpretation of "Sneak Attack needs to be sneaky" seems pretty set on undoing if it wants to make sense.

But by all means, continue your brave and heroic crusade against us evil internet people who are just so mean that we refuse to use the words you want us to in the exact ways you want us to.

To be fair, the entirety of your critique seems to be something along the lines of, "Sneak Attack doesn't make any kind of sense, and the entire ability, and all it's flavor, is simply a ham-fisted attempt by the devs to give Rogues something to do, so it's safe to ignore every bit of flavor text written in the ability."

MonochromeTiger

2023-10-28, 07:26 PM

To be fair, the entirety of your critique seems to be something along the lines of, "Sneak Attack doesn't make any kind of sense, and the entire ability, and all it's flavor, is simply a ham-fisted attempt by the devs to give Rogues something to do, so it's safe to ignore every bit of flavor text written in the ability."

The ability is to give Rogue something more than just being the class with skills. It does that. What it doesn't do is provide any real reason why you're getting anywhere from 1d6-10d6 extra damage for exploiting the same exact opportunities every other Class can also exploit. It's the same issue that makes Fighter so dependent on its subclasses to give it a unique feel that isn't just getting access to more armor and weapons out the gate.

You know to "strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction" and that somehow makes you more capable of doing harm than, again, the guy who can punch down a brick wall swinging an axe or the person who has trained and mastered dozens of different weapons. Why, when given the same circumstances does "exploiting a foe's distraction" give 1d6 more damage to a Rogue when if we're going by the old stereotypes of 3.5 that are being dragged kicking and screaming into 5e the Fighter should be so adept with their weapons they know just the right place to aim their strike for maximum effect or the Barbarian should have the instinctive fury to batter through the foe's lowered defenses?

Because as class features go Sneak Attack isn't informing the personality of the character using it. I could have a Rogue who spends a few rounds making themselves the center of attention then runs in to attack and, just because they have an ally slightly to the left, they'll get their Sneak Attack dice without an ounce of subtlety. No stealth and cunning needed. Like most other Class features the flavor text is at best an optional interpretation and like a few of them it's so loosely tied to what is there mechanically that it's not one that particularly makes sense.

Witty Username

2023-10-29, 03:00 AM

It's an attempt at giving Rogues weapon variety and options, which ironically the narrow interpretation of "Sneak Attack needs to be sneaky" seems pretty set on undoing if it wants to make sense.

The weapon restrictions on sneak are meant to narrow focus though. If sneak attack was meant to mean anything goes, they could have not had the finesse and ranged weapon tags. I actually dislike them significantly as it happens, as they make little practical sense to me. Partially because 3.5 didn't have them, partially because I have an irrational dislike of the rapier, partially because it gives an impression that sneak attack is a trait of the tools rather than a skill with the tools.

Brought you by me just walking up out of a headache, I wish tables at LGSs had sound proof bubbles sometimes.

Dr.Samurai

2023-10-30, 08:26 AM

I do love how every time someone says something you find a way to twist it then still feel perfectly fine saying "words mean nothing they aren't taking them seriously."
Citation needed lol.

And I love how you and others continue to pretend like it is impossible to answer the OP's question in the way they intended, and the conversation MUST go in a different direction and tropes are not worth talking about and yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda.

You guys are arguing like "Because any number of characters are possible, no one type of character can be discussed", which is very obviously wrong.

Nowhere in that did I say that Shortswords aren't labeled light weapons in D&D. My exact words were "Shortswords aren't particularly light and subtle either, they're just a step between daggers and longswords so that Rogues aren't stuck with just one standard weapon." That's not "oh they don't have the right tags" that's "they're shoehorned into having the right tags so Rogues have options in another sign of now nonsensical Sneak Attack actually is and how little it really has to do with sneaking. It's an attempt at giving Rogues weapon variety and options, which ironically the narrow interpretation of "Sneak Attack needs to be sneaky" seems pretty set on undoing if it wants to make sense.
That's just like... your opinion man. I see no reason why your speculation on why shortswords are "light" trumps our conversation using PHB text and class tropes. And this is what I keep saying throughout this thread in various ways... you and other detractors are not saying anything novel or anything that precludes having the conversation requested in the OP. Okay, you think "Sneak" Attack is nonsensical and doesn't make sense. Okay. So what? It's clearly the intent in the PHB and also a very storied tradition for rogue characters.

But by all means, continue
You can count on it.

The weapon restrictions on sneak are meant to narrow focus though. If sneak attack was meant to mean anything goes, they could have not had the finesse and ranged weapon tags.
Indeed. In a time where people are obsessed with "reflavoring" literally everything into anything, people want to ignore what the game is clearly communicating to us. That's why we can't even have a conversation where we just assume the rogue is a sneaky person because the fear of being locked in to some type of flavor is too much to handle, even outside the context of a game.