"Optimized" characters or parties?

[Roethke]

I was reading that thread on monks and how swordsage20 would make a better monk than the monk class.

Then it struck me- wizard 20 would make a better monk than the monk class. And since fluff and crunch are seperate, I could call him a monk. Neither wear armor. Forcecage is like a grapple. They can both dimension door. Um. Wizards can put buffs on that make them hard to hit, and monks are hard to hit. They can also wear monk's belts, to gain wis to ac.
Right? The two are seperate of each other.

Absolutely. Nothing wrong with a 'Monastery' devoted to Arcane teachings. Spin the crunch any way you like it, there's something cool about the concept of an ascetic wizard.

But, it depends on what you mean by 'Monk'. If you mean someone who doesn't wear armor, engages in hand-to-hand combat to dispatch his foes, and has a preternatural awareness of his surroundings, then Forcecage really isn't like a grapple, so probably not. (though Cleric as Monk could work just fine)

If you mean a religious ascetic, who forsakes worldly things in pursuit of inner strength and power, then there's nothing stopping you from playing your wizard as a monk, though sorcerer, to my mind, would be even better.

[Counterspin]

Way to take a reasonable concept and turn it into a straw man Tor. "Most fluff is separable from crunch" is the argument. No one suggests that you play a half orc fluff with halfling crunch, up to including being small sized. That's silly.

Additionally, people suggest that a swordsage would be a better monk because it is. That's obviously what it was made to be. If you take the unarmed swordsage option, you become an unarmed fighter who doesn't wear armor, which is the core of the monk fluff.

[Roethke]

No one suggests that you play a half orc fluff with halfling crunch, up to including being small sized. That's silly.

Then again, there is , but he is pretty silly.

[Vyker]

(with regards to the "same stats/different character" concept, would someone who's really keen on the whole optimization thing spin a really nasty set of stats for our volunteers to take a shot at? Pure twink, no fluff... that's for other folks to chuck in!)

--

Tor, I've actually been thinking about that very subject, and I'm inclined to sorta agree. Just as the Samurai class (whether OA, CW, or the Master Samurai PrC) is not necessary for one to be a "samurai," one need not take the monk class to be (as Roethke so succinctly put it) "a religious ascetic who forsakes worldly things in pursuit of inner strength and power."

I'm actually working on a character like that right now. I figure a wizard, toss in geometer once I can (the guy likes everything clear and orderly, being from a monastery, and the geometer class is a great way to "simplify" your spellbook... plus I like the image of a guy tracing geometric symbols in the air before the whole world goes BOOM! Makes it look like a martial arts kata or something).

So yeah. That could work, if you played it up right.

[Tor the Fallen]

But if you can be a gourmet cook and not put ranks in craft: gourmet food, why can't you be a monk that doesn't actually have the improved unarmed strike feat?

BWL suggests playing an 8 dex character as 'graceful.' He says other than roleplaying, what's the difference between ranks in a skill and not having any? Clearly, this only pertains to combat skills, as optimizers neglect 'roleplay' stats.

I'm saying take it a step farther. Don't even just neglect roleplay stats, neglect non-casters, then roleplay them like they're not casters. It's not a wizard studying a spell book- it's a monk studying his training tome to hone the maneuvers in his mine for the day. Then he conjurs forth things form his fists with a lot of 'hiayahs' and kicking. Like fireballs. Or grapple with black tentacles. Fluff wise, those tentacles could be anything.

See, no reason to play any classes but CoDzilla and the wizard, as you can roleplay everything else. That is, if you really wanted to optimize, and still pretend to be a martial character.

[Counterspin]

I was a little tremulous at first, but Roethke and Tor have shown me the true way. They're right. If you have a sufficiently flexible GM, you really can associate any fluff with any crunch.
Of course, you end up with a monk who needs a lot of concentration to pull off his maneuvers, and who can be disrupted in the channeling of his ki, but I don't see anything wrong with that. You see that sort of stuff in kung fu movies, which is the fluff basis for monk anyway.

[Vyker]

Err... what?

I mean, I guess you could, if you really wanted to. It'd fit in with a more anime-esque campaign, I s'pose. And they do have a few monk/wizard combo PrCs, so clearly it's not so far out in left field that nobody's thought of it.

But...

See, no reason to play any classes but CoDzilla and the wizard, as you can roleplay everything else. That is, if you really wanted to optimize, and still pretend to be a martial character.

...seems a tad extreme, doesn't it?

Playing a wizard who was a "monk" (i.e., trained in a monastery) and has a few fluff traits is one thing. Playing a wizard who tries to emulate the Monk Class (features and all) seems like you're bending over backwards to get something that's easily available.

(couldn't you just play a Monk Class with the fluff that his stunning attacks or flurries or whatever were the result of magical training, and have nifty visual effects? That seems a lot easier than wizarding your way into the Monk Class)

Of course, I'm from the school o' thought which runs that "optimization" means "matching crunch to concept and still be effective," so if I want a martial character I'll take a martial class. For a touch of magic, I might take a duskblade or a paladin or something.

I guess my confusion arises mostly from wondering whether you're being serious or whether you're trying to prove a point.

[Tor the Fallen]

...seems a tad extreme, doesn't it?

Playing a wizard who was a "monk" (i.e., trained in a monastery) and has a few fluff traits is one thing. Playing a wizard who tries to emulate the Monk Class (features and all) seems like you're bending over backwards to get something that's easily available.

(couldn't you just play a Monk Class with the fluff that his stunning attacks or flurries or whatever were the result of magical training?)

But when it really comes down to the wire, you just timestop+cloudkill+forecage. Can a monk do that? Nope.

Of course, I'm from the school o' thought which runs that "optimization" means "matching crunch to concept and still be effective," so if I want a martial character I'll take a martial class. For a touch of magic, I might take a duskblade or a paladin or something.

BWL has shown me that matching 'numbers on a page' with fluff isn't necessary. Fluff and crunch are sepeare

[Counterspin]

Tor, this is an entirely honest question, and I'm hip either way, but are you being sarcastic in this thread? I'm getting that vibe and I'm curious.

[Tor the Fallen]

No.
I'm seriously thinking of trying to convince my DM to let me play a 'monk' that happens to be wizard 20 with only spellcasting feats. I think it would be hilarious.


Do I think that fluff and crunch are related? Absolutely, positively, of course. Do I tolerate players poking through all sorts of sources for optimizing a character idea that may otherwise not be as great as a different core achetype? Yes. Would I like to see classes like 'monk' actually function as an unarmed combatant, where rules anf fluff coincide, as opposed to say, the swordsage going the unarmed route? Yes. Do I think that optimizing excludes good roleplaying? No. Some builds just need more help to get to work than other more obvious ones.

[Roethke]

But if you can be a gourmet cook and not put ranks in craft: gourmet food, why can't you be a monk that doesn't actually have the improved unarmed strike feat?

BWL suggests playing an 8 dex character as 'graceful.' He says other than roleplaying, what's the difference between ranks in a skill and not having any? Clearly, this only pertains to combat skills, as optimizers neglect 'roleplay' stats.

I'm saying take it a step farther. Don't even just neglect roleplay stats, neglect non-casters, then roleplay them like they're not casters. It's not a wizard studying a spell book- it's a monk studying his training tome to hone the maneuvers in his mine for the day. Then he conjurs forth things form his fists with a lot of 'hiayahs' and kicking. Like fireballs. Or grapple with black tentacles. Fluff wise, those tentacles could be anything.

See, no reason to play any classes but CoDzilla and the wizard, as you can roleplay everything else. That is, if you really wanted to optimize, and still pretend to be a martial character.

Gah, I think we've been over this before, maybe in this thread, but certainly in another one.

There's a misunderstanding as what's meant by 'optimize'

1) try to do the most damage possible/defeat anything thrown at you
2) do 1) (or choose a different target, like being the suavest guy in town), subject to self-imposed constraints.

In scenario 1), then you're right, there's no crunch reason not to play a wizard. But very, very few folks do this.

To be a bit presumptuous, most optimizers here mean 2). The self-imposed constraint in D&D is your character concept (fluff), which informs the selection of character class (crunch), stat assignment, feat selection, etc.

For a lot of folks, the wizard-as-monk mechanics doesn't fit their vision of their character. But maybe the cleric-as-monk does. Or the Swordsage-as-monk. Or maybe only the good old monk-as-monk does.

But, as Vyker pointed out, he has a nice geometer-as-monk planned out.

The idea is that fluff leads crunch, and you only need enough crunch to support your fluff, even spanning classes as you mentioned. You optimize to the concept. Sometimes the concept overlaps enough where one class is obviously superior, e.g. Unarmed Swordsage and Monk evidently are implementations of similar fluff.
---

As for the 8-DEX/graceful piece, that's a slightly different argument. The main point here, is that D&D isn't a simulation, and the crunch exists only to resolve non-RP situations, or to guide how they should be role-played.

So, while saying there's absolutely no connection between stats and activities is disingenuous, (e.g. If my INT is 2, I shouldn't RP being able to read), the connection can be tenuous at best. Compounding this problem, is the unequal distribution of skill points between classes, and different class skill lists.

Why should a High-INT, skill monkey rogue with a dex of 14, be a much,much better acrobat than a swashbuckling fighter, with a dex of 16? There are several mechanical/balance reasons for this, but there's no reason you can't play your fighter as Errol Flynn for fluff, but just not use the tumble skill in combat.

[Vyker]

*shrug* Well, if that's your gig, enjoy it. It could be fun. I'm not sure I'd go that route, but if I wanted to play an anime-esque martial artist with all the bells and whistles, maybe I would. I'd certainly like to see how it pans out.

Still, while I like to think that fluff and crunch don't have to match up in all possible regards, certain concepts do become a bit strained. The figher who distrusts magic is hard to swallow when your class is... wizard. I mean, even a wizard with +5 Sword of Awesomeness, self-buffs out the wazoo, Armor of No Spell Failure, and enough scars to shame a Heidelberg duelist is still likely raise a few eyebrows.

On the other hand, you could say that he distrusts magic, but the nature of the world forces him to use it anyway, albeit with reluctance, disgust, or self-hate. Or maybe he only uses certain types of magic (though that would make more sense with a cleric-as-fighter type, since "divine" has some flavor difference from "arcane" in baseline D&D). Or maybe some magic is just so intrinsic to the world that it isn't considered as "magic" by most folks, and only "end o' the world spells" are seen as such.

...actually, that sounds like a really fun character to play.

All that said, I think Roethke has the right of it with his Type II optimizer. I'd certainly classify myself as that, and it's really not that hard to find ways to make your crunch and fluff coexist. I mean... hell, I just talked my own way into allowing a fighter who hates magic be the wizard class!

--

For fun, here's a "Dex 8 can be graceful" argument. Maybe you're graceful in calm (i.e., noncombat) situations, but the instant it all goes south... blam. You fumble, you trip, you get so nervous that it's hard to defend yourself (there's that -1 to AC!), etc., etc., etc. It doesn't have to mean that you automatically spill your drink on the cute chick next to you at the tavern, it doesn't mean that you trip over your own two feet, just that you shake a lot in combat. It's ugly and it'll raise those eyebrows, but there it is.

--

(pssst... Roethke... that monk-as-geometer was me!)

[Tor the Fallen]

There's a misunderstanding as what's meant by 'optimize'

1) try to do the most damage possible/defeat anything thrown at you
2) do 1) (or choose a different target, like being the suavest guy in town), subject to self-imposed constraints.

In scenario 1), then you're right, there's no crunch reason not to play a wizard. But very, very few folks do this.

To be a bit presumptuous, most optimizers here mean 2). The self-imposed constraint in D&D is your character concept (fluff), which informs the selection of character class (crunch), stat assignment, feat selection, etc.

All agreed. Making a fluff idea as optimized in combat as possible. But if fluff is unrelated to what's written on the character sheed, why bother? Play the wizard, then fluff it up. Like a great big pillow.

For a lot of folks, the wizard-as-monk mechanics doesn't fit their vision of their character. But maybe the cleric-as-monk does. Or the Swordsage-as-monk. Or maybe only the good old monk-as-monk does.

I think swordsage-as-monk, and I say this without having ever laid eyes on ToB, epitomizes the problem. It's a class that is called swordsage, yet it does monk better than the monk does.

How closely are the classes linked to societal roles in D&D? As per 3.x, not much. The thief is no longer the thief, and, uh, I think they may say that somewhere in the PHB or DMG. But still, shouldn't the class mechanics be at least somewhat tied to the name of the class/notion of what the class does?

In the "are sorcerors underpowered" thread (or whatever it's title), shneeky said no, because if you take five levels of sorceror, and these levels of these 3 of prc class, they're not (which was only good for two builds, and he was misreading the rules). PrCs are highly flavorful. That's right in the rules, in the DMG (if we want to rules lawyer over fluff??). There are even knowledge checks you can make to know about specific PrCs. Yet somehow, the sorceror is still a 'sorceror' after entering three prestige classes. Imagine if their was a PrC called "Knight of the Round Table," where you had to serve at King Arthur's table. Let's say it gave some really great bonuses to definitively *not* knightlike build. Three level dip for those bonuses, justified by background fluff.

That's as bad as wizard 20 being a 'monk', or any class for that.
Hell, armor is just 'fluff'/ Your character can look like he's wearing armor if he says he is!!

But, as Counterspin pointed out, he has a nice geometer-as-monk planned out.

The idea is that fluff leads crunch, and you only need enough crunch to support your fluff, even spanning classes as you mentioned. You optimize to the concept. Sometimes the concept overlaps enough where one class is obviously superior, e.g. Unarmed Swordsage and Monk evidently are implementations of similar fluff.

I absolutely agree with this. Take the issue of non-casters at higher levels. They need help, and that's usually with a greatsword and very reckless leap. Two weapon fighting is wicked cool. By BWL reasoning (not to pick on you, BWL; don't want to incite your logic jujitsu), I could play a THF power leap attack shock trooper with 20 str, 16 con, 12 dex, and 8 int and describe him as making precise, careful slashes at his opponent with a dagger and rapier, his nimble, aenimc frame dodging and weaving, ducking under the blows of his clumsier opponent.

In truth, however, he's rapidly losing HP as he just sunk his AC with shock trooper ('course, that could be described as using up energy not getting hit).

I think we could go even farther and have him be a frenzied beserker who makes clever quips as he brutally bisects deftly pokes his foes.

I guess I'm just pissed at the rules that force me to make a non-sensical and 'munchkin' build to keep up with CoDzilla. Not that it's really either non-sensical or munchkinism with the proper backstory, and I'm really only trying to squeeze a viable build out of being a noncaster.

As for the 8-DEX/graceful piece, that's a slightly different argument. The main point here, is that D&D isn't a simulation, and the crunch exists only to resolve non-RP situations, or to guide how they should be role-played.

So, while saying there's absolutely no connection between stats and activities is disingenuous, (e.g. If my INT is 2, I shouldn't RP being able to read), the connection can be tenuous at best. Compounding this problem, is the unequal distribution of skill points between classes, and different class skill lists.

Why should a High-INT, skill monkey rogue with a dex of 14, be a much,much better acrobat than a swashbuckling fighter, with a dex of 16? There are several mechanical/balance reasons for this, but there's no reason you can't play your fighter as Errol Flynn for fluff, but just not use the tumble skill in combat.

Yeah. Rules. Pfffff....
I've done some thinking about this, and abilitie scores *can* be quite different than skills. I know venerable experts with slightly above average strength and constitution scores with enough ranks in survival that they could keep up with a 25 year old navy seal with biceps the size of your chest. The navy seal may have across the board better stats, but since his skill points and feats went into vastly different feats and skills, well, there you go.

[Tor the Fallen]

You know what the whole deal is?
Nomenclature.
This is one giant semantical argument. No wonder it's so ugly and raises all these passions.

8 dex is what?
What's the 8 mean? What *is* dexterity?
Etc, etc etc.

[Vyker]

Yup!

But ain't it fun, anyhow?

[Roethke]

You know what the whole deal is?
Nomenclature.
This is one giant semantical argument. No wonder it's so ugly and raises all these passions.

8 dex is what?
What's the 8 mean? What *is* dexterity?
Etc, etc etc.

Agreed. But then again, the way that individuals answer those questions tells you a lot about their playstyle.

[Ulzgoroth]

I think swordsage-as-monk, and I say this without having ever laid eyes on ToB, epitomizes the problem. It's a class that is called swordsage, yet it does monk better than the monk does.

I agree with some of what you're reaching for, but this is just misinformation. It's called the swordsage, but there's nothing particularly sword-concentrated about it. The name may be slightly deceptive, but then you can play a LN rogue without a bit of 'roguishness' about him.

[Saph]

BWL suggests playing an 8 dex character as 'graceful.' He says other than roleplaying, what's the difference between ranks in a skill and not having any? Clearly, this only pertains to combat skills, as optimizers neglect 'roleplay' stats.

I'm saying take it a step farther. Don't even just neglect roleplay stats, neglect non-casters, then roleplay them like they're not casters. It's not a wizard studying a spell book- it's a monk studying his training tome to hone the maneuvers in his mine for the day. Then he conjurs forth things form his fists with a lot of 'hiayahs' and kicking. Like fireballs. Or grapple with black tentacles. Fluff wise, those tentacles could be anything.

See, no reason to play any classes but CoDzilla and the wizard, as you can roleplay everything else. That is, if you really wanted to optimize, and still pretend to be a martial character.

Come to think of it, I suppose this really is what you end up with when you divorce mechanics from fluff. There becomes no reason to play anything other than the most powerful classes, since you can duplicate nearly any ability with your spells and call it what you want in fluff terms.

- Saph

[Tor the Fallen]

I agree with some of what you're reaching for, but this is just misinformation. It's called the swordsage, but there's nothing particularly sword-concentrated about it. The name may be slightly deceptive, but then you can play a LN rogue without a bit of 'roguishness' about him.

I know it's not *only* sword concentrated; that's probably why it can out perform the monk when it does monk-type stuff .

The issue here is how fluff and mechanics can be entirely seperate, deceptively so. Like the LN rogue.

It's a semantics issue.

[DSCrankshaw]

Am I allowed to find both sides of this argument equally annoying? While there's something overbearing about those who insist some prestige class is wrong because it makes your character so powerful, there's something unsettling about those who take a level or two in six prestige classes because each one offers some powerful new ability plus six skill points, full BAB, and full spellcasting progression.

Me, I'm somewhere in the middle. I'm playing a character right now who's a Dwarf Knight. This doesn't look like an optimal choice. The Dwarven penalty on charisma really hurts, and those Armor Mastery feats aren't going to do me much good. However, I chose the class largely because it fit my character. And I mean character, not character concept. I was playing a Dwarf Fighter who was already acting like a Knight before I even discovered the class. My DM allowed me to rebuild him largely because the class fit so well. But I'm also powergaming. See, I was also planning to take Dwarven Defender at 8th level. While I could do the standard Fighter build and get a bunch of extra feats, all those knight special abilities mesh really well with the Defender: Test of Mettle to call the enemy to you, Defensive Stance to withstand the storm. While he may be slightly subpar as a Knight, he'll be a force to be reckoned with as a Defender. I'm just worried about the low DC of his Test of Mettle at those levels, and looking for ways to improve it.

[Counterspin]

Tor - A swordsage can outperform a monk at monk stuff because it was written to replace the monk with something more powerful. That's the point. It's not some bizarre mistake. That's the point of the class.

Saph - So you have a variety of fluff to keep things interesting, and a balanced playing field. Sounds good to me.

[Saph]

Saph - So you have a variety of fluff to keep things interesting, and a balanced playing field. Sounds good to me.

Sounds unbelievably stupid to me.

But eh, whatever works for you. I'm just glad no-one in my group thinks this way.

- Saph

[Indon]

Saph - So you have a variety of fluff to keep things interesting, and a balanced playing field. Sounds good to me.

I do believe I've already stated this opinion, but I feel there's a point where fluff stops being a description and starts being an excuse.

I think description should be descriptive. Divorcing 'crunch' and 'fluff' makes description undescriptive (instead making it explanatory), and the farther you divorce it the worse it gets. To a limited extent, it may be neccessary for some concepts and sometimes it may even be interesting, like eating a tuna and peanut butter sandwich.

But I wouldn't eat tuna and peanut butter sandwiches every day, and I similarly feel that fluff-crunch separation is a methodology of gameplay which damages the immersion and thus story-enjoyment of many, if not most, D&D players.

Nothing against peanut butter and tuna sandwiches, mind you. They're delicious, albeit moisture-siphoning in your mouth.

[Vyker]

I'd like to solve the "Is the baker useful" question once and for all:

Gobins hate pies.

[Bears With Lasers]

You know what the whole deal is?
Nomenclature.
This is one giant semantical argument. No wonder it's so ugly and raises all these passions.

8 dex is what?
What's the 8 mean? What *is* dexterity?
Etc, etc etc.

Exactly. "Dexterity" is meant to simulate something, but does it poorly. When you get right down to it, Dexterity is just a statistic that you apply to various dice rolls and such. As long as you keep the mecahnical benefits and consequences, things are "fair", whether you play your 8-Dex character as clumsy and tripping over things, or graceful and elegant. You won't be winning initiative, you'll be easier to hit, et cetera.

Now, because various things in D&D are meant to simulate something, it can take work to attach a different fluff than certain crunch was meant to simulate. Sometimes it can take a lot of work.

But really, when you get right down to it, you could roll a battle between the PCs and a group of orcs, finish, figure out the mechanical result (i.e. all the orcs are dead), and then describe it happening however you want. The wizard's sheet will still be down a Glitterdust, a Color Spray, and a Grease, even if the wizard describes summoning a demon from beyond the world and controlling it, then sending it forth to spew pure nothingness at the orcs. The figher can describe wading in and just chopping orc after orc down, or he can decide that he rushed in, sword whirling, performing various fancy moves, or that he had a one-on-one duel with the Boss Orc while his friends kept the rest of'em back. The end result is that you've lost HP/spells/etc. and the orcs are all dead. Sure, you could describe this like the things the combat die rolls were emulating happened--the fighter swung at that orc three times, at this one twice; the rogue got hit, the cleric cured him, they flanked a big orc and the sneak attack took him down, the wizard cast those three specific spells to disable most of the orcs...

...or you could describe them however you want. Rendered stealthy and silent by the wizard's and cleric's magics, the fighter, with the rogue creeping beside him, walked in while the orcs were sleeping and soundlessly killed them all. Then he surfed an air-shark over a mountain while wailing on a laser guitar. Whatever.
Just mark off those spells and HPs, and mechanically, you're fine. Flavor-wise, your gaming buddies might not appreciate the whole laser guitar thing.

In fact, some games use mechanics entirely based on conflict resolution rather than task resolution. In Wushu, for example, you get to describe doing whatever the hell you want (within genre conventions and assuming it's not vetoed, which is an important qualifier) so long as you don't describe winning until the dice back it up. You want to flip through the air and hit the bad guy with your Glorious Scything Wind kick, go for it. You want to describe yourself as taking a blow and not even flinching, or slipping smoothly aside and elbowing the guy in the head, or casually deflecting a blow with a flick of your fingers and some magic, go for it, as long as it fits the genre and no one vetoes it.
Your character does whatever you say it is--the dice are about who wins the conflict, not about whether or not you manage to land each individual blow and how much damage it does (which will then eventually take someone out of the conflict).
You can do the same thing with a task-resolution system, effectively turning it into a conflict-resolution system. It just takes a lot more work.

[Dausuul]

You can do the same thing with a task-resolution system, effectively turning it into a conflict-resolution system. It just takes a lot more work.

That's the problem for me. It takes a whole lot more work, and what you end up with is a crappy-ass conflict-resolution system with heaping piles of mechanics that, having lost their intended purpose of simulating task resolution, are now just slowing down the game. Why not just play a conflict-resolution system instead if that's the way you want to go? Task-resolution systems are better used for task-resolution play.

[Bears With Lasers]

Because the game you're playing is a task-resolution system, and it's not always that much work? Because task-resolution systems are often crunch-heavy, making them essentailly a game of the their own (and a game in the more traditional sense), which is also fun? Wushu's nice and all, but you don't really get the gaming out of it that you do out of a crunch-heavy system like Exalted or D&D--and that's something that's actually fun for a lot of people, even ones who enjoy high-concept roleplaying more.

[Counterspin]

Saph - Well, based on the fact that you think you can judge me based on a single opinion, and the fact you feel the need to be needlessly insulting, I can guarantee the animosity is now mutual. If you're going to go on to say you're glad you don't have to deal with people like me, don't try to stick some BS statement like "whatever works for you" in front of it.

Additionally, the viewpoint I'm suggesting is the basis for, I don't know, every single game that doesn't utilize classes. So yeah, I'm not really alone.

[Leush]

"Oh the horror! The horror!"

This idea of completely divorcing fluff from crunch is quite scary... There's a reason that d&d isn't completely crunch-fluff divorced: Because when it gets to that stage people's heads start exploding- I think that's the most concise reason I can have.

For mindless rambling onthe subject, please press one:

Spoiler

Show

Well, I suppose that fluff can be divorced from crunch to get a wonderful abstract system (whose description sounds to me like something you'd see when you had too many mushrooms), but then you get into the domain: I have a set of rules of what to roll for what situation and this is the meaning they have, and you take that meaning away and end up with a lot of dice rolls that don't reflect anything. At that point you're basically playing a *freeform* game instead of deciding who wins by saying "I win", you roll a dice- you have no idea what the dice roll means, only that the bigger the number the better. You could even have perfect balance by vetoing anything that's unbalanced. JOr just roll a d6+level to resolve a combat...

However, as much as I consider freeform 'the holy grail' of roleplaying to strive for, A strict adherence of fluff to crunch (or a semi-strict adherence) where each roll of the dice does what it says it does has a certain charm for me. Yeah I could say that the wizard is a monk who's black tentacle spell consists of him running around the x foot area and doing a funky grapple- or that a finger of death is just that, but unless I was doing that for a one off to mess with peoples' minds...

Hmm... What is my point? Ah that's it! You're suggesting moving the fluff around randomly because any fluff can be used to describe any crunch! That's quite true. But to me, that would be very very boring. Classes exist for the sake of having some mechanical variation. If you have a wizard who calls himself a wizard and a wizard who calls himself a fighter and a wizard who calls himself a rogue and a wizard who calls himself a monk, and they all do these freeky different things -one hits with a sword for 10d6 damage to an area, the other hits with his flurry of blows for 10d6 area damage, another backstabs twenty creatures simultaneously for 10d6 damage, and one uses a fireball for the same effect, it begins to make no sense. Now you can say that the rogue does some freeked up backflips to do that and the fighter spins his sword like a helicopter, etcetera, or you could even assign sensible fluff to it, but it just makes no sense!! Why not just roll an opposing level check to determine who kills who???

[Wehrkind]

Well, that's exactly the point Leush. Each class IS just a list of class features, with an over arching concept tying them together to a greater or lesser extent. (Exceptions exist, like paladin, whose fluff dictates mechanics.) But when you get right down to it, each character has a list of "actions" they perform in sequence, and those actions produce specific effects.
Many are pretty straight forward and described so we can easily imagine what is happening. But the effect is the key, usually not the description. Ask someone what a Force Cage actually LOOKS like, and you will likely get some odd answers. Prison bars, chicken wire, a screen, and others, all with different colors, opacity etc. One would not allow a mage to create a spell "Protection from Orange" and then run around saying all orange things were unable to harm him, even though many things have that descriptor. In the real world, lots of legends work that way, but it doesn't work mechanically in a game.