What Are your Fluff Changes Made to D&D (Sub-)Classes?

[RedMage125]

Inspired by this thread about races (credit: SteveLightblade), I thought I'd find out if people make any changes regarding classes? I'll give mine below. Most of this is more "how these (sub-)classes typically fit into the setting. Players are encouraged to come up with their own back stories, but I try to give them a place where they fit, in case a player would like to mold their character to the setting.

The mechanics of the class are subordinate to the place in the world. In-game, for example, a term used for those who blend martial prowess with magic is "Swordmage" (yes, like the 4e class). Swordmages are sometimes trained by academies throughout the world. But 3 graduates from the same academy might be 3 different classes. A Bladesinger Wizard, an Eldritch Knight, and a Valor Bard, for example, all might be graduates of the same academy, their different skill reflect the talent and specialization of the individual. Likewise, an Ancients Paladin may have ties to a Druid grove or tradition. Such a character would be considered a "druid" by the world (and I would give them Druidic as a bonus language).

Note: A good chunk of my setting (Antheron) has been shaped by 2 major events in the last few centuries. 1- The War of Shadows (This was the plotline of a 3.x game I ran in college), the drow invaded the surface in a war that lasted almost 20 years. A great deal of the Sylvanwood (enormous forested region) was damaged or destroyed. The old dwarven king actually allied with the drow, until he was betrayed and assassinated by them, his son (who is still the current king) broke that alliance and joined with the surface races to fight the drow. This war ended about 500 years ago. 2- The Godswar, some time after the WoS, reality was invaded by the Primordials, titanic elemental beings of great power. They caused great planar upheaval, the Prime was altered forever, and several gods died, others surrendered their divinity to successors. One key takeaway is that many deities are now worshipped across racial lines (Moradin is the god of the forge for all races, for example). This ended around 350-400 years ago.

2nd note: Player Options in my game are separated into 3 categories: Green/Yellow/Red Light. Green Light is most stuff, no restriction. Yellow Light is "yes, but..." and includes some sort of restriction (usually light, like requiring some sort of background exposition), and Red Light means "My default answer is 'no'". If a player has a concept that uses a Red Light element, and it REALLY impresses me, I may allow it, but they'll still be unique.

The only Red Light Class in my home campaign setting is Artificer. I also don't allow setting-specific stuff unless vetted by myself first. And so the subclasses from the MtG setting books (unless reprinted elsewhere) are also Red Light.

Barbarian: Barbarians come in many varieties. Some are berserker warriors from tribal or frontier communities; others are trained Primal warriors close ties to the Primal Spirits. The former may be any Primal Path, with Berserkers and Ancestral Protectors being more common. The latter are usually Totem Warriors, or even Storm Heralds, and may or may not have ties to druid groves. Path of the Beast adherents are almost always connected to Primal spirits or traditions. Zealots occupy a niche area, as some may even be specially-trained warriors from more civilized lands and cities as well. Battleragers are more common among dwarves, but the path has no racial restriction. Non-dwarf Battleragers likely were trained in traditions with dwarven roots. Path of Wild Magic is not so much a “tradition”, as a unique occurrence, each one the result of some specific incident.

Bard: As always, bards are jacks-of-all-trades who tap into the Echoes Of Creation for their magic. Formal training facilities exist for Valor, Swords, Creation and Lore archetypes, with Valor and Swords Bards being more likely to be formally trained (the cities of Cyran and Tel Ranar having the most notable College of Valor, Swords Bards usually train at the same institutions, with different focus). Creation and Lore Bards have a formal college in the city of Val Lumina, but Lore Bards are more likely to be trained independently or self-taught. Glamour Bards are, as mentioned in the books, initiates in the mysteries of the Feywild. As such, they are common among races and families with strong ties to the fey, but any individual fey might be willing to teach a mortal who impresses them. There is no formal structure or school for the College of Whispers. Members of this school disguise themselves among other bards, subverting possible candidates from formal colleges, or training protégés individually. They prefer to maintain the fiction that their particular discipline is a myth. College of Eloquence Bards have a small formal school in Tel Ranar, but are usually trained by individual masters.

Clerics: Clerics have not changed from earlier editions. I have posted my pantheon in another thread, each deity's write-up explains which deity grants which domains. Cleric alignment should be close to their deity's, but need not match it exactly (if only to reflect that deities only grant their power to those who live life by their tenets). While Core RAW allows for clerics to venerate "Forces & Philosophies", in Antheron, cleric magic exclusively comes from deities.

Druid: Druids are the keepers of the wild. Some are priests of Nature deities, others draw upon the Primal Spirits of Nature itself. Circle of the Moon druids may or may not have ties to specific Groves, while Circle of the Land druids tend to guard specific locales, which may be Druid Groves. Druids from the Circle of Dreams have strong ties to the Feywild, and are the least likely to have received their training from a formal Druid Circle (although they are still welcome in them). Shepard Druids are the least likely to be priests of a nature deity, finding more in common with the Primal Spirits of the world than any god. The Circle of Stars is relatively new in Antheron, it was introduced by immigrants from Drakkensrad (empire to the south rules by dragons, and the origin of the dragonborn race), who claim dragons taught them how to chart the stars and focus their power, they do not usually worship nature deities. Circle of Spores and Wildfire Druids are usually sort of a unique form of outcast. Neither are usually welcome in Druid Circles due to association with undeath and destruction, respectively. But Spores Druids are incredibly common underground, and a few are trying to prove they’re not evil and gain acceptance with the rest of Druidic Society. Wildfire Druids tend to be loners. While not exactly “outcast”, they’re often treated with mistrust and suspicion (most Druid Groves are in forests, after all).

Fighter: Fighters come in all flavors. Former soldiers, trained in an army; mercenaries; knights; lone master swordsmen wandering the land, any of these could be a fighter. Champion archetypes, especially, may be found anywhere. Battle Masters, Cavaliers, Samurai, and Bannerets (Purple Dragon Knights) could be formally trained in major cities like Tel Ranar, Melchiah, and especially Cyran. Eldritch Knights are almost always formally trained either in a school or by lone masters. Val Lumina is the most prestigious, but Tel Ranar has a school as well. Elves, especially High Elves, have their own style, called Bladesong (who may be Eldritch Knights or Bladesinger Wizards). Another archetype with roots in Elven tradition is the Arcane Archer. While still originally an elven discipline, non-elven regions with strong magical traditions train them as well. Dwarven masters have studied the techniques of the ancient giants to create the first Rune Knights. Practitioners are still very rare, and even more rare are non-dwarven Rune Knights.

Monk: Monks train in secluded monasteries and in academies in cities. The Way of the Open Hand tradition is centuries old in Antheron, and academies in the cities are joining the older monasteries that have stood for centuries. The Way of the Four Elements and Way of the Astral Self are more recent addition to the Prime, brought here by planar refugees (mostly genasi and githzerai, see my post in the Races thread). They are usually taught by lone masters or in secluded monasteries that have only recently been founded. The Way of Shadow may be older than anyone knows, but it is always taught secretly. Some masters select disciples from within existing schools of other traditions, but rumors whisper of secretive schools, hidden from the public eye, that share the teachings of this enigmatic style. Sun Soul Monks are almost exclusively trained by adherents of Adonathiel, the god of the sun. The Kensei tradition has its foundations in the War of Shadow hundreds of years ago, when the masters of older traditions turned their minds towards mastery of war, blending meditative discipline with forged steel. The Way of the Drunken Master owes its existence to the existence of the (fairly recent) academies in cities, rather than monasteries. The techniques excel in crowded streets of urban areas, but the tradition is still viewed as frivolous by masters of older orders. Monks of the Way of Mercy, by contrast, are usually trained in monasteries. The Way of the Ascendant Dragon, unsurprisingly, originated in the Drakkensrad. While no formal academies or monasteries of this tradition exist in the north, individual masters have been known to take on students.

Paladin: Paladins are almost always formally trained and belong to knightly or religious orders. Oaths of the Ancients are usually taken by paladins of Elven deities (Fey Knights) or of Nature deities or Primal traditions (often called Green Knights or Wardens), the latter of which may have ties to druidic society. Oaths of Devotion are more common, most Good deities have knightly orders, which may also include Oath of Redemption Paladins. In addition, the Knights of Tel Ranar is a secular order of paladins that most closely resembles traditional orders of paladins of past editions of D&D, they include Oath of the Crown Paladins as well as Devotion, Redemption, and Glory. The Oath of the Watchers originated with a group of knights once called the Order of the Chalice. The Godswar decimated their numbers, and now the Order only exists as wanderers, who travel the world, seeking to end extraplanar threats. Their sole remaining bastion is a modest-sized house in Cyran. Oaths of Venegeance are much less common, but are usually taken on an individual, case-by-case basis. Vengeance paladins may or may not belong to a paladin order, sometimes they come from the ranks of warriors who take up an oath and gain power from it. Oathbreaker paladins may also be used as champions of Evil deities. Bridenal (Lawful Evil god of rulership, nobility and fear), in particular, favors Oath of Conquest Paladins as his champions. The Oath of Conquest may also be appropriate for particularly hard-nosed devotees of Erathis (Lawful Neutral goddess of civilization).

Ranger: Rangers can be difficult to classify, as many are trained by a single teacher out in the wilds or the frontiers. As far as formal training, the Rangers of Mensyannah remain an organization based out of the Sylvanwood, and they train Hunter, Beast Master, and Monster Slayer archetypes and all fighting styles. Melchiah, Tel Ranar, and the Dwarven Clan Skullcrusher all have long and proud ranger traditions (usually not Beast Masters). Gloom Stalkers are common among the dwarves, but are also trained by secretive orders, much like the Way of Shadow Monk tradition. Horizon Walkers were born from teachings brought to this plane from the planar refugee races. Groups of them may be common in areas where those races congregate in numbers. Fey Wanderers are usually individually imbued with their gifts, but may be a part of the Rangers of Mensyannah, as that organization is often willing to work with benevolent fey. Swarmkeepers are almost unheard of, but likely would be loners, self-taught, or trained by lone masters. Drake Warden Rangers existed in Drakkensari lands, but some of the more recent masters honed their skills in the Basin of Life, the land mass that now connects the northern and southern continents.

Rogue: Of all classes, rogues are the most difficult to categorize. Archetype may or may not have anything to do with what a Rogue is or does in the world. A Rogue with the Assassin archetype may be a military infiltrator, a spy, or even just an agile warrior like a stereotypical swashbuckler. A Thief archetype Rogue may be an assassin, a scout, or just a skilled “troubleshooter”. Swashbuckler Rogues may even be soldiers, trained in military traditions much like Fighters. An Arcane Trickster could be a failed apprentice, a dropout from a magic school, or part of a cabal of spellthieves. Inquisitives and Masterminds are, however, more common in urban areas, while Scouts are more prevalent in rural or frontier ones (and may even be members of the Rangers of Mensyannah). Phantoms are relatively unknown. Shadar-kai train warriors in this tradition, but some of the rumors of the Reapers of Thanatos (god of death and undeath) would indicate that they train Phantoms as well…as assassins.

Sorcerer: A Sorcerer's Origin defines much about their character. Their power may be a talent inherited from their ancestors, or the result of exposure to fey, elemental, extraplanar, or psionic energies. Since the talent for sorcery is individual, no true organizations of Sorcerers exist, but areas with a lot of magical energy and tradition (high elf cities, Val Lumina, etc) may recognize the talent for sorcery, and a Sorcerer character could have experienced very similar training to a wizard or bard. Divine Soul Sorcerers are not always born with their power, sometimes it is visited upon them by divine blessing, to fulfill some specific purpose. Clockwork Soul sorcerers may be more common in the planar refugee races, and especially in the towns where those people are more common. There are no restrictions on which Sorcerous Origins are allowed, however, Dragonborn sorcerers with the Draconic Ancestry Origin MUST choose the same ancestor type as their own Heritage.

Warlock: Warlocks are rarely trained formally. Most are the result of an individual making the pact on his or her own, whether the warlock sought out the patron or stumbled upon them. Secretive cabals of all patron types may exist, but as far as training, all they can do is introduce a potential warlock to the means of contacting the patron. A pact MUST be taken by the individual. Warlocks are sometimes mistrusted by the public, and may pretend to be wizards or sorcerers, a deception which usually works. Hexblade Warlocks need not have a "sentient weapon" as a patron, they may also just be a more martially-minded warlock of another kind of patron (One hexblade may have a pact with an Archfey, another with a Fiend).

Wizard: Wizards train diligently to bend the secrets of the universe to their will. Some are taught in traditional one-on-one master-apprentice relationships. The city of Cyran has a formal college for War Mages, and Val Lumina has a very well-renowned College of Magic. High Elves, of all the other races, embrace wizardry the most widely. Of all the schools of magic, Necromancy is the cause of the most suspicion among those who specialize in it. Wizards of the Order of Scribes are the most likely to be trained in a formal College, having spent much time in enormous libraries.

Psionic Sublcasses: Yellow Light Psi Warriors (Fighters), Soulknives (Rouges), and Aberrant Minds (Sorcerers) are all Psionic characters. Psionics are extremely rare in Antheron. One would have to explain exactly how their character gained their abilities, perhaps through exposure to psionic energy, and/or from a master who helped hone these powers in them.



That's all for my setting. Anyone else have different spins they put on classes or subclasses?

[Glorthindel]

The only one I have felt a need to take the hammer to fluff-wise is the Hexblade (I suspect this will be a common answer), partially because the default is so lazy and half-hearted, and partially because I despise anything Raven Queen (she's one developers pet Mary Sue, and she can f*** right off getting wedged into the settings of far more competent writers). I lean heavily towards the sentient weapon angle (since I feel it was definitely the Stormbringer and Excalibur fantasies that it was trying to emulate), making the characters weapon its patron. People have raised the issue of how you handle the character finding better magical weapons and wanting to replace the patron weapon, but I rule the patron weapon either absorbs the essence of the new weapon (replacing its stats with that of the absorbed weapon) or "possesses" it, making it the new host for the intelligent essence.

[Vahnavoi]

I regularly only use four classes - fighter, thief specialist, magic-user and cleric - plus sometimes additional ones for demi- or non-humans, such as halfling, dwarf and elf, for which you can take a look at the other thread.

A nomadic barbarian and a knight in shining armor are both fighters - the difference is in wealth, equipment and tactics used, languages spoken etc. things, not which class they happen to be. A game honest-to-God doesn't need ten different classes for people who fight once you pay attention to all the things that actually set those people apart.

Similarly, a celtic-inspired druid and templar-inspired warrior priest are both clerics - the difference is in what religion they follow and which spells they choose or are granted.

Sorcerer, wizard, witch, warlock etc. are different words for the same damned thing - a magic-user. If you want a finer-grained taxonomy of magic-users, you do it based on which spells they know and use.

What adventuring thieves specialist have in common is being ordinary folks who wish to go out to where the danger is, and not a whole lot else. Two specialists can have entirely different, well, specialties. One is an architect. Another is a forester. A third one is honest about what they do a thief.

Psionic powers and other supernatural nonsense don't care about class. You gain them by training or exposing yourself to things while on adventure. A psionic warrior is a fighter who lucked out.

[KorvinStarmast]

I regularly only use four classes - fighter, thief specialist, magic-user and cleric - plus sometimes additional ones for demi- or non-humans, such as halfling, dwarf and elf, for which you can take a look at the other thread.

Which is what's in the current editions basic rules. Those four are all that is needed to play.

A nomadic barbarian and a knight in shining armor are both fighters{snip}A game honest-to-God doesn't need ten different classes for people who fight once you pay attention to all the things that actually set those people apart.

Yep. The original idea of "Fighting Man is class, sub class is Paladin or Ranger" was a good enough model. But bloat happens.

Similarly, a celtic-inspired druid and templar-inspired warrior priest are both clerics - the difference is in what religion they follow and which spells they choose or are granted.

Yep. (Since I tend to use the force and philosophies model for clerics, Nature is Druids and Nature Domain does not exist. (I find the heavy armor proficiency to be jarring, from a conceptual angle).

Sorcerer, wizard, witch, warlock etc. are different words for the same damned thing - a magic-user. If you want a finer-grained taxonomy of magic-users, you do it based on which spells they know and use.

Works for me, although thematically I do like what's going on with schools of magic, but do we really need 8? Years ago I read a book called "The Master of Five Magics" and I think we could probably shrink the schools to five without too much trouble. But this is one of those inertia things that I doubt will ever change.

Psionic powers and other supernatural nonsense don't care about class. You gain them by training or exposing yourself to things while on adventure. A psionic warrior is a fighter who lucked out.

Works, and declutters the game mechanics quite a bit. I do make an exception for Monk. I like it as a stand alone, not a cleric sub class. D&D has morphed that idea over time (from Kwai Chang Caine basis) and I like it as a stand alone.

Bard:

"College" for me is neither a university nor an institution; it's more a 'school of thought' or 'outlook on life' combined with 'life experience' that informs how this traveling person grows. Bards of all sorts are, in my worlds, quick learners and adapters, self-taught in many things, polymaths, or the older term renaissance man (or woman). And they need not use musical instruments: song, chant, drums and poetry are also powerful applications of the residual effects of the Song of Creation ... and so on.

Clerics: While Core RAW allows for clerics to venerate "Forces & Philosophies",

That's how I do it, but depending on where you are in the world, those are often called by various, different names. Nature domain isn't there, if you serve Nature be a druid.

Druid: Druids are the keepers of the wild.

Keepers of nature, red in tooth and claw. Their focus is on the never ending cycle of life and death, growth decay and rebirth. They see time as circular, not linear.

Fighter:
Fighters come in all flavors.

Yes. Lots of latitude for the traveling sword, the archery specialist, etc.

Monk: Monks train in secluded monasteries

I only go with that, I do not apply modern day city structures to my D&D pseudo-medieval population centers. (I also don't have magic marts). Personal taste.

Paladin: Paladins are almost always formally trained and belong to knightly or religious orders.

Yes, but I make an exception for Vengeance Oath paladins. They are in a unique place, given how their oath is formed and what it empowers. Have not encountered any need for an Oathbreaker yet.

Ranger: Rangers can be difficult to classify, as many are trained by a single teacher out in the wilds or the frontiers.

They are non city folk in the main, always moving, always along the marches, out scouting or exploring the unknown. A couple of folks have played Bounty Hunter themed rangers (one Hunter, one Gloom Stalker) and seemed to be an almost perfect fit.

Rogue: Of all classes, rogues are the most difficult to categorize.

My only "in world" framework for this is that the Thief archetype needs to identify which guild they are affiliated with. The player and I work together to place it in a locale that makes sense for the campaign, since in my worlds Thieves' Guilds are both politically relevant and often work as the 'unseen hand' in some locales that influence governments. Smuggling rings and Thieves' Guilds often overlap. Organized crime, and all that attends to it, is kinda dark.

The rest of the rogues are cast in a "the world is my oyster" framework: Adventurer / trouble maker / too curious for their own good who come from any walk of life.

Sorcerer: A Sorcerer's Origin defines much about their character.

I have added domain spells for the Draconic and Shadow sorcerer who play in our games. They need almost no further input from me. As with rogues, they can come form any walk of life; they follow the magic that's in their blood.

Warlock: Warlocks are rarely trained formally.

Hexblades don't exist in my world. I work with the player to flesh out the relationship they have with their patron. (I agree with you about the Raven Queen; she has some potential that requires a bit of DM work to realize).

Wizard: Wizards train diligently to bend the secrets of the universe to their will. Some are taught in traditional one-on-one master-apprentice relationships.

No "Magic State U" in my world. All learn from a master, given the general opprobium associated with wizards. There was a witch hunt a few centuries ago, led by the dragon clans, to rid the world of those meddlesome arcanists. Artificers were also hunted down and killed, bounties awarded. Those two wide-spread efforts were a result of the dangerous magicks and things that wizards and artificers had brought into the world, and the ensuing ruin of vast swathes of the land. Again, no universities of magic. (Mind you, nobles and very rich people have been known to keep an arcanist on retainer, on the down low, for their own purposes).

Psionic Sublcasses:

Nobody has showed an interest in them yet, so I have not bothered. My idea is that they are kind of related to the GOO Warlock. That psionic-ish power came from somewhere "out there" ... but that may change if anyone plays one.

[RedMage125]

"College" for me is neither a university nor an institution; it's more a 'school of thought' or 'outlook on life' combined with 'life experience' that informs how this traveling person grows. Bards of all sorts are, in my worlds, quick learners and adapters, self-taught in many things, polymaths, or the older term renaissance man (or woman). And they need not use musical instruments: song, chant, drums and poetry are also powerful applications of the residual effects of the Song of Creation ... and so on.

Ah...I should have been more clear. Yeas, when talking about the subclass "College of eloquence/lore/etc", the term "college" means as you have described.
However, I've been using this setting since before 5e, and already called their training academies "colleges" as well. I guess I should have clarified that a lot of those institutions aren't just "we train bards". Like I mentioned at the opening of my OP, people go to be trained as "Swordmages". What class and subclass they are when they leave depends on what aspects of their training they were best at. So 3 graduates, who may even all be good friends, came out as an Eldritch Knight, a Bladesinger Wizard, and a Valor (or Swords) Bard. I'll fix ghe wording in the OP...

I only go with that, I do not apply modern day city structures to my D&D pseudo-medieval population centers. (I also don't have magic marts). Personal taste.

Funny, my "personal taste" was aligned with yours for a long time. However, my new philosophy is that a class is really just a collecvtion of game mechanics, and could be telling an entirely different story than the default fluff.
Barbarians don't necessarily have to be "warriors in the wilderness", for example. An Ancestral Guardian Barbarian might have been a city dweller who is possessed by ghosts. That's what their rage is. And these ghosts sometimes manifest, too.
So I didn't want Monks to ONLY be "actually trained in a monastery". But figured they needed SOME training to have learned to use their body as a weapon. One of my cities has a War College, for example. They train tacticians, students of history, and warriors of all kinds. Most varieties of Fighter could come from there, as well as Swordmages, and War Wizards, and even Kensei Monks.
I also don't see Drunken Master Monks as being very "I trained in a peaceful monastery, and meditated frequently" types. Whcih is why that archetype ONLY comes from the newer city-based institutions.

Yes, but I make an exception for Vengeance Oath paladins. They are in a unique place, given how their oath is formed and what it empowers. Have not encountered any need for an Oathbreaker yet.

I did the same. Most Vengeance Oaths are taken on an individual basis.

I have added domain spells for the Draconic and Shadow sorcerer who play in our games. They need almost no further input from me. As with rogues, they can come form any walk of life; they follow the magic that's in their blood.

I'm curious what spells made that list. Is it "free spells known", or "spells not normally on the sorc list that you CAN take as spell known"? And you didn't add any for Storm or Wild Magic?

Hexblades don't exist in my world. I work with the player to flesh out the relationship they have with their patron. (I agree with you about the Raven Queen; she has some potential that requires a bit of DM work to realize).

A lot of people had an issue with that one, but Hexblades are popular. So I decided to work around it as "you're just a martially bent version of some other pact".
The only character in existing fantasy that I can identify as a Hexblade is He-Man.

Nobody has showed an interest in them yet, so I have not bothered. My idea is that they are kind of related to the GOO Warlock. That psionic-ish power came from somewhere "out there" ... but that may change if anyone plays one.

Yeah, I only ask that the player define where the power came from. Exposure to psionic energy, perhaps. In 4e, I had a Dwarven Battlemind whose backstory was that his mother had been captured and enslaved by Mind Flayers, and he was conceived in the pens. So he was exposed to their psychic energies in the womb. She was rescued before he was born, but the character was born with latent psionic talent that he learned to harness.
That kind of thing.

[Yora]

Bards are priests. And sages, mystics, teachers, and arbitrators. They are the kind of people others look to for guidance on complicated things they don't understand. The words of bards are not law, and they have no legal authority unless they hold an office that grants it. But they carry great weight in the public perception, an arguing against a bard's advice on public matters can look very bad on anyone's reputation. Claiming bards lack wisdom because they argued against your position makes you just look petty and selfish.
Bard's special abilities to affect minds don't come from music, but from speaking with divine authority, as they are regarded to be divinely inspired and have fundamental insights into the nature of reality. All bards use oration to manifest their powers, often by quoting or referencing sacred texts with supernatural conviction and certainty.
Bards can still give terrible advice or be out for personal gain, but their charisma and social reputation can still sell it to the people.

That particular setting does not have clerics.

Druid circles of the land are not specific organizations, but regional customs based on the spirits of the land where the druids learn their spells. The setting has six primary countries, and the spirits of each teach druids different spells, of the arctic, coast, forest, grassland, mountain, ad swamp circles.
Wild shaping is a form of possession by animal spirits, so the available forms depend not on the animals a druid is familiar with, but the animals that inhabit the environment the druid is currently in.

[KorvinStarmast]

However, my new philosophy is that a class is really just a collection of game mechanics...

We certainly part ways in that regard.

So I didn't want Monks to ONLY be "actually trained in a monastery".
I also don't see Drunken Master Monks as being very "I trained in a peaceful monastery, and meditated frequently" types. Whcih is why that archetype ONLY comes from the newer city-based institutions.

Not sure how familiar you are with Shaolin Temple boxing, but I became aware of it in high school. I see the Drunken Master as a monk who left the cloister and stumbled (pun intended) into the hard reality of life outside the cloister, and has thus found solace in the bottle now and again when the ivory tower teachings of his monastic tutors doesn't match his experiences. But I agree that drunken master does fit into a more urban (town/city/port) character framework. The one in my Salt Marsh campaign has a noble background, comes from a mountainous region, had developed a drinking problem (which resulted in her heading somewhere secluded to dry out). She was on a trip to 'dry out a bit' after back sliding when the shipwreck happened and she ended up in the place where all of the level 1 PCs were.

I'm curious what spells made that list. Is it "free spells known", or "spells not normally on the sorc list that you CAN take as spell known"? And you didn't add any for Storm or Wild Magic?

I'll follow up later, can't get r20 open at the moment.

A lot of people had an issue with that one, but Hexblades are popular.

*shrugs* I instead tweaked pact of the blade slightly.

Yeah, I only ask that the player define where the power came from. Exposure to psionic energy, perhaps.

I didn't do 4e - had been out of the hobby for about a decade before 5e brought me back. I like your concept, though.

[RedMage125]

Bards are priests.

*also druid stuff*

That's pretty dope. I like the idea of changing up the default tropes of the classes.

Back in 4e, I had a player play a Shaman who was a middle-aged widower and a hermit who thought he was going mad when a rock began speaking to him. Then it eventually convinced him that he was actually a "World Speaker" and that he'd been called to service by the Primal Spirits of the world. It helped that the first other people he met was the party Druid and Barbarian, who both immediately recognized the kind of abilities he was using as Primal gifts and accepted him as "not crazy".

We certainly part ways in that regard.

And that's cool, too. I don't mind when I sit at a table and the DM only has classes fit with the default fluff*. I've tried to make my world a place where someone who wants to go with default fluff finds something that resonates, as well as a few options that deviate.

*Honestly, I'd only have an issue if the DM started trying to dictate how I played my character. As for what I mean by that...a few years ago, there was thread on here titled like..."Roleplaying Rules" or some such. And the OP of that thread LITERALLY said that the RAW had "rules for how certain classes had to be roleplayed". For example, he said if you had a Barbarian PC and were not "uncomfortable in cities", then you were playing wrong, or house ruling, because the PHB "says all barbarians are uncomfortable in cities". GTFOH with that crap...

Not sure how familiar you are with Shaolin Temple boxing, but I became aware of it in high school. I see the Drunken Master as a monk who left the cloister and stumbled (pun intended) into the hard reality of life outside the cloister, and has thus found solace in the bottle now and again when the ivory tower teachings of his monastic tutors doesn't match his experiences. But I agree that drunken master does fit into a more urban (town/city/port) character framework. The one in my Salt Marsh campaign has a noble background, comes from a mountainous region, had developed a drinking problem (which resulted in her heading somewhere secluded to dry out). She was on a trip to 'dry out a bit' after back sliding when the shipwreck happened and she ended up in the place where all of the level 1 PCs were.

That's kind of the background for how I rule DM style started in my world. It was a talented student who had a drinking problem, and liked to go carouse in town. He'd get in lots of bar fights, and he started adapting those techniques into his style. He was kicked out for being a disgrace, but he opened his own school. The style is relatively recent in my world, I'd say only a few decades old. The highest level NPC practitioner of the style is, I would say, no more than 15th level.

I'll follow up later, can't get r20 open at the moment.

Dope. Please do.

*shrugs* I instead tweaked pact of the blade slightly.

So...the CHA to attack part? Do they get Medium Armor/shields?

I didn't do 4e - had been out of the hobby for about a decade before 5e brought me back. I like your concept, though.

Thanks!
I'm pretty lenient with the "restriction" of what I call "Yellow Light" in my world. Often all that means is that I'm actually going to insist on some backstory. Or perhaps a required element (in the Races thread, I mentioned that Drow PCs can be from one of two communities of drow on the surface. No "underdark rebels". I've dealt with too many Driz'zt clones).

[KorvinStarmast]

And that's cool, too. I don't mind when I sit at a table and the DM only has classes fit with the default fluff*.

Just as an alert: I have no patience for the fluff/crunch distinction that 4e codified, and in the past few years have become quite annoyed at how it is used in forum discussions. The dismissive tone just gets my back up.

For example, he said if you had a Barbarian PC and were not "uncomfortable in cities", then you were playing wrong, or house ruling, because the PHB "says all barbarians are uncomfortable in cities". GTFOH with that crap...

Yeah, that's a bit much.

So...the CHA to attack part? Do they get Medium Armor/shields?

The latter sans shield, and the former only with pact weapon. Invocations added, of course.

Shadow Origin Sorcerer:
Arms of Hadar, Shadow Blade, Clairvoyance, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, Enervation.

Draconic Origin: hmm, the character has been messing with the spell sheet on r20 due to getting a ring of spell storing and trying to indicate how and when those spells are available, but in so doing has deleted a lot of stuff off of his char sheet. Not sure what the hell is going on there.
I have no idea what he's done with my offered domain spells from last month.
He can only play now and again.
I'll have to work with him to resurrect them.
OK from my old notes:
Cause Fear, Suggestion, Elemental Weapon, Raulothim's Psychic Lance, Dominate Person

[NovenFromTheSun]

Bards

While all spellcasters interact with the Winds of Dreams at some point, but bards are the ones most tied to them. The Winds of Dreams take what’s in the minds of the inhabitants of Resphar and reflect them back onto the land, so the ones most often working with the thoughts and feelings of people would be the most in tune with the Winds. I’m going to have to take another look at their spells again though, there are also evil winds, and if that’s true about bards they should be able to banish those.

Clerics
Something about Resphar seems to repel the beings called gods of other lands, so the Respharans have taken to more esoteric faiths devoted to mysterious creators from beyond time or primordial forces underlaying the planes. A common element is the “Is”, a personification of the Positive Energy Plane, and the “Is Not”, a principle that includes the Negative Energy Plane, but possibly others (even the Material) according to the telling. The presence of miracle-workers shows that something is reaching into the land, but what is another question. Twilight domain works with the Winds of Dreams, while Nature domain works with the mind of Resphar even if they don’t worship it.

Druids and Rangers
The bid thing that druids and rangers have to deal with is that Resphar itself is alive and at least semi-intelligent. Some worship it, but all of them at some point have to ask if Resphar is working toward some agenda, or just reacting to events as they come. Circle of Dreams druids are more associated with the Winds of Dreams.

Fighters and Barbarians
During the Empire of Elucinor it was customary for all able-bodies folk to receive some combat training. With the evil winds and Resphars unpredictable deeds, danger could appear anywhere. So fighters and barbarians could come from anywhere, drawn from the people who really took to the skills of a militia. This tradition persisted even after the empire’s collapse.

Of special note are rune knights. Elucinor was ruled by the Engraved Emperor, a sapient golem built to contain and direct the collected knowledge and philosophy of the inhabitants. The noble class would engrave the same runes used to build the Emperor on their armor, meaning that runs knights are more associated with golems than giants.

Monks
I’m still coming up with ideas for them, but I think ki could be involved with how people contribute to the Winds of Dreams.

Paladins
In the old empire paladins were those that “watched the ones watching the watchmen”. While nobles and guards enforced the laws of Elucinor, the paladins enforced the principles those laws were based on when the law strayed from them. As chaotic as that sounds, this system was set up by the Engraved Emperor itself. This makes crown and conquest paladins rare, but some have arisen after the collapse.

More troubling is an order of “the Knights of Annihilation”, who tame oozes and seek to think the only way to save Resphar from its cycle of glory and desolation is to wipe it clean.

Rogues
Militias in poorer and wilder places often trained to fight more like rogues than fighters, given the the lack of access to advance weapons and armor. Other than that they’re not much different than normal rogues.

Sorcerers
With the numerous mystical phenomena both in the land and the air, sorcerers aren’t that rare. During the empire they were expected to learn magical theory so even now there isn’t a big difference in perception between wizards and sorcerers being members of the intelligencia.

Warlocks
Not much different, but patrons can sometimes be creations of the Winds of Dreams rather than from other planes.

Wizards
It’s said the founder of the first institute of arcane knowledge declared that “the aim of magic is to create a world that no longer needs it.” While few wizards today take their philosophy to that extreme, it is the root of the problem many have with artificers, as the later are accused of trying to make a society that would fall apart if an anti-magic field looked at it funny. Adherents to the original saying became marginalized in the Empire of Elucinor, what with the rule by golem, but their experiencing a comeback know, with some out to make that world come about sooner rather than later….

Artificers
At the bottom rather than top due to relying on a larger amount of lore. There were few artificers besides alchemists before Elucinor, but in its time they became a mainstay. Their studies on the Engraved Emperor brought many automatons into use, some of which are still maintained to this day. After the collapse, the wealth needed to support their activities dwindled, but the knowledge to at least repair the devises they made is still in circulation.

[RedMage125]

Just as an alert: I have no patience for the fluff/crunch distinction that 4e codified, and in the past few years have become quite annoyed at how it is used in forum discussions. The dismissive tone just gets my back up.

I don't mean to be rude, but I am genuinely confused by what you mean. You don't like...the way people separate fluff from crunch?

Shadow Origin Sorcerer:
Arms of Hadar, Shadow Blade, Clairvoyance, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, Enervation.

Draconic Origin:
Cause Fear, Suggestion, Elemental Weapon, Raulothim's Psychic Lance, Dominate Person

Only those two? Or are those the only ones you've had to make this for? So, like, if someone wanted to play a Storm Sorc, would you come up with a list for them as well?

For starters, I am going to assume that "Resphar" is the name of your world, correct? This stuff is pretty cool.

Of special note are rune knights. Elucinor was ruled by the Engraved Emperor, a sapient golem built to contain and direct the collected knowledge and philosophy of the inhabitants. The noble class would engrave the same runes used to build the Emperor on their armor, meaning that runs knights are more associated with golems than giants.

That's pretty sweet. I dig it.

Monks
I’m still coming up with ideas for them, but I think ki could be involved with how people contribute to the Winds of Dreams.

If you're looking for ideas, what if Monks are a part of a tradition that involves channeling the Winds through their physical bodies, using their body as the focus/conduit? That would explain extra movement speed, the ki abilities (to include extra attacks), the Slow Fall, and a lot more. Open Hand and Drunken Master traditions being the most purely focused traditions of this, which would also make the other Monk subclasses kind of akin to "multiclassing". Mercy tapping into the Winds the same way clerics do. Shadow tapping in the same way Shadow Sorcs do, with Sun Souls being the opposite. Kensei being the mixing with the warrior traditions you mentioned. Astral Self and 4 Elements being a bit more unique.

Just a thought, based on what you've got here.

I love all of it, though! Nice take on things.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't mean to be rude, but I am genuinely confused by what you mean. You don't like...the way people separate fluff from crunch?

I find the term, and its most common usage and tone, (granted, I mostly participate on the 5e board) inane at best because in 5e there is no such distinction. That 4e chose to create one has (IME) poisoned subsequent discourse.

Only those two? Or are those the only ones you've had to make this for? So, like, if someone wanted to play a Storm Sorc, would you come up with a list for them as well?

Yes, I only came up with the ones for the players at my table; I posted a link a few months back to a GMbinder.com web site (I got pointed to it by another poster in a previous discussion) that has a boat load of suggestions. The title of the file is Sorcerous Origin Spells; a google might get you to it, but I didn't cut and paste from that, but used it to help inform my idea generation..

I don't feel a need to add to that, many others have done so already. I like to work with my players on stuff like this since it's a form of homebrew, which is for me a cooperative exercise as a best practice.
I see no reason to homebrew something that isn't going to be played. I have enough stuff to do as it is.

I may have made some suggestions in that thread, but at the moment I am not sure how far back in time it is. Last year, maybe?

here are a couple of threads on that:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...s+origin+spell

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...s+origin+spell

Another one that was brainstorming
https://forums.giantitp.com/showsing...8&postcount=14

Here's a thread I enjoyed on the topic.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...ubclass-Spells

This is a decent line up for Storm Sorcerer, from one of those threads:

1 - Fog Cloud; 2 - Gust of Wind; 3 - Call Lightning; 4 - Conjure Minor Elementals (only dust, steam, smoke, & ice mephits as per the original UA); 5 - Conjure (Air) Elemental as per the original UA

I would use Ice Storm rather than Conjure Minor Elemental, personally, do avoid action economy clutter.

[Dienekes]

I regularly only use four classes - fighter, thief specialist, magic-user and cleric - plus sometimes additional ones for demi- or non-humans, such as halfling, dwarf and elf, for which you can take a look at the other thread.

A nomadic barbarian and a knight in shining armor are both fighters - the difference is in wealth, equipment and tactics used, languages spoken etc. things, not which class they happen to be. A game honest-to-God doesn't need ten different classes for people who fight once you pay attention to all the things that actually set those people apart.

Hmm, I would say I disagree to a point. Creating classes, a mechanical construct, to differentiate between similar classes can work fine. Provided, the mechanics enforce the fantasy and gameplay desired to capture the concept.

For the Barbarian/Fighter comparison, they both can be lumped together into just a generic warrior. But if you set up the Fighter as the highly trained combatant that relies on techniques and stances and discipline, while making the Barbarian for those who attack with more aggression than training you can more easily capture both experiences by creating classes whose mechanics portray the desired playstyles.

Which isn’t to say WotC have always done a very good job of all that. But, I can see a reason for different variations of the same general theme of warrior, caster, etc. to exist in a single game.

Anyway, to get to the actual question of the thread. I had a Barbarian character awhile back who was possessed by a demon, and the rage effect was essentially the demon coming to the forefront, taking over the characters body and wrecking merry havoc on anything.

[Vahnavoi]

I'll echo the distaste towards arbitrary fluff-crunch-distinctions. The simpler system you're using, the less sense it makes. That is, if most of your mechanics already boil to, say, rolling a twenty-sided die and adding or substracting small numbers from the result, there is no difference between "refluffing" a mechanic versus adding a new one. On the flipside, if you are using more differianted mechanics, the whole point to that is that the different mechanics model different things better - by "refluffing" them, you are using a mechanic tailor made for one thing for another thing it doesn't model well, or otherwise undermining the very purpose of those differentiated mechanics.

---

Hmm, I would say I disagree to a point. Creating classes, a mechanical construct, to differentiate between similar classes can work fine. Provided, the mechanics enforce the fantasy and gameplay desired to capture the concept.

You speak as if wealth, language, equipment choice etc. distinctions that exist within a class don't already differentiate characters from one another.

For the Barbarian/Fighter comparison, they both can be lumped together into just a generic warrior. But if you set up the Fighter as the highly trained combatant that relies on techniques and stances and discipline, while making the Barbarian for those who attack with more aggression than training you can more easily capture both experiences by creating classes whose mechanics portray the desired playstyles.

Or, here's a wild idea: you capture difference by actually doing things differently in the game. The guy who is running at you half-naked wielding a shield and axe is already distinct from the guy forming a shield wall with his twenty friends and advancing in formation, even if they're both of the same class.

Which isn’t to say WotC have always done a very good job of all that. But, I can see a reason for different variations of the same general theme of warrior, caster, etc. to exist in a single game.

WotC screwed up things from day 1 and has always done a bad job with their own d20 system. They've only got close to doing it right in Unearthed Arcana variant rules.

In a system with widely available customization structures such as skills and feats, a sane design has LESS classes and uses said customization structures to differentiate characters. The logical end-point of that is, of course, a system where instead of picking a class for abilities, you pick abilities to make your class. Instead, WotC era D&D inherited all class bloat of AD&D and then added on top of it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Instead, WotC era D&D inherited all class bloat of AD&D and then added on top of it.

Is this before or after Prestige classes?

[Vahnavoi]

Differentiating between the two is meaningless for this purpose. For example, Assassin is sub-class of Thief in 1st edition AD&D, omitted from basic rules in 2nd edition AD&D, and returns as a prestige class in 3rd edition. Paladin was a magazine addition to OD&D, codified as Fighter subclass in 1st Edition AD&D, 3rd edition core has it as a base class and Unearther Arcana adds a prestige class variant on top of that. So on and so forth.

[Dienekes]

I'll echo the distaste towards arbitrary fluff-crunch-distinctions. The simpler system you're using, the less sense it makes. That is, if most of your mechanics already boil to, say, rolling a twenty-sided die and adding or substracting small numbers from the result, there is no difference between "refluffing" a mechanic versus adding a new one. On the flipside, if you are using more differianted mechanics, the whole point to that is that the different mechanics model different things better - by "refluffing" them, you are using a mechanic tailor made for one thing for another thing it doesn't model well, or otherwise undermining the very purpose of those differentiated mechanics.

---



You speak as if wealth, language, equipment choice etc. distinctions that exist within a class don't already differentiate characters from one another.



Or, here's a wild idea: you capture difference by actually doing things differently in the game. The guy who is running at you half-naked wielding a shield and axe is already distinct from the guy forming a shield wall with his twenty friends and advancing in formation, even if they're both of the same class.



WotC screwed up things from day 1 and has always done a bad job with their own d20 system. They've only got close to doing it right in Unearthed Arcana variant rules.

In a system with widely available customization structures such as skills and feats, a sane design has LESS classes and uses said customization structures to differentiate characters. The logical end-point of that is, of course, a system where instead of picking a class for abilities, you pick abilities to make your class. Instead, WotC era D&D inherited all class bloat of AD&D and then added on top of it.

Of course that can all be done. Riddle of Steel does a great job of differentiating between what someone does based off of equipment, wealth, race, and all that so everyone plays differently.

However, that's a very, very different system from d20's everything is a roll a d20+ modifiers to solve all life's problems. And of course, RoS does a terrible job implementing any sort of rage feature, so if that was your thing that's out.

But to get a more interesting example. There have been games (not D&D admittedly) where the actual act of following your oath is what grants you power. Iron Heroes did a lot of this sort of thing. You'd probably hate it. But what it accomplished was really tailoring the experience of playing classes to the fantasy of it in a way that is usually far more exact and less prone to minmaxing than being able to cherry pick abilities from a wide list.

Like, let's ignore the Fighter/Barbarian and instead go with something like Knight and Swashbuckler. They can both just be Fighters with the exact same abilities and just their equipment different. Or you can make systems where a Knight has various armor abilities and a mechanic around following or breaking their vows and how that interacts with the world around them, able to inspire themselves and others. You can have mechanics specifically created to fulfill the knight fantasy as precisely as you can. And the Swashbuckler might go completely different, with abilities about their movement, and dashing tricks of charismatic mockery to get that Dread Pirate Roberts/Wesley feel, with bonuses given to just how flamboyant you can make your turn.

Or, you can just make the Fighter and give them a list of abilities that the player can pick from that may or may not make a cohesive character. The first one tries to create the best experience for a given fantasy concept. The Second one tries to create open platter of design.

Neither is really better. If one was, then either GURPS or Palladium would have dominated the market by now. There's really just give and take for the benefits and extremes of each.

[Vahnavoi]

They can both just be Fighters with the exact same abilities and just their equipment different.

This is an oxymoronic statement. In a system that pays any attention to equipment, having different equipment leads to different abilities. That is part of the point here. If you spend your money on plate armor, a horse and a lance, you will be doing different things in a game than if you spend it on a buckler, a rapier and a boat.

[Dienekes]

This is an oxymoronic statement. In a system that pays any attention to equipment, having different equipment leads to different abilities. That is part of the point here. If you spend your money on plate armor, a horse and a lance, you will be doing different things in a game than if you spend it on a buckler, a rapier and a boat.

But does using an axe give you Rage like you’re a wild berserker? Does using a rapier come with skill tricks to taunt a foe and swing from the rafters like a swashbuckler? Does using a lance create the honor codes of being a knight?

Maybe it does. I’ve never seen a system pull that off well. I’ve seen some try to get everything and they tend to work ok once a person has a lot of system mastery to be able to pick and choose through a wide list. But often they become kind of a mush as everyone learns and picks the best abilities, ending up with a character that is certainly effective, but most often can’t quite get the feel of something tailor made to create a specific fantasy.

That’s the debate here really. The freedom to make whatever the system allows, or the ability of the designers to create an experience for the player.

Both can work. Some prefer one, some prefer another.

[SteveLightblade]

First of all, thanks for the shout out. As a new user, this means a lot to me. For my Pathfinder homebrew setting for my own starting post, these were my fluff changes

Core

Barbarians: Warriors who have totally devoted themselves to the philosophy of the war god of the pantheon of Definitely Not Scandinavia (although the religion isn't exactly reskinned Norse/Germanic mythology). They believe that since this god granted humans the only three gifts needed: will, strength, and steel. In order to gain the god's favor, they engage in battle to use and perfect these three gifts, believing it will give them a favored place in the afterlife. They generally despise magic users (with the exception of their tribe/clan/city druids for being intermediaries for the other gods/spirits), and believe that those who cast spells in battle will be kept out of the afterlife for unfairly altering the course of battle. These usually make up the warrior elite of the region, similar to knights/men at arms in other regions, and are referred to by their people as Berserkers if male and Shield Maidens if female.

Bards: Pretty standard, but either find themselves as either military musicians who help armies keep cadence, court minstrels, travelling musicians who usually aren't that wealthy

Clerics: Clergy for gods of organized religions. Nothing changed here, except that the cleric's god has to be worshipped in some organized structure instead of some people doing sacrifices in the woods.

Druids: Clergy for gods of unorganized religions, as well intermediaries for nature and ancestral spirits. Unlike clerics, who try to bridge the gap between mortals and the god/s (there is a "monotheistic" pantheon in the setting, although referring to it as such is complicated), druids are actually trying to placate, persuade, or intimidate the spirits into either giving in to their demands or to leave people alone. To a druid, the forces of nature are not something to be revered, but rather venerated until they can force their will upon it.

Fighters: Professional soldiers in all of it's forms. This includes knights. Everyone knows what a fighter is. Even people who don't play RPGs know what a fighter is.

Monks: Followers of a religion that comes from Totally Not the Gupta Empire which involves self mastery and enlightenment via attunement with ki, the universal flow. The original monks were exiled from the nation due to it's beliefs clashing with the state religion, and so they spread out across the world. However, this belief isn't unified, and is followed by isolated sects who splinter off into other sects once the original form becomes too vanilla for some. As a result, many monks will go around to even seek enlightenment as sects of one (which most adventuring monks are) and will even engage in "gang wars" with other monk sects.

Paladins: Originally the followers of a specific sect of the monotheistic religion of the setting, and many claims to be descendant of the philosophy and battle doctrine of the original followers of said religion, whose origin story definitely doesn't take cues from The Song of Roland (sarcastic obviously). Because they are the only group that believes that all gods exist, spread to form groups within all cultures and religions of the area. While usually hated by certain extreme groups in which they interact with, are usually respected and integrated with the chivalric orders due to the central tenets of fighting for the dignity and welfare of all. The form of non organized paladins are adventuring knight errants who fight not necessarily to proselytize and spread their faith, but to correct injustices of the world, guided by the code of their religious tenets and the legends carried down by their order to ensure good prevails in the world. Basically what I tried to do here is move away from the lawful stupid paladin, which is something that I especially hate due to the paladin being my favorite class in both fluff and crunch.

Rangers: Mostly orphaned children raised by five specific mercenary groups that exist apart from national boundaries and specialize in fighting in select environments and fighting styles. Many of their combat and magic techniques are trade secrets kept secret through both indoctrination and a sense of solidarity with solely their ranger "school". Most of them are wandering soldiers for hire, either as individuals or in small groups, and work on a job by job basis rather than being hired for a period of time like other mercenaries. Basically, most of them are individuals raised from their youth to be hitmen.

Rogues: Thieves, assassins, and all other manner of sneaky people as usual. However, the thing that makes them stand out is that they almost always are usually gain their self training in urban environments, and are basically always from the dregs of society, although this might not be so uncommon.

Sorcerers: Do not exist within the setting. I don't ban classes on principle, so if someone plays one, they are the only one and have to make up their own origin.

Wizards: The academic elite within most societies, and are usually trained within academies that keeps out the common folk. Wizards usually come from noble families, and work for them in noble courts, usually as diviners, as well as military advisors and strategic planners. While they largely work with spells, wizards also work in conventional knowledge, as well as technological development. However, some of them slip through the cracks, and "hedge wizards" end up training commoners for whatever reason to become spellcasters outside of the regular structures of society.

Base

Alchemists: Wizards but a little different, and are usually conflated.

Cavaliers: See fighters. Usually knights, but don't have to be.

Gunslingers: As much as I love guns, and the idea of putting cowboys in fantasy, do not exist in this specific setting.

Inquisitors: A subset of rangers who find themselves within the ranks of the religious zealots. Inquisitor groups usually find themselves in conflict with paladins, and engage in secret wars within the nearby paladin sects.

Magi: Rare polymaths who, unlike wizards, learn a wide array of knowledge, including martial knowledge. Their spellstrike ability and mixing arcane casting with melee fighting usually stems from learning combat not from battlefield experience and on the ground training, but from book knowledge and experimentation. Magi usually form their own small discipleships that end up forming their own once achieving a certain degree of mastery. While the paladin seeks to rid the world of injustice, the magus seeks to rid the world of ignorance.

Oracles: Usually don't exist. See sorcerer.

Summoners: Wizards but a little different, and are usually conflated.

Witches: Clerics, but of evil gods and of the dark powers which exist in the universe. Must be evil.

[Vahnavoi]

But does using an axe give you Rage like you’re a wild berserker? Does using a rapier come with skill tricks to taunt a foe and swing from the rafters like a swashbuckler? Does using a lance create the honor codes of being a knight?

Maybe it does. I’ve never seen a system pull that off well. I’ve seen some try to get everything and they tend to work ok once a person has a lot of system mastery to be able to pick and choose through a wide list. But often they become kind of a mush as everyone learns and picks the best abilities, ending up with a character that is certainly effective, but most often can’t quite get the feel of something tailor made to create a specific fantasy.

That’s the debate here really. The freedom to make whatever the system allows, or the ability of the designers to create an experience for the player.

Both can work. Some prefer one, some prefer another.

You are missing the forest for the trees here. The general principle at work here is that creating class-based mechanical difference for a playstyle when playstyle already generates mechanical differences is at best pointless. At worst, you aren't facilitating a playstyle, you are creating a double-unlock situation where you can't get away with anything during a game because you didn't choose the right class at the beginning. This was genuinely one of the biggest contributing reasons to game balance issues with Fighters in 3rd edition AND class bloat on the martial side.

The rapier-tricking example is the best one in that regard. Under basic rules of d20, a Fighter is proficient with all martial weapons and can feint, disarm, etc. by default. Why would he need anything more than access to a rapier to do rapier tricks, then? Or why is your CLASS more important to swinging from rafters, rather than the presence of rafters and using movement options available to all?

Ditto for raging. If you decide to huff mushrooms and charge into combat half-naked, you are already benefiting from higher movement rate due to no armor, offensive bonuses due to charging and aggressive fighting, and defense penalties as their flipside. Why do you need something more to play berserk? Rage as a mechanic has been justly criticised for purposelessly gatekeeping a basic tactic behind it since its inception. Wondering if it's an axe giving the ability to go berserk is missing the point - whether it's a cursed axe or mushrooms driving you nuts, it's about choosing to employ the tactic and doing something IN THE GAME (wielding the axe, sniffing the mushrooms), as opposed to choosing to employ the tactic and do something in the game being ineffective because you didn't pick the right class.

Wondering if it's a lance creating honor codes is even worse. Historically and societally, key part of being recognized and acknowledged as a knight is being able to acquire and maintain the equipment of a knight. The entire question is backwards: it's the honor code demanding that knight has a lance, and by making following a code a part of class mechanics, you give the impression that other classes are excused from interacting with overarching setting elements.

Your point about system mastery is talking past me. All systems can optimized - that is, if you have a system with a lot of classes but little customization within classes, you will get people arguing what is the best class, the metagame will settle around players picking some classes over others, and this will create a specific experience. That's orthogonal to a designer's ability to craft that experience - maybe they meant some class to be the best pick, and resulting experience was their intent, or maybe it's an unintententional result of them screwing up game balance. A debate about "freedom to make whatever a system allows" versus "ability of a designer to create an experience" is a very boring one, because in a competently designed game there is little to no conflict between the two. What I'm actually debating is practical implementation of delivering an experience.

[KorvinStarmast]

Differentiating between the two is meaningless for this purpose. For example, Assassin is sub-class of Thief in 1st edition AD&D, omitted from basic rules in 2nd edition AD&D, and returns as a prestige class in 3rd edition. Paladin was a magazine addition to OD&D, codified as Fighter subclass in 1st Edition AD&D, 3rd edition core has it as a base class and Unearther Arcana adds a prestige class variant on top of that. So on and so forth.

OK, I guess we are getting back to: any and all sub classes are bloat.

Spoiler: a few points of correction

Show

Ranger was a magazine addition (Strategic Review, if you can call that a magazine, it was more of a newsletter) and Paladin was added in Greyhawk, which was supplement 1 (not Dragon Magazine).
Prestige classes in 3.x were "you need this many levels in something and then you get this class" which only Bard did in AD&D (1e).
Druids sub classes of clerics etc.
But you had to roll/get certain min scores for that "special" sub class when you tried to be an illusionist, druid, paladin, ranger. (is that the point you are driving at?)
Paladin in OD&D and AD&D wasn't a prestige class, it was a Fighter sub class. (As was Ranger)
(Or were you equating paladin to a prestige class?)
I am not sure what you are trying to get at here by using those examples.
My guess is that to you sub classes was bloat, and it started with the Strat Review. (Ranger and Illusionist) and Greyhawk (Paladin).

Not sure if you are familiar with Delta's D&D Hot Spot, but he found Clerics to be class bloat. Magic Users and Fighters are the basic units.

Something Empire of the Petal Throne did that D&D no longer does (and something AD&D did with weapons proficiencies increasing at various level points) was require one to level up in order to add a weapons proficiency. (I liked the AD&D 1e Weapons specialization feature, not everyone did).

As I looked through the Empire of the Petal throne skill table you'd get spear right away, but to get cross bow or "sword and dagger" you'd have had to roll high amd/or level up. (Warrior) Is that the kind of thing you are referring to in terms of class progression and 'doing things differently with different equipment' as this discussion has progressed? Unlocking weapons proficiencies becomes an emergent growth of a character rather than a front loaded bit, and various weapons are gated/locked behind class boundaries.

Are you advocating for that, or no?

[SteveLightblade]

A major change I make, especially in pre 4e editions (which is most of the time, since my group plays a lot of 3e/PF) is that I largely ignore class alignment restrictions. Barbarians and Bards can be lawful, Monks can be chaotic, and the only reason I care about your alignment is if spells or magic items are involved. The only one I really care about are paladins, as I will allow any good aligned character to be a paladin, although every person who has ever played one at my table wanted to be lawful good, and if you want to be evil pick antipaladin. Basically, when it comes to alignment and all that it entails is that I say to choose the two words that most sounds like your character's moral compass and I will never bring it up again in a non mechanical context.

[Jophiel]

I don't care for how vanilla dragons have become so my games have very little "draconic" stuff that isn't actually umpteen tons of reptilian murder-engine. For sorcerers, the Draconic lineage is refluffed as Elemental: pick a prime type but also get a stony skin, fly aloft on the wind, speak Elemental tongues, etc.

[Shpadoinkle]

The primary fluff changes I've made are to meldshapers (3.5e classes from the Magic of Incarnum boook) and veilweavers (PF1 classes from Akashic Mysteries, which is basically the Pathfinder conversion of Magic of Incarnum with some different flavor text.)

Specifically, I've pretty much reskinned them as various martial arts traditions. Instead of shaping soulmelds or veils, practitioners are aligning their chakras, or focusing their ki, or priming their reflexes and reactions for a particular fighting style or whatever.

And you know what? It works perfectly. Totemists' natural attacks perfectly replace unarmed strikes. They even let you build characters who have different fighting styles, with minimal effort. Someone with Landshark Boots bound to their totem chakra (which grants you four claw attacks, one on each limb, and if you start your round within reach of an enemy you can make a Jump check to make an attack with all four of them at once,) fights different than someone who has Manticore Belt bound to it (as Manticore Belt lets you launch a volley of spikes as a Standard action, which you can easily reflavor as a hadouken or a kamehameha or whatever,) and they both have different preferences for their chosen fighting style from the guy who has Rageclaws bound to his totem chakra (which just grant you a pair of claw attacks, but you can still act normally at negative HP and automatically stabilize.)

Totemists also get a bunch of abilities that they can use all day, which duplicate various mythical Eastern martial arts abilities. Teleport short distances, make enormous leaps, grant themselves a bonus to their natural armor, even fly at later levels.

Incarnates also make a great standin for these types of characters, with some reflavoring and minor mechanical adjustments. Dissolving Spittle grants an acid-damage ranged touch attack, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to allow it to deal any type of energy damage (though you'd have to choose which type you're going to deal with it when you shape it for the day,) which again makes a great replacement for ranged ki attacks.

Likewise, with some minor reflavoring the Akashic Mysteries classes can make great standins for these kinds of characters, though I don't have any examples off the top of my head because I'm not as familiar with that book.

[NovenFromTheSun]

If you're looking for ideas, what if Monks are a part of a tradition that involves channeling the Winds through their physical bodies, using their body as the focus/conduit? That would explain extra movement speed, the ki abilities (to include extra attacks), the Slow Fall, and a lot more. Open Hand and Drunken Master traditions being the most purely focused traditions of this, which would also make the other Monk subclasses kind of akin to "multiclassing". Mercy tapping into the Winds the same way clerics do. Shadow tapping in the same way Shadow Sorcs do, with Sun Souls being the opposite. Kensei being the mixing with the warrior traditions you mentioned. Astral Self and 4 Elements being a bit more unique.

Just a thought, based on what you've got here.

I love all of it, though! Nice take on things.

First of all I’m super sorry for not responding sooner. I took some time to think about it, then never really got back to this topic.

This idea is interesting, and I think there’s a way to make it work. But it’ll still need to fit in with the psychological aspects of the Winds I think. For context I actually came up with the evil winds first to emulate what I’ve seen in some horror stories where the enemy turns out to be an externalized part of the main character. Then I built the Winds of Dreams around it, so both good and bad tulpas can arise.

So perhaps a monk channeling the Winds are being empowered by the hopes and dreams of the people, or their fears and regrets. That’s cool, but might fit better for paladins, though there’s no reason both of them, or other classes, can do it.

Something to think about. Thank you for your response.

[Psyren]

I love refluffing 5e Artificers because I feel that the default "machinist / technologist" fluff is a big part of what turns people off the class and prevents them from giving it a try. Some examples from one of my previous posts on the subject included:

• Woodcarver: Mystogan-style staff/wand user who shapes different lengths of wood for every problem
• Calligrapher: Runescribe or Onmyoji who sketches mystic symbols onto strips of paper (ofuda) and/or her and her allies' gear using enchanted ink or even blood
• Glassmaker: Channeling magic from elaborate crystal figurines and throwing volatile ampoules at the ground
• Cartographer: Stargazer who invokes constellations and celestial bodies to smite his enemies and aid his allies
• Cook/Brewer: Magical / artisanal chef who derives power from enchanted food, drinks, and even scents/fumes
• Herbalist: A bonsai master who carries with them an array of magical plants and seeds
• Painter: An artist whose brushstrokes appear on the battlefield as spells
• Weaver: A cackling witch who cats-cradles enchanted thread between their fingertips into powerful lattices and matrices

[RedMage125]

I love refluffing 5e Artificers because I feel that the default "machinist / technologist" fluff is a big part of what turns people off the class and prevents them from giving it a try.

I dig it. This is exactly the kind of stuff I was hoping to see on this thread.

[Psyren]

I dig it. This is exactly the kind of stuff I was hoping to see on this thread.

Hopefully one of those ideas will help the Artificer to no longer be a red light class in your campaigns

I can understand why people might be reluctant to believe they can fit into a medieval or quasi-medieval setting - but they really do!

[RedMage125]

Hopefully one of those ideas will help the Artificer to no longer be a red light class in your campaigns

I can understand why people might be reluctant to believe they can fit into a medieval or quasi-medieval setting - but they really do!

Honestly, it mostly comes down to issues with the class features. Specifically the magic item replication. As well as the features of some of the subclasses (specifically artillerist and armorer). Not a great fit in terms of themes for my setting*.

Don't get me wrong, I love Eberron, and the class fits great there. And I've played an Artillerist in someone else's home game (he also used firearms). And I had a blast (pun intended).

*the key takeaway from something being red light is that "no" is only my default answer. Anyone wanting to use such an element is of course welcome to give me a pitch. If someone comes up with something unique and engaging, I may allow it. There may be caveats (like, I ask that you not use the bulk of your infusions for mass producing magic items), but creativity is always encouraged and welcome. Just going off the top of my head, but someone pitching like a rune master like you described, perhaps going Battle Smith, with a dedicated "minor golem" might work. As well as Alchemist with some of your other ideas. That's not changing the "light" classification of the class, but rather highlighting how flexible my restrictions are.