Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LordPendragon 07-31-06, 10:18 AM	What do you think about base classes needing flavour, and the alignment/behaviour restrictions that usually come about from that flavour?? Personally, I think they don't need any flavour at all. I'd prefer if there was no backstory or alignment/behaviour requirements for any base class, and that they were all just a set of game statistics to add to your character. That would let players fashion their character's backstory/personality without having to worry about what classes they have levels in. I think that roleplaying restrictions are fine for PrC's, though, since many of them are meant to be represented as in-game organizations that the character must join.
Boyos 07-31-06, 10:28 AM	So what your saying is you are game for a Chaotic Samuri or Pally. Or a Lawfull Rogue. That just dosent make sence.
LordPendragon 07-31-06, 10:51 AM	What you said makes perfect sense, if you consider a class to be a background for the character. What I'm saying is that a Rogue shouldn't be a "rogue" in game; he should just be someone who happens to have skills that are useful to rogues. Likewise, a Fighter isn't a "soldier"; he's just someone who knows how to use a sword a little better than the rest of his allies. A Barbarian shouldn't actually have to be a barbarian in character; he's just a guy who gets mad and hits things as his combat style. If you view the class features as nothing more than skillsets to acquire for your character, then really any alignment makes sense for any class. Your character's alignment should be limited by roleplaying, not by class selection. Everyone is entitled to disagree with me on this, of course. I just want to know what the general opinion on this is.
SeptimusMagistos 07-31-06, 10:57 AM	I think that messes up the whole dungeons and dragons system. The classes have always had flavor, ever since the original book. If you take that away, no new players will be attracted.
SigmaJargon 07-31-06, 11:01 AM	Two thoughts I'm having here. The first is that flavor is, in many instances, an integral part of a character. If you reduce it to the mechanical game effect, where is the magic in playing the rakish catfolk samurai with the lopsided grin? What sort of lasting fun would you get from playing the madcap, near-sighted gnome artificer whose hair is permanently singed? The second is that I agree with you that the flavor should not necessarily come from the base classes. I know that I often adapt the existing classes to fit a concept - it's a matter of choosing the closest class and then finding a good mix of skills, feats, and just plain ol' flair and imagination to create a fun, memorable, and mechanically sound character. Also, I agree with you that alignment restriction often are needlessly binding. A neutral paladin strikes for balance, an evil one to further the ends of his dark master, a chaotic one to promote freedom. The designers made a lawful good paladin because it was stereotypical and it is just simply easier to design the class abilities when they knew what alignment they were aiming at. Further, I ~really~ dislike codes of conduct. The encourage sterile, uninteresting, unimaginative characters.
Ezell Pike 07-31-06, 11:19 AM	With some classes some flavor can't be avoided like paladin and ranger. To avoid this you would need a braoder range of generic classes to suit many players. Or a classless system. Wherein you buy class abilities.
Pyke_Moonshadow 07-31-06, 12:02 PM	Please don't mention classless systems. *shudder* I don't think that flavor ever gets in the way.
wolfie-kun 07-31-06, 12:38 PM	The flavor just makes the backstory that much more complex. On that note, I've seen maybe eight, total (that's out of nearly forty here, folks), WotC base classes with flavor that I actually like: MoI base classes, ToM non-Truename base classes, psionic base classes, the sorc, and the warlock.
bitnine 07-31-06, 12:42 PM	I would tend to hope that a character's flavor comes from their character concept and background. Needing to rely on character classes to define a character's flavor seems a bit backwards to me. Some base classes are more written and take in a more open style than others. The fighter class, for example, is supposed to represent a fairly broad archtype. A professional soldier, a hardened mercenary, a self-taught warrior, a weapon specialist, an archer, each of these could be a fighter. However, with barbarian, for example, people are more likely to assert that since you are a barbarian you have to come from a tribe and live in the woods and get angry at books and smell fairly bad. Whereas I might have a different idea. Let's say the son in a prominent warrior house who goes into a trance-like state and channels the strength of his ancestors (rages). He gets very quiet and focused during his trance (rage), has always lived near the city, and spends the skill points to make sure he starts off literate. He's reserved and polite, if not particularly talkative. Some people might well say that the above is 'playing a barbarian wrong' or that it doesn't make sense. I happen to disagree.
Ezell Pike 07-31-06, 02:35 PM	I would tend to hope that a character's flavor comes from their character concept and background. Needing to rely on character classes to define a character's flavor seems a bit backwards to me. Some base classes are more written and take in a more open style than others. The fighter class, for example, is supposed to represent a fairly broad archtype. A professional soldier, a hardened mercenary, a self-taught warrior, a weapon specialist, an archer, each of these could be a fighter. However, with barbarian, for example, people are more likely to assert that since you are a barbarian you have to come from a tribe and live in the woods and get angry at books and smell fairly bad. Whereas I might have a different idea. Let's say the son in a prominent warrior house who goes into a trance-like state and channels the strength of his ancestors (rages). He gets very quiet and focused during his trance (rage), has always lived near the city, and spends the skill points to make sure he starts off literate. He's reserved and polite, if not particularly talkative. Some people might well say that the above is 'playing a barbarian wrong' or that it doesn't make sense. I happen to disagree. I don't consider barbarians as having much flavor. In fact unless they have a narrowly defined spell list or dogma a class can have any flavor at all. Mages for example can be themed by players just about any concievable way. Druids are going to be nature oriented. Warmages are likeley to be blasters and not much more useful outside of combat than a fighter. See where I'm going here? Most of the classes with flavor are hybrid classes built to avoid multiclassing problems. Waiting several levels for abilities that are no longer powerful for a character of your level. Generally not being able to play your character as envisioned by your character concept until you are 7-8th level. XP penalties the list goes on... But there are others that have a clearly defined cultural flavor like Samurai. If you did not want to be a samurai you wouldn't pick the class would you? I can't believe I misspelled "broader".
Mystyc 07-31-06, 02:39 PM	So what your saying is you are game for a Chaotic Samuri or Pally. Or a Lawfull Rogue. That just dosent make sence. You can already have a lawful rogue. Rogue != Thief.
benstundze 07-31-06, 02:57 PM	ok if you didn’t have fluff then the classes would just be stats sheets a character with nothing on isn’t a character its a collection of numbers so are the classes they would be a bunch of rules and numbers
LordPendragon 07-31-06, 03:04 PM	You can already have a lawful rogue. Rogue != Thief.Nice Java-ese there. But there are others that have a clearly defined cultural flavor like Samurai. If you did not want to be a samurai you wouldn't pick the class would you?My point is that you should be able to play a samurai, whether or not you take levels in the Samurai class. And vice versa, you should be able to take levels in the Samurai class, whether or not you actually want to be a samurai. It's like the Knight in PHBII. Lots of people have a beef with the name because the rank of knight carries certain political/social weight with it. I'm saying that the actual classes chosen should have nothing to do with the character as a "person"; they should simply give mechanics and abilities by which the character achieves his/her goals.
Seerow 07-31-06, 03:13 PM	Nice Java-ese there. That's not Java. That's programming in general. I know C++ at least uses that as well. I'm certain that most mainstream programming languages use it (probably VB, PASCAL and a few others. Could be wrong on those as I'm only passingly familliar) On Topic: I agree that the base classes should have a generic flavor. Once I reflavored a Warmage as an Archer, where his spells were arrows that replenished themselves every day, and he used a bow as a focus. Other than that he was completely identical to a Warmage. If you wanted a Fireball, he'd shoot one out of his bow, cause he was that badass.
Mystyc 07-31-06, 04:03 PM	My point is that you should be able to play a samurai, whether or not you take levels in the Samurai class. And vice versa, you should be able to take levels in the Samurai class, whether or not you actually want to be a samurai. The Order of the Stick does a good send-up of this. The character Miko identifies herself as a Samurai, although by rule she is a multiclasses Paladin/Monk. The strip is here (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=209). I actually wish more people would do this. I'm playing a Goliath Barbarian/Psychic Warrior at the moment, but he identifies himself merely as "a goliath." He doesn't think of himself as a "barbarian" because raging is practically the normal way of fighting where he comes from, and he is not a "psychic warrior" because he doesn't even realize he's psionic.
LordPendragon 07-31-06, 04:25 PM	The Order of the Stick does a good send-up of this. The character Miko identifies herself as a Samurai, although by rule she is a multiclasses Paladin/Monk. The strip is here (http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=209).Actually, I thought of that strip when I wrote that part about Samurai :D
Milo HoBo 07-31-06, 06:45 PM	Tempest Stormwind actually did a really cool flavor issue with the Monk. I don't like the idea of someone walking around refering to themselves as a first level rogue or 5th level paladin. That borders on metagaming. I can understand cleric, druid, wizard, monk (though martial artist fits too), and fighter (because it's a fairly general term). Either these terms are generic enough or are tied to an organization that would refer to you as such. Other than that, you're an adventurer, a thrill seeker, a hunter, a mercinary, etc. An example of a lawful rogue? He is part of the military, he scouts ahead and disables traps, he is the trouble shooter, he knows alot, light armored skirmisher (not to be confused with the skirmish class ability). I think that the flavor used in classes is great, but they're training wheels. Once you've found out how to play the class, go outside the box. For example, a sorcerer who was a wizard in a past life or someone who has learned to channel planar energy. Go wild. Roll some dice, have fun.
Otto the Bugbear 07-31-06, 08:12 PM	ok if you didn’t have fluff then the classes would just be stats sheets a character with nothing on isn’t a character its a collection of numbers so are the classes they would be a bunch of rules and numbers Sounds like you're saying a character is only as complex and unique as the name of his class. Doesn't that also make him a bunch of rules and numbers? Is it possible to write a rich, interesting and full backstory without resorting to a class name or looking at a character sheet at all? If it is, then why does the (class) name written at the top of that character sheet have to dictate the fluff (personality, history, motives, desires, hatreds, loves, childhood experiences, etc.) of a character? One last thing, go to my sig and pick the link The 100 Most Important Things to Know About Your Character. Now, just using the flavor text from any one class in the PHB, answer all 100 questions for a character of that class. Don't make anything up, just use the text in the PHB. Can't be done. The class provided fluff isn't the end-all, be-all of flavor for any character, regardless if he has taken levels in that class or not. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= For the OP's question, I tend to write those sections of a class to be as generic as I can. Here's a quote I use on most classes I write up. "Character’s who take the XXX class get along with any character they feel like. Classes do not dictate what other classes a character may or may not get along with. Characters should choose whom to get along with based on their personality and background more than what class they’ve chosen." And I don't even use alignment, so that becomes a non-issue as well. However, for beginners, that fluff is invaluable. They help inexperienced players find what they're looking for without having to pour over their books. They want a barbarian type (like a viking), they go with barbarian. They want a soldier, they go with fighter. You get the picture. After a while, they may move on to seeing a character as a character, rather than as a class name. Cheers Otto :)
Maraxus 07-31-06, 09:29 PM	LordPendragon, I totally agree with you. Classes don't need flavor. To often they should better not have flavor. And this means: They don't need alignment-restrictions. Even more most classes need, to not have alignment restrictions. Why should bards be lawful? What is this guy: Disguised by magic- he gathers the tales of great heros and creates a magic poem out of it, placing the absolutely correct rendering of events above everything else, thus never lies etc... What is not a lawful bard? What is the bull-headed, tough, fast martial artist, who belivies in nothing than a good roundhousekick to the face, if not a chaotic Monk? The combat monster, that has a Doctor of Philosophy about controling one's feelings and shaping it into a destructive rage, who is eager to spread his teaching. Right, a Lawful Barbarien. I would - however make an exception for the Paladin. - Through there should be a version of the Paladin for every alignment (at least each of the four extreams, maybe all 9), but a specific character should need to choose one path. Maybe swiching from one Paladin to another should be possible, but very hard, much like a cleric deciding to change deity. Oh, last the Druid. The whole 2nd edition stuff about the "balance" looks totally stupid to me. Those druids can't really give a final answer about why they are gloryfing neutrality. - At least no reasoning that is not by itself good-aligned. It's paradox. You could make a Paladin of Neutrality out of it. Paladins look like people, that could follow a paradox philosophy, simply because they can start to smite away, should anyone try to start reasoning. Druids have wisdom as primary attribute. They should be free to serve or command nature however they like.
Milo HoBo 07-31-06, 09:38 PM	I think that a paladin of every aliment could work too. Instead of being Lawful Good, he puts all his effort into good or law. On the neutral issue, the only way I could see a paladin being neutral, would be him being true neutral. Background info: I concider neutral and true neutral to be two different things. Neutral = Animals or those who are undecided. True Neutral = Those who oppose zeolots, where extremes are an evil in themselves. So I could see paladins being one of 9 alimnents (leaving out only neutral but not TN).
LordPendragon 07-31-06, 10:12 PM	WotC already gave a nod in that direction with the 3 extra Paladin variants in UA.
Mystyc 07-31-06, 10:35 PM	What is the bull-headed, tough, fast martial artist, who belivies in nothing than a good roundhousekick to the face, if not a chaotic Monk? Chuck Norris has a chaotic alignment, yet still advances as a monk. (ducks)
Crimson_Concerto 07-31-06, 10:47 PM	I understand what the OP is saying, and I agree. The classes all currently have their "suggested" flavor attached, but it's very simple to interpret these abilitie sin different ways. For example, I played a character who was a detective and worked to bring in criminals and thieves. Guess what he class he was. A rogue. Detectives need to be able to search, gather information, pick locks, disable devices, sneak, and pretty much do most of the other stuff rogues do. The methodical ways of a detective make sneak attack fit perfectly. Thus we have a character who does basically the same stuff as a rogue, but isn't really one.