Fluff vs crunch: Do you need crunch to play certain flavor?


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 355 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Albatoonoe wrote:
Well, the books specifically call out the idea of a "civilized" barbarian. So not even the books support your assumptions.

They do in the edition that I play, but within the context of 3rd edition and Pathfinder, I have never claimed that my veiws represent the RAW. I always (again, within the context of 3rd edition and Pathfinder) clearly state that these are the opinions I hold, and that YMMV...

Albatoonoe wrote:
Classes are meta concepts. They aren't literal professions.

In 3rd edition and Pathfinder, you are absolutely right... However, in the edition that I play:

The 2nd Edition Player's Handbook" wrote:
A character class is like a profession or career. It is what your character has worked and trained at during his younger years. If you wanted to become a doctor, you could not walk out the door and begin work immediately. First you would have to get some training. The same is true of character classes in the AD&D game

And as I've said many times in this thread, I did not change the way I ran, played, or viewed the game just because the editions changed.

As always, YMMV...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fluff is only flavor. Fluff should never limit player options. A class is only a package of mechanics that may loosely emulate a given class concept, but as I and many others in this thread are stating, that same package could be easily applied to any number of other class concepts. A class's title (ie: barbarian) shouldn't define, nor limit what a give set of mechanics should mean. Thinking so, is very narrow minded.

You keep stating how you don't like reskinning - which is fine, but you've also stated your players would love to run a ninja, that doesn't come with all the fluff baggage. Obviously you are alone even in your own table for your "preference". Except for the words "ninja" and "ki" there's nothing about the ninja class that specifically emulates "this is a Japanese feudal assassin". Changing the word ninja and ki to some other non-oriental words is all that's necessary to make ninja be equivalent to a professional commando, a master spy or saboteur serving a Euro-analog king.

I personally think Paizo could have easily gone a completely different way to invoke the ninja class concept - to me the existing ninja class is a poor representation of ninja as a concept. To me the new Slayer class is spot on for ninja.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
Why? You didn't give a reason.

The short answer (which I have stated many times in this thread), is that I do not allow the re-skinning of classes in my games.

In the post you quoted from, I say:

Digitalelf wrote:
this game, Dungeons & Dragons (and by extension, Pathfinder), is not about replicating real life. It is a class-based system, and to me, that means the characters, after having chosen their class are pigeon-holed into a specific role
I dislike re-skinning classes because I think that in a class-based system, the classes are not only an integral part of the game, but an important one, and I think that just re-skinning as needed lessens their importance. It is my opinion that if you cannot do what you want to do using one of the existing classes, make a new one that does (or just make a kit if what you want to do doesn't require an entire class).

Yes. It lessens their importance in determining who your character is. That is a good thing. When class doesn't determine who your character is, there are more characters that can be played. Stating that refluffing classes lessens their importance is far from a condemnation, it's praise.

Also, I get it when you say Your Mileage May Vary. You don't have to keep repeating it. You have a preference. But I think that preference is destructive to the game and inhibits the stories you can tell, and is unfairly punishing to players that want to do something different while creating dissonance in the game world and requiring large amounts of time to be wasted developing new classes when you could easily just use existing mechanics.


Digitalelf wrote:
But what you cannot do (at least IMHO), is choose the barbarian class for example, remove the "man of the wild" connections, make him "civilized", rename the class "Elite Soldier", and explain his rage as is his ability to focus his concentration while on the field of battle.

And this is the kind of thinking that would completely drive me away from the game. IMHO, such restrictions are completely arbitrary and pointless. It limits character concepts to whatever the designers had in mind when they wrote fluff text, which is incredibly restrictive.

I don't care what word is written in my character sheet. If I kill people for money, I'm an assassin. If I'm really really sneaky and kill them with backstabs,poison and whatnot... I'm a very specific type of assassin. None of that requires me to play an Assassin (class). ("I sneak into the night and kill people for money with my poisoned dagger... But my character sheet says 'Ranger', so I guess I'm a woodsman...")

It makes no sense to me to limit a character concept to a single class. Or to limit a class to a single concept. All that does is make the game world more predictable, boring and restrictive.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gamer-printer wrote:
Fluff is only flavor. Fluff should never limit player options. A class is only a package of mechanics that may loosely emulate a given class concept, but as I and many others in this thread are stating, that same package could be easily applied to any number of other class concepts. A class's title (ie: barbarian) shouldn't define, nor limit what a give set of mechanics should mean. Thinking so, is very narrow minded.

Well, it is the view I take, and it is my preferred play-style, so I guess that make me narrow minded in your view, yes? It may be the opinion that you hold, but it not a very polite thing to actually say on these message boards where Paizo thinks that everybody with every play-style is welcome on their boards...

gamer-printer wrote:
You keep stating how you don't like re-skinning - which is fine, but you've also stated your players would love to run a ninja, that doesn't come with all the fluff baggage. Obviously you are alone even in your own table for your "preference".

No, I haven't, and no, I'm not... You've completely misread my posts, for I have never used examples from my table, only examples I've pulled out of thin air to illustrate my point.

gamer-printer wrote:
Except for the words "ninja" and "ki" there's nothing about the ninja class that specifically emulates "this is a Japanese feudal assassin". Changing the word ninja and ki to some other non-oriental words is all that's necessary to make ninja be equivalent to a professional commando, a master spy or saboteur serving a Euro-analog king.

I don't want my games to work like that. I view the classes as one of the defining factors of a character. It is an integral part of who the character is. The class one chooses is important in my games for those reasons, and to just re-skinning, re-flavoring, re-fluffing, or re-whatever, lessens that importance; which in my view, is not a good thing (which is why, despite the editions changing, I have run things pretty much the same from edition to edition).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I too started playing long ago, back in 1977 to be specific, but really didn't jump in with a fulltime group until AD&D 1e, and am sure I was less open minded back then. Overtime, as I aged and as editions changed, I changed also with more knowledge and experience. My games have grown with this experience and I am not bogged down with the limited thinking of my youth. Change is good.

I'm fine with creating new classes if nothing else fits, however, before I do that I look at every existing class, first, to decide if I cannot more easily reflavor that to fit, before I venture towards new class design.

Grand Lodge

Aratrok wrote:

Yes. It lessens their importance in determining who your character is. That is a good thing. When class doesn't determine who your character is, there are more characters that can be played. Stating that refluffing classes lessens their importance is far from a condemnation, it's praise.

Also, I get it when you say Your Mileage May Vary. You don't have to keep repeating it. You have a preference. But I think that preference is destructive to the game and inhibits the stories you can tell, and is unfairly punishing to players that want to do something different while creating dissonance in the game world and requiring large amounts of time to be wasted developing new classes when you could easily just use existing mechanics.

I just don't agree, I think it is a bad thing. And in my experience (which is anecdotal I know), I have never had a problem, or complaint about my games being too restrictive (much less "destructive") LOL... @@

Grand Lodge

gamer-printer wrote:
Overtime, as I aged

Age has nothing to do with gaming preferences.

Just because someone prefers a different style of gaming than you, does not mean that person is "narrow minded" or is "limited" in their thinking. Nor does it imply that they are closed minded.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
And this is the kind of thinking that would completely drive me away from the game.

Well, I frequently tell people on these boards that I am a card carrying, "You kids get off my lawn!" grognard... Which, while said, more or less tongue-in-cheek, carries with it, the truth.

And as I also have said many times on these boards, I know that my preferred style of play is in the minority, but I have embraced that fact, even if it does have the potential to limit my pool of gamers (though it hasn't done so yet).

Lemmy wrote:
All that does is make the game world more predictable, boring and restrictive.

I don't know... I just don't need every possible, available option to have fun, or to make my game worlds vibrant, exciting, and totally unpredictable to my players.


i played what would be mechanically represented as a "Slayer" but the concept was a street magician that was extremely skilled with the use of knives and playing cards as weaponry

there were no official rules for playing cards as weapons so i took throw anything and came to a consensus that they had a range increment of 30 feet and dealt ranged slashing and piercing damage equal to 1d4+dexterity bonus+other modifiers and counted as ammunition for all intents and purposes, meaning i could enchant a whole deck for the price of enchanting a single knife

the character did a lot of roguish things due to using the slayer chassis but she was a fae blooded sylph in a spidersilk dress and she carried multiple lesser enchanted decks and many lesser enchanted knives while having dex to hit and damage with both weapons

the girl wasn't even a spellcaster, she did card tricks, but she tracked, scouted, picked locks, found traps, disabled traps, listened at doors and despite her timid nature and low charisma, even did part time diplomacy

she was highly specialized in knives and cards. and by 2E standards, would have had triple specialization in both, had ambidexterity, 2 weapon style, and had the ability to use her dexterity in place of her strength for both due to her quick and nimble combination of the use of both precision and sleight of hand

would you have forced her to take levels in "Street Magician?" would you have forced her to take a "Rogue/Ranger multiclass?" instead of backstabbing, she targeted weakpoints and even crit on a 12-20 with both knives

Grand Lodge

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
would you have forced her to take levels in "Street Magician?" would you have forced her to take a "Rogue/Ranger multiclass?" instead of backstabbing, she targeted weakpoints and even crit on a 12-20 with both knives

First of all, I probably wouldn't let you play a half-slyph; as slyphs were not made available in the Complete Book of Humanoids (like the Pixie was for a "fairy" example). As a general rule, I do not allow players to play non-core races. But, the thief class would be fine for the basis of the concept.

There are a few things that simply would not be possible for your character to do under 2nd edition rules, such as any class other than straight Fighter Specializing in a weapon, much less "triple" specialization, even for a fighter (however, there is a way for thief character to "buy" weapon specialization, but that uses the system set up in the Player's Option book, "Skills & Powers", which I don't make much use of, and especially do not use the character creation rules in it because it needlessly complicates the game, and one of the reasons I stopped running 3rd edition and Pathfinder, was the overly complex rules).

Moving on...

There is no "Weapon Finesse" non-weapon proficiency, so you would not be able to use your DEX instead of STR for your melee attacks. But, just to receive a +1 on damage, a character needs a 16 STR, and to get a +1 bonus to hit, a character needs a 17 STR (so even in melee, you'd need a fairly high STR score to receive any bonus from STR during combat). Regardless, thrown weapons use your "Missile Attack Adjustment" (and just like STR, the bonuses don't start until a score of 16). However, ambidexterity, two-weapon style, and tracking are all non-weapon proficiencies (though all are cross-class proficiencies for a rogue and thus would cost your thief one more slot each, and as listed, Tracking has a cost of 2 slots, so your thief would have to spend all 3 of her initial slots at 1st level just on that alone, the only saving grace, would be to have a high enough INT to gain additional starting slots).

Card tricks, are sleight of hand, and that would be covered in the "Pick Pockets" thief skill. The cards, I'd treat them as Shurikens, but in 2nd edition, no weapon gets a "crit" on anything lower than an 18, but only then, if you hit your opponent's AC by 5 points or more (and that is only if one uses the Player's Option: Skills & Powers rules for critical hits, otherwise, a “crit” is only on a natural 20). Also, magical items in 2nd edition are not the "commodity" that they are in Pathfinder (or 3rd edition), so buying them is a lot harder to do, as is crafting them; but they are also not as critically necessary as they are in Pathfinder (and 3rd edition).

As far as backstabbing goes...

Backstabbing in 2nd edition wasn't about just hitting critical areas; it was specifically hitting critical areas of a target's back:

2nd Edition Player's Handbook wrote:

To use this ability, the thief must be behind his victim and the victim must be unaware that the thief intends to attack him. If an enemy sees the thief, hears him approach from a blind side, or is warned by another, he is not caught unaware, and the backstab is handled like a normal attack (although bonuses for a rear attack still apply). Opponents in battle will often notice a thief trying to maneuver behind them--the first rule of fighting is to never turn your back on an enemy! However, someone who isn't expecting to be attacked (a friend or ally, perhaps) can be caught unaware even if he knows the thief is behind him...

...

Backstabbing does have limitations. First, the damage multiplier applies only to the first attack made by the thief, even if multiple attacks are possible. Once a blow is struck, the initial surprise effect is lost. Second, the thief cannot use it on every creature. The victim must be generally humanoid. Part of the skill comes from knowing just where to strike. A thief could backstab an ogre, but he wouldn't be able to do the same to a beholder. The victim must also have a definable back (which leaves out most slimes, jellies, oozes, and the like). Finally, the thief has to be able to reach a significant target area. To backstab a giant, the thief would have to be standing on a ledge or window balcony. Backstabbing him in the ankle just isn't going to be as effective.

So, backstabbing is significantly weaker than "Sneak Attack"...

All-in-all you could make a very similar character under the 2nd edition rules, but not an exact match (especially when you take Feats into account as well).


Digitalelf wrote:
uses the system set up in the Player's Option book, "Skills & Powers", which I don't make much use of, and especially do not use the character creation rules in it because it needlessly complicates the game, and one of the reasons I stopped running 3rd edition and Pathfinder, was the overly complex rules).

I'm amused. While you have the right (and should) play the way that you enjoy playing the game as long as you're not hurting other people, I can't wrap my head around the idea that you find Skills and Powers overly complex, but don't bat an eye at making new classes.

I've always found 2nd Edition to be more complex than Pathfinder as well.


Albatoonoe wrote:

Well, the books specifically call out the idea of a "civilized" barbarian. So not even the books support your assumptions. There is nothing stopping a character from being a "holy warrior" and being the slayer class. In fact, the iconic slayer is that.

Classes are meta concepts. They aren't literal professions. Just, as someone said, a group of skills.

For your playstyle.

However there are other playstyles. The one that you are debating...how to explain it...

Take a doctor for example, a surgeon. They spend 8-12 years in school, and another year in residency and maybe even another with an internship.

10-14 years of their life in training.

To be called a doctor. Not something you earn overnight in a dungeon crawl.

We know them as doctors. That's what they are called. If you had broken your back, fractured your skull, and had your intestinal tract bursting out of a hole in your stomach, do you want to be taken to a doctor?

That's what you call it.

OR...someone with no training but who says they have a skills packet they got while adventuring?

Someone who was a Navy Seal or other range of Special Operators. They will be infuriated if someone who did not go through their training calls themselves a Navy Seal. It is a special designation placed upon those who go through their particular brand of training and earn their badge (or whatever they call the trident insignia they wear).

A Navy Seal...is a NAVY seal...it's earned and they know what one is. It's more than just a skill set....it's a personality, a way of being, a way of life.

A person that plays classes as more than a skill set, the above is more how they see a class. It's not the guy who reads a book on plumbing and fixes his pipes, then reads a book on first aid and bandages up his thumb he hit while fixing his pipes...then goes and shoots targets at the gun range and goes out hunting...

It's seeing the classes as something someone has trained long and hard to do and when you call someone their class, others know what it is (hence a Navy Seal IS a Navy Seal...a Doctor IS a Doctor).

Is it the ONLY way to play, of course not. It's a playstyle...and as such...even if it's not YOUR playstyle, you probably should respect that others don't have the same type of playstyle as you.

It's called diversity. That's something I think Paizo pushes harder than most other companies in many ways.

It's good to discuss the different playstyles, but be aware, that saying one or the other type of playstyle is the ONLY way or the one pushed by PAIZO (trust me, one of my first posts here was about playstyle and I learned then PAIZO WELCOMES ALL types of gamers AND playstyles) is not recognizing that Paizo welcomes diversity in all forms and shapes (from what I can tell).

I actually prefer stronger classes myself, and utilize the fluff regarding classes most of the time so I can understand DE point of view.

I've seen players use classes as packets also, but MOST IMPORTANTLY...I'VE SEEN THESE PLAYSTYLES USED AT THE SAME TABLE AT THE SAME TIME WITH THE SAME GROUP. My group even. So these are NOT necessarily exclusionary playstyles...and many people have playstyles that don't do either one to the extreme. In fact I think most players I've been around see the fluff as somewhat useful and important to the classes to tell the truth, even if they use them as skillsets at the same time.

Furthermore, DE's playstyle of a strong class, is actually still not an extreme. I've seen those who are MUCH stronger on the class is class and not skills than I've seen him show on this topic.

Grand Lodge

Skyth wrote:
I can't wrap my head around the idea that you find Skills and Powers overly complex, but don't bat an eye at making new classes.

I think the Skills & Powers books make the game more complex at least in the area of character creation, by adding two sub stats to each of the six ability scores, and give each class a number of points in which to spend on abilities. What makes this different for me from designing a new class, is that I only have to make the class once and it's done; all these other rules added to character creation, needlessly complicate the process, which like I said, was one of the reasons that I stopped playing Pathfinder and 3rd edition...

Other things that the Player's Option books added that needlessly complicate the game for me include the additional combat rules, many of which found their way in one shape or form into 3rd edition, and by extension, Pathfinder (e.g. Attacks of Opportunity).

Lantern Lodge Customer Service Dire Care Bear Manager

Removed a post. Constructive feedback is welcome, but personal insults are not ok. If you feel another user is not posting in good faith, please flag and move on, or, if you feel the situation warrants it, you are welcome to email us at community@paizo.com.


well, i guess i might shoot down that Sylph street magician before i ever consider playing her at your table, even as a multiclass urban ranger/thief due to the fact she was so dependant on Pathfinder options to have viable damage output and would outright be useless in 2nd edition. much like thieves were useless in every edition. unless i gave her a mountain of multiclass

but then, i would have to work on Sylph as a race for approval.

Grand Lodge

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:

well, i guess i might shoot down that Sylph street magician before i ever consider playing her at your table, even as a multiclass urban ranger/thief due to the fact she was so dependant on Pathfinder options to have viable damage output and would outright be useless in 2nd edition. much like thieves were useless in every edition. unless i gave her a mountain of multiclass

but then, i would have to work on Sylph as a race for approval.

I know we're talking about a hypothetical here, but you've mentioned ranger twice now. Is it because of the free Tracking proficiency, the better scaling THAC0; why ranger? I mean, it wouldn't help with weapon specialization, as only straight fighters get that...

As for slyphs, they are pretty powerful for a player character race, what with their innate ability to cast spells as a 7th level mage, and natural ability to fly - all from the very get-go.

Thieves however, are only "useless" in 2nd edition (at least IMO), if you attempt to remove them from the shadows. They were not meant to go toe-to-toe with the bad guys... The classes in 2nd edition are much more dependent upon one another in this edition than they are in 3rd edition and Pathfinder.


Digitalelf wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:

well, i guess i might shoot down that Sylph street magician before i ever consider playing her at your table, even as a multiclass urban ranger/thief due to the fact she was so dependant on Pathfinder options to have viable damage output and would outright be useless in 2nd edition. much like thieves were useless in every edition. unless i gave her a mountain of multiclass

but then, i would have to work on Sylph as a race for approval.

I know we're talking about a hypothetical here, but you've mentioned ranger twice now. Is it because of the free Tracking proficiency, the better scaling THAC0; why ranger? I mean, it wouldn't help with weapon specialization, as only straight fighters get that...

As for slyphs, they are pretty powerful for a player character race, what with their innate ability to cast spells as a 7th level mage, and natural ability to fly - all from the very get-go.

Thieves however, are only "useless" in 2nd edition (at least IMO), if you attempt to remove them from the shadows. They were not meant to go toe-to-toe with the bad guys... The classes in 2nd edition are much more dependent upon one another in this edition than they are in 3rd edition and Pathfinder.

Thieves in AD&D also did very well as multiclass in both versions of AD&D. Thief/mages were my go-to class for quite awhile.


Digitalelf wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:

well, i guess i might shoot down that Sylph street magician before i ever consider playing her at your table, even as a multiclass urban ranger/thief due to the fact she was so dependant on Pathfinder options to have viable damage output and would outright be useless in 2nd edition. much like thieves were useless in every edition. unless i gave her a mountain of multiclass

but then, i would have to work on Sylph as a race for approval.

I know we're talking about a hypothetical here, but you've mentioned ranger twice now. Is it because of the free Tracking proficiency, the better scaling THAC0; why ranger? I mean, it wouldn't help with weapon specialization, as only straight fighters get that...

As for slyphs, they are pretty powerful for a player character race, what with their innate ability to cast spells as a 7th level mage, and natural ability to fly - all from the very get-go.

Thieves however, are only "useless" in 2nd edition (at least IMO), if you attempt to remove them from the shadows. They were not meant to go toe-to-toe with the bad guys... The classes in 2nd edition are much more dependent upon one another in this edition than they are in 3rd edition and Pathfinder.

i was thinking of Pathfinder Sylphs, not D&D sylphs. sorry if we had a misunderstanding of which sylph was which

think medium fey blooded humanoids with a minor affinity for the plane of air who serve a similar purpose to Genasi but have more ability to pass for human enough on a cosmetic level. (well, closer to a slighter framed half elf than a human when it comes to appearance)

the Reason for Ranger/Thief is for both a combination of the free tracking and the better scaling thaco which helps target weak points, compared to a straight theif to make the character actually capable of holding her own in a fight and because she isn't an "i sneak in the shadows and stab your back" type as much as an "i fight dirty by applying my skill with sleight of hand to fight better and compensate for my slight frame through the speed, accuracy, and precision with which i can plant a knife or throw a card at your eye"

Grand Lodge

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
i was thinking of Pathfinder Sylphs, not D&D sylphs. sorry if we had a misunderstanding of which sylph was which

I realize that you were talking about your Pathfinder character being a Pathfinder slyph, but you had wondered how I would handle such a character in 2nd edition, so I used the 2nd edition slyph for my example.

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
think medium fey blooded humanoids with a minor affinity for the plane of air who serve a similar purpose to Genasi but have more ability to pass for human enough on a cosmetic level. (well, closer to a slighter framed half elf than a human when it comes to appearance)

Yeah, the 2nd edition slyph has 3 HD and is considered an "air kin" elemental.

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
the Reason for Ranger/Thief is for both a combination of the free tracking and the better scaling thaco which helps target weak points, compared to a straight theif to make the character actually capable of holding her own in a fight and because she isn't an "i sneak in the shadows and stab your back" type as much as an "i fight dirty by applying my skill with sleight...

The damage output of Pathfinder (and 3rd edition) just isn't possible in 2nd edition. But then it really isn't the necessity that it is in 3rd edition and Pathfinder because the numbers overall in 2nd edition aren't as high.

But to continue the hypothetical, instead of thief, then perhaps ranger would work, but then that is not a perfect match either, as rangers do not have "pick pockets", just "move silently" and "hide in shadows".

The problem with a multi-class is that ranger can only be combined with cleric, and even then, only for half-elves (the Complete Rangers Handbook offers a second option, the "Ranger/Druid", but that is not useful for our hypothetical).

So this is why I am a proponent for designing a new class, or kit; I usually go the kit route first, and exhausting that, then I suggest designing a full class.

I try to design a kit before a full class because kits are easier to make, and offer options to classes that you would not be able to get without them, such as adding tracking as a bonus (i.e. free) proficiency, and they are easier to balance with other classes and other kits because of their inherent disadvantages (the bad, comes with the good so to speak).

I know that it can be (and has been) said that this is the reason for re-skinning a class, but to me, (and I know I've said this before) doing that just cheapens the class one is re-skinning, and I just don't see that as a good thing...


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I understand your position and appreciate that for you it cheapens the concept of a class. What many people who share my position (whether to the same degree or not) are trying to convey (as best as I understand) is that were you, or someone with your outlook, a fellow player at the same table who tried to rain on our parades just because how we do things irks your sensibilities, would be something that we'd find vexing.

Now in games that you or like-minded people run and are upfront about your expectations therein; those are games we'd turn down unless you and yours were willing to give us some leeway to do things the way we like. As someone else said.

GreyWolfLord wrote:
Is it the ONLY way to play, of course not. It's a playstyle...and as such...even if it's not YOUR playstyle, you probably should respect that others don't have the same type of playstyle as you.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
these are NOT necessarily exclusionary playstyles

Enough trying to be a mouthpiece for my position, time to speak only for myself. I do not like the way things were done in 2E. To me it feels far too stifling of my creativity. Maybe this is because I approach things from the other end of the spectrum, which was a major feature of my personal favourite edition: 4E. It outright recommended treating everything as just self-contained mechanics and re-fluffing anything and everything to suit your desired concept. Is the system perfect? No, but it is plenty of fun for me and those I game with and that's all that really matters to me.

Grand Lodge

HenshinFanatic wrote:
What many people who share my position (whether to the same degree or not) are trying to convey (as best as I understand) is that were you, or someone with your outlook, a fellow player at the same table who tried to rain on our parades just because how we do things irks your sensibilities, would be something that we'd find vexing.

I know full well what the other posters are trying to say.

But message board threads are a back-and forth... And in the majority of cases, no one on either side is going to convince or change the other person's views and/or opinions, and that's fine (and I think most of us here already know this going in). I think it is part of the enjoyment people get out of the experience.

And in no way, shape or form am I trying to dictate to people what the "correct" way of playing is. I am merely telling others how I play and how I do things within my own games; and when asked why I do things like that, I try my best to explain it. I also do this whenever a new player joins my group, and if one were to one day, say "no thank you", that would be okay (so far, no one has done this). And if I join another group who's style is not my preference, instead of futilely trying to force my will upon the group, I adapt to that group's play style (so as to not "rain on their parade"), and if at the end of the session, I find that their style is just too at odds with my own, I do the sensible thing and politely bow out...


i guess a Ranger kit that gave up spellcasting and gave up the option to take proficiency in medium armor, heavy armor, 2handed melee weapons and shields in exchange for a few theif skills, a relaxing of the code of conduct, a loosening of the alignment restrictions, and the ability to specialize in city approved weapons like knives while restricting it's wild empathy, animal companion and animal entourage abilities to interact exclusively with urban species of animals like birds, dogs, and livestock could work but that is essentially the urban ranger kit

and making a race kit for elves that traded some of their less fitting elfy abilities for minor air kin fae abilities like being able to predict weather by simply staring at the sky or reading displacement in the air as a means to track.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Digitalelf wrote:
And in no way, shape or form am I trying to dictate to people what the "correct" way of playing is. I am merely telling others how I play and how I do things within my own games; and when asked why I do things like that, I try my best to explain it. I also do this whenever a new player joins my group, and if one were to one day, say "no thank you", that would be okay (so far, no one has done this). And if I join another group who's style is not my preference, instead of futilely trying to force my will upon the group, I adapt to that group's play style (so as to not "rain on their parade"), and if at the end of the session, I find that their style is just too at odds with my own, I do the sensible thing and politely bow out...

Now we're getting somewhere. This is something that didn't come across in your previous posts. I like to think myself as tolerant (some might say overly easy-going), and flexible enough that I don't really subscribe to the "no gaming is better than bad gaming" maxim that I've encountered on various sites; after all, how bad is it really if the group has a different style? I generally think that any gaming is better than no gaming. Heh, maybe I'm just that desperate to find a group that will let me join.

Then again, I've never encountered a group I have played with that I couldn't adapt to. Even when I was part of a heavily home-brewed 3.5 campaign where everyone had to be some kind of evil alignment. For the record I generally like playing heroic warrior types so this was A)outside my comfort zone alignment-wise, and B)in a system where martially inclined classes were vastly weaker than spellcasters. Still had a blast with my psychic warrior Final Fantasy style Dragoon character. Sadly that game fell apart as the DM moved to a different city.

Grand Lodge

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
i guess a Ranger kit that gave up spellcasting and gave up the option to take proficiency in medium armor, heavy armor, 2handed melee weapons and shields in exchange for a few theif skills, a relaxing of the code of conduct, a loosening of the alignment restrictions, and the ability to specialize in city approved weapons like knives while restricting it's wild empathy, animal companion and animal entourage abilities to interact exclusively with urban species of animals like birds, dogs, and livestock could work but that is essentially the urban ranger kit

Wow, that's a bit more than what a kit is capable of providing...

Perhaps it would indeed take a whole new class to fit your concept. But giving weapon specialization to a non-fighter is a big advantage within 2nd edition. As that is the one ability that straight fighters have all to themselves.

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
making a race kit for elves that traded some of their less fitting elfy abilities for minor air kin fae abilities like being able to predict weather by simply staring at the sky or reading displacement in the air as a means to track.

Well, racial kits do not exist within the rules, and tracking by air displacement is beyond even the abilities of a 2nd edition slyph.

But it was a fun little hypothetical...

Grand Lodge

HenshinFanatic wrote:
Now we're getting somewhere. This is something that didn't come across in your previous posts.

That is the nature of text-based communication; though I thought it was pretty apparent in my posts because I have constantly been saying that how I play is a not a part of the RAW for Pathfinder or 3rd edition. Though where appropriate, I have said the how I play was backed up by the rules of the edition that I use (with the necessary text provided).

But, apparently, I was mistaken. :-)

HenshinFanatic wrote:
I like to think myself as tolerant (some might say overly easy-going), and flexible enough that I don't really subscribe to the "no gaming is better than bad gaming" maxim that I've encountered on various sites; after all, how bad is it really if the group has a different style? I generally think that any gaming is better than no gaming.

It should be no secret that I am a self proclaimed, card carrying "You kids get off my lawn!" grognard, and that means that I am only so easy going when it comes to games I want to play in or run. I mean, I like what I like, and don't like what I don't like.

I run my games a certain way, I am upfront about that to perspective new players, and they are free to decline if my style and that of my players is not something that they think they would enjoy. And I have no problem with that, as I know my preferred style is something that most gamers seem not to go for today... And the reverse to that is I don't think that I would enjoy what most gamers seem to enjoy today either... But that's okay too, and that is why I kept ending my posts with "YMMV", because I know it does.

HenshinFanatic wrote:
Heh, maybe I'm just that desperate to find a group that will let me join.

I hope that you're either in or are able to find a stable group that shares your gaming preferences. :-)

HenshinFanatic wrote:
Then again, I've never encountered a group I have played with that I couldn't adapt to.

I sure have!

HenshinFanatic wrote:
Even when I was part of a heavily home-brewed 3.5 campaign where everyone had to be some kind of evil alignment. For the record I generally like playing heroic warrior types so this was A)outside my comfort zone alignment-wise, and B)in a system where martially inclined classes were vastly weaker than spellcasters. Still had a blast with my psychic warrior Final Fantasy style Dragoon character. Sadly that game fell apart as the DM moved to a different city.

An evil PC campaign is an example of something that I would not enjoy. But it's a shame that it had to stop for you. Perhaps you could still game with him online via Skype or some other means?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Digitalelf wrote:
I hope that you're either in or are able to find a stable group that shares your gaming preferences.

Oh, I'm in one. I just want more. Gaming is like dakka for me. Enough's more than you've got and less than too much, and there ain't such a thing as too much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Digitalelf wrote:
I don't know... I just don't need every possible, available option to have fun, or to make my game worlds vibrant, exciting, and totally unpredictable to my players.

This contradicts everything you say. You have practically shouted that you require new options for every little concept that doesn't fit the pre-established fluff of a core class, which means you actually do in fact need every possible available option, whereas refluffers simply don't because we only need a new option when it's mechanically unfeasible to represent the concept using existing material.

An aside: It also keeps the game a lot easier to learn and cuts down on paperwork and/or record keeping. It's easier to learn 5 classes that can do 10 things each than it is to learn 50 classes that do 1 thing each. Especially with a ton of those are going to be highly redundant.

Grand Lodge

Ashiel wrote:
This contradicts everything you say. You have practically shouted that you require new options for every little concept that doesn't fit the pre-established fluff of a core class

I don't think it does, because while I require a new class or kit instead of a re-skin, the actuality of it, is that it does not happen, or rather, come up very often in my games (at least with totally new classes anyway), new kits are more the norm in my campaigns (but even then, it does not happen a whole lot).

When the players actually do want something not already represented by one of the available classes or kits, it is usually something small that they are asking for, and kits handle small very easily, and are extremely simple to make...

Ashiel wrote:
which means you actually do in fact need every possible available option, whereas refluffers simply don't because we only need a new option when it's mechanically unfeasible to represent the concept using existing material.

Like I said, it doesn't. It so rarely comes up, because the players and myself do not find the available classes and options to be limiting at all; but like I said, we'll come up with a new kit, but that is not even on the same level as a prestige class, kits just aren't that complex... For example: want to play a pirate, but you don't want to pay for the seamanship and rope use proficiencies? Here's a kit for you... Easy!

Ahiel wrote:
An aside: It also keeps the game a lot easier to learn and cuts down on paperwork and/or record keeping. It's easier to learn 5 classes that can do 10 things each than it is to learn 50 classes that do 1 thing each. Especially with a ton of those are going to be highly redundant.

Right, and so just using the core classes, and explaining what their jobs are, makes the learning curve even easier (regardless of edition)... Then, once the new player has a better grasp of the rules, then you can talk about alternate classes, kits, and what have you. But to just download everything to a new player all at once, no matter the system or edition, is just not good way to teach someone how to play IMHO...

Grand Lodge

HenshinFanatic wrote:
Oh, I'm in one. I just want more. Gaming is like dakka for me. Enough's more than you've got and less than too much, and there ain't such a thing as too much.

I hear ya! I am running two weekly games right now, and I would love to run another, or at the very least, get together more often with the two I am running now…


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Someone who was a Navy Seal or other range of Special Operators. They will be infuriated if someone who did not go through their training calls themselves a Navy Seal. It is a special designation placed upon those who go through their particular brand of training and earn their badge.

See, this (And the doctor example) are social titles, much like the title 'Knight'. Anyone can claim to be a warrior, but if you claimed to be a Knight, you would run into issues :) Someone could have the same knowledge and abilities but without the official title granted by society.

Knight doesn't mean you have certain abilities as well. (I doubt Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was very good at mounted combat ;) )


Umbranus wrote:

Often players want to rebuild characters they know from media. Whether that is good or bad is another topic I do not want to elaborate on in this thread.

What I AM after is this: If you aim to create a pathfinder pc that resembles a certain media character, why is it so important that every fluff you have in mind is backed up by facts?

Example: Someone wants to play a Guts (whoever that is) style PC wielding a sword with an oversized blade.
In PF blades and hilts always have the same size. There are no large weapons with a medium sized hilt. So you can either wield a medium sized sword and fluff the blade as bigger or you can wield a large sword* and fluff its hilt as medium. Now, why is it so important for people that the blade size is reflected by the crunch, the rules? Even if it would be much easier to just fluff it? The PC would "be" the character who's flavor you want.

*large two-handed swords can't be wielded by medium sized PCs.

If it is the flavor you are after, why is it important to create new rules? Why not use the existing rules and still play your fluff?

Example 2: Someone wants to play a strong dual wielding Samurai. How important is it that this pc really has the samurai class written on his sheet? From a rules perspective he could well play a slayer, getting TWF from a ranger combat style. If he behaves and dresses like a samurai why would it be any worse, fluff wise, than a pc with samurai written on the sheet? Again, why look at the rules when you are aiming for a certain fluff?

I have two answers to this.

One: Crunch isn't required, but it helps

Two: Trying to exactly duplicate a character from other media is nearly impossible

A character from a long running television show, novel series, or comic book is going to have had loads of development, and will be able to do things that a class based system won't allow them to do without serious multi-classing (or often even with it). Almost no writers follow the character making rules from Pathfinder or any other RPG, even in books [b]based on[/I] a specific RPG (although they will follow the rules more closely).


Skyth wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Someone who was a Navy Seal or other range of Special Operators. They will be infuriated if someone who did not go through their training calls themselves a Navy Seal. It is a special designation placed upon those who go through their particular brand of training and earn their badge.

See, this (And the doctor example) are social titles, much like the title 'Knight'. Anyone can claim to be a warrior, but if you claimed to be a Knight, you would run into issues :) Someone could have the same knowledge and abilities but without the official title granted by society.

Knight doesn't mean you have certain abilities as well. (I doubt Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was very good at mounted combat ;) )

other Examples of Historical Social Titles that make pidgeonholing class archetypes include Barbarian, Samurai, Paladin, Cleric, Templar, Monk and Inquisitor.

Barbarian was just a word for Foreigner and Berserker is an Adaption of Bear Seark, which simply meant "one who has the courage of a bear" and Berserker was a Nordic equivalent to a knight, it was a social title, meant nothing about their abilities. one could theoretically be a noncombatant who rescued a few other noncombatants in the heat of battle and earned the title

Paladin and Samurai are just regional Terms for the Social Equivalent to a knight in their native country. just because you were a paladin or samurai, didn't mean you were inherently a warrior. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was knighted, and he wasn't really a heavy armored mounted combatant and wasn't a mounted archer either. i'm sure Charlegmane's court had a few paladins that weren't dedicated combatants and i am sure there were a few samurai that avoided violence and fought with their words

Monk is a social title given to most lesser ranking priests and their equivalents. Historically, having monk as a title did not mean you were a highly trained unarmed combatant with minor magical powers.

Cleric is also a social title given to lower ranking priests, although slightly higher than monks. having the title of Cleric didn't mean you could legitimately call on your religions miracles. it just meant you were a priest

Inquisitor was a social title given to priests who were members of the inquisition. it just meant you were a priest who was a part of the inquisition. it said nothing about your skill set. Torquemada couldn't even magically heal people's wounds no matter how much he tried and any combat skill he possessed was purely derived from training. he was primarily a judge and executioner.

Templar is a term given to knights of a Very Specific Religious Order. it said nothing about being a knight that hunted wizards, generally said nothing about having magical powers, and just like being a knight, paladin or samurai, you could theoretically have a Templar that simply did the more menial duties of the order, imagine a Templar supervisor of the order's Laundry or a Templar Chef.

this is generally why i don't like tying specific game mechanics to specific social titles. because the titles are generally social things and it would make no sense that everybody with the title of "Barbarian" was an illiterate tribal foreigner with rage issues and a love for huge axes.

Shadow Lodge

Digitalelf wrote:
That is the nature of text-based communication; though I thought it was pretty apparent in my posts because I have constantly been saying that how I play is a not a part of the RAW for Pathfinder or 3rd edition. Though where appropriate, I have said the how I play was backed up by the rules of the edition that I use (with the necessary text provided).

I'm not sure that a discussion of reflavouring translates well across editions. The design philosophy has become more permissive over time, with a reduction in racial, stat, and alignment requirements for different classes. The significance of cross vs cross-class skills has also decreased. The net result is that classes in PF are designed to be more general and flexible than in 2E - supporting refluffing.

Even then, you will have social titles or roles open to multiple classes. Just got my hands on an old Dragon magazine (#195) with an article on knightly orders (p18) that says that orders may include fighters, paladins, clerics, or cavaliers depending on the order.

Digitalelf wrote:
But to just download everything to a new player all at once, no matter the system or edition, is just not good way to teach someone how to play IMHO...

Personally, I prefer to start with concepts and then narrow down to matching mechanics. Want to play a character with a scientific feel? We can stick to wizard, alchemist, or investigator. Swashbuckling type with spells? Bard or magus.

Skyth wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Someone who was a Navy Seal or other range of Special Operators. They will be infuriated if someone who did not go through their training calls themselves a Navy Seal. It is a special designation placed upon those who go through their particular brand of training and earn their badge.

See, this (And the doctor example) are social titles, much like the title 'Knight'. Anyone can claim to be a warrior, but if you claimed to be a Knight, you would run into issues :) Someone could have the same knowledge and abilities but without the official title granted by society.

Knight doesn't mean you have certain abilities as well. (I doubt Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was very good at mounted combat ;) )

I disagree that Doctor is primarily a social title. As far as I'm aware, that title indicates an advanced level of education (medical or otherwise), usually 4-6 years of study in a formal setting. There are honourary doctorates but they also recognize a skill set. So while "Knight" doesn't say much about your skills, a Doctor of X is an expert in the field of X. Similarly, I don't think you can be a Navy Seal without undergoing specific and rigorous training.

However, I don't think that "Medical Doctor" or "Navy Seal" are good analogues to base classes. I would call both prestige classes since they represent an advanced (specific and prestigious) level of training on top of your basic professional skills. BSc (Microbiology, Biology, Chemistry, etc) + MD strikes me as very similar to (Wizard, Cleric, Bard, etc) + Loremaster. "Navy Seal" is even tied to an organization, like "Hellknight Enforcer."

In general, I expect professions with more advanced and specific training to be more unified. Because prestige classes are used to specialize a character and often tie in to a specific organization, they should have more fixed flavour than base classes - at least within a given setting.


Navy Seal, Army Ranger, SAS, etc. are just different fluffing of the 'special forces' prestige class.

Doctor is indeed a society-given title. You can have all the skills of a doctor but not called a doctor by society for societal reasons.


Skyth wrote:

Navy Seal, Army Ranger, SAS, etc. are just different fluffing of the 'special forces' prestige class.

Doctor is indeed a society-given title. You can have all the skills of a doctor but not called a doctor by society for societal reasons.

Okay, you can go to the guy that says he has the skills when you have cancer and six months to live...and see how long you live...

I'll go to a REAL surgeon with the degree and qualifications that are officially recognized.

THAT's the difference between class and simply skill based.

As for Navy Seals and SAS, I'm pretty certain many if not most would disagree with you. For them, it's not a just a "prestige" class, it's a way of life, something you were either born to be able to do, or were never able to do in the first place. Yes, there's prestige...but it's FAR more than a prestige class for them...

It's the ONLY class...you can't just get a few levels of fighter and then become a Navy Seal...you have to have the mindset and ability from the get go to be able to get through training. Some come from other fields, but with them it's more getting in the mindset and experience rather than whether they are Spec Ops quality or not. You also have those that qualify from the get go (it's their initial field)...that's hardly a prestige class in that light.


I once restored a 19th century letter for a local family, interestingly mentioned in that letter was an ancestor that was given the title "doctor", however, this socalled doctor had no formal education, he was titled "doctor" because he was the 7th son of a 7th son. I guess depending on when and why, some people are given titles for no real reason at all...


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Skyth wrote:

Navy Seal, Army Ranger, SAS, etc. are just different fluffing of the 'special forces' prestige class.

Doctor is indeed a society-given title. You can have all the skills of a doctor but not called a doctor by society for societal reasons.

Okay, you can go to the guy that says he has the skills when you have cancer and six months to live...and see how long you live...

I'll go to a REAL surgeon with the degree and qualifications that are officially recognized.

THAT's the difference between class and simply skill based.

As for Navy Seals and SAS, I'm pretty certain many if not most would disagree with you. For them, it's not a just a "prestige" class, it's a way of life, something you were either born to be able to do, or were never able to do in the first place. Yes, there's prestige...but it's FAR more than a prestige class for them...

It's the ONLY class...you can't just get a few levels of fighter and then become a Navy Seal...you have to have the mindset and ability from the get go to be able to get through training. Some come from other fields, but with them it's more getting in the mindset and experience rather than whether they are Spec Ops quality or not. You also have those that qualify from the get go (it's their initial field)...that's hardly a prestige class in that light.

I'm pretty sure most have to go through some kind of formal combat training/boot Camp/testing process before they get to call themselves a Seal. That would exactly be grabbing a level or two of fighter first...

You don't get to just walk off the street and say 'oh yeah... I've always considered myself a Seal... Put me in coach!" You need the skills to go with it.

Also not all are doctors are equal. Nearly every professor I've had in school calls himself a 'Doctor'.... but if a stewardess comes out of the cockpit and asks if anyone here is a doctor... they BETTER NOT raise their hands!!!

Shadow Lodge

The analogy isn't perfect, but can anyone think of anything that's more like an IRL Prestige class than "Navy Seal" or "Doctor"?

GreyWolfLord wrote:

As for Navy Seals and SAS, I'm pretty certain many if not most would disagree with you. For them, it's not a just a "prestige" class, it's a way of life, something you were either born to be able to do, or were never able to do in the first place. Yes, there's prestige...but it's FAR more than a prestige class for them...

It's the ONLY class...you can't just get a few levels of fighter and then become a Navy Seal...you have to have the mindset and ability from the get go to be able to get through training. Some come from other fields, but with them it's more getting in the mindset and experience rather than whether they are Spec Ops quality or not. You also have those that qualify from the get go (it's their initial field)...that's hardly a prestige class in that light.

I'm sure a Hellknight Enforcer doesn't think of himself as a Cleric 5 / Hellknight Enforcer X. He just thinks of himself as a Hellknight Enforcer - and believes that being a Hellknight is about a lot more than the prestige. And no, you don't immediately qualify for special forces: In addition to Basic Combat Training, Soldiers must have completed Advanced Individualized Training and U.S. Airborne School to be eligible for Special Forces training.

Skyth wrote:
Navy Seal, Army Ranger, SAS, etc. are just different fluffing of the 'special forces' prestige class.

I don't know enough about special forces IRL to know how close the skill sets are, but in PF many organizations actually do have unique abilities available only to their elite troops which would make separate PrCs appropriate for different special forces. See "Hellknight Enforcer" vs "Champion of Irori" vs "Steel Falcon."

Skyth wrote:
Doctor is indeed a society-given title. You can have all the skills of a doctor but not called a doctor by society for societal reasons.

I think we understand "social title" in a different way. Your previous post mentioned the modern usage of "Knight" which conveys social standing but no skill set. Wiki's lists of Mens' and Womens' social titles all express rank rather than profession. "Doctor" is a title awarded by a social organization, but its first purpose is to indicate a profession and social status is secondary. The title guarantees the skill set, and it's not possible to have the title without the skill set. Thus I would consider it a "professional title" rather than a "social title."

There might be some people who have the skill set without the title, but that would be unlikely in a medieval-inspired world where the title granters are motivated to keep not just professional titles but professional knowledge exclusive. Even now with the internet it can be difficult to access academic papers without a university affiliation. Note that there's a difference between an overlapping skill set and a functionally identical skill set; traditional healers may be able to give you asprin but can't administer vaccinations.

phantom1592 wrote:
Also not all are doctors are equal. Nearly every professor I've had in school calls himself a 'Doctor'.... but if a stewardess comes out of the cockpit and asks if anyone here is a doctor... they BETTER NOT raise their hands!!!

I think you mean not all doctors are the same. The title "Doctor" indicates that someone has completed a Doctoral degree. Your professors are probably PhDs, or Doctors of Philosophy, which includes a variety of research fields. In many contexts, "Doctor" is now used casually to mean a Medical Doctor, but that does not mean that a PhD is a "fake doctor" or otherwise inferior to an MD. In fact, historically "Doctor" was closer in meaning to the modern "Professor" and indicated someone qualified to teach in university. Wiki's got lots of good info.

GreyWolfLord wrote:

I'll go to a REAL surgeon with the degree and qualifications that are officially recognized.

THAT's the difference between class and simply skill based.

Why do you think that a (base) class is identical with a professional title?

A life oracle and cleric (merciful healer) might both have extremely similar healing capability and might both be recognized with the "Healer" professional title - while a bones oracle and cleric (divine strategist) might have very different capabilities not worthy of the "Healer" title.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Skyth wrote:

Navy Seal, Army Ranger, SAS, etc. are just different fluffing of the 'special forces' prestige class.

Doctor is indeed a society-given title. You can have all the skills of a doctor but not called a doctor by society for societal reasons.

Okay, you can go to the guy that says he has the skills when you have cancer and six months to live...and see how long you live...

I'll go to a REAL surgeon with the degree and qualifications that are officially recognized.

THAT's the difference between class and simply skill based.

Your analogy is inherently flawed.

"Doctor" is a title that often implies a certain skill set, but does not require it.

By your logic I should find a Doctor of archaeology to sew up my stab wounds, since the title implies the skills and only the title matters.

For anyone in the real world, this is obviously untrue.

Skills are all that matter. It doesn't matter if in the 15th century I called my doctor "Doctor", "Witch Doctor", "Sawbones", "Doc", or any other title you'd are to come up with. All possess the same or similar skills.

Likewise it doesn't matter if my sneaky, door unlocking character is called a "Rogue", "Slayer", "Thief", or whatever. To claim otherwise is silly.

Who gives a flying f%+@ what someone calls themselves if they have the skills to back it up? Especially when you're not using such a contrived example as a modern day title given to someone who has completed a certain course of study?

People don't go to "Rogue school" for 12 years to have the title "Rogue" bestowed upon them. Because all that matters is the skill set. The analogy is silly.

@DigitalElf: At this point, after reading a few of your posts, I'm not sure why you're even in this discussion. You've made it clear that you are not operating under Pathfinder's rules, and what you play is 2nd Edition in a new skin. So your opinion on matters in THIS ruleset aren't particularly relevant.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
@DigitalElf: At this point, after reading a few of your posts, I'm not sure why you're even in this discussion. You've made it clear that you are not operating under Pathfinder's rules, and what you play is 2nd Edition in a new skin. So your opinion on matters in THIS ruleset aren't particularly relevant.

I would disagree with you, as this is the generic "Gamer Talk" area of the boards, and the question asked was "Fluff vs crunch: Do you need crunch to play certain flavor?".

So while virtually everyone else is talking about this question through the lens of Pathfinder, this does not mean that even though I play 2nd edition AD&D, my input is irrelevant...


I don't really get why everyone stresses about going off topic. Nonetheless, thoughts relevant to 2E are kind of irrelevant to what the OP was asking about:

"What I AM after is this: If you aim to create a pathfinder pc that resembles a certain media character, why is it so important that every fluff you have in mind is backed up by facts?"


It's really simple. Just use the word "Physician" when referring to medical doctors.

Grand Lodge

Steve Geddes wrote:
thoughts relevant to 2E are kind of irrelevant to what the OP was asking about:

If you've read my posts, you should see I am saying that I think it is important to retain the existing "crunch" of the various classes, and even if one does not agree with me on this, the rules for creating new classes, whether they are full or prestige, are there to allow one to create a character concept that is not represented by an existing class; and this idea at its core, transcends edition...

So this makes my thoughts on the topic, completely relevant, regardless of what edition I actually play.

Grand Lodge

Digitalelf wrote:
I think it is important to retain the existing "crunch" of the various classes

D'oh...

I meant to say "fluff" not "crunch".


I think in some cases it would be very easy to completely removve the existing fluff and replace with a different fluff from a different point of view, and keeping the class mechanics as is. This is more true in Pathfinder, but could potentially apply to every edition of the game.


WOW!

Okay...since you guys don't qualify a MEDICAL DOCTOR as whom we call Doctors...

Replace what I stated as a MEDICAL DOCTOR WITH A MEDICAL DEGREE.

Not some stupid Archaeology degree who is so puffed up in their importance...

Oh wait...even someone with a doctorate who is referred to as Doctor so and so in class at a university wouldn't make the same stupid mistake as some have in this thread in their attempt to try to invalidate a valid point on class.

I know for my profession, any one who said they should be qualified due to a "skill set" these days and tried to practice as such without the papers stating so would be laughed out of court, or thrown into jail (it wasn't always so however, and in some nations still isn't so).

As I said, you guys can go to some guy with the "skill set" when you have six months to live with cancer, I'll go to the doctor (MEDICAL DOCTOR...how anyone could misinterpret seriously...WOW.....next thing people will be trying to say an honorary knighthood is the a same as the trained nobility knighthood...oh wait...they did in this thread...talk about confused people).

I'm betting people here would love to go to a school of nursing and stating that though they have NO education in it, they have the same skills as someone with a Masters of nursing and that therefore, that degree and years of training and education, effort, and money is all a waste.

Could you see it as skill sets...sure...but that wasn't my point. My point was that you can also see certain classes and such as more set and solid than simply a skill set as they take FAR longer to attain than what many would say a skill set is.

For example, a DOCTOR (once again, a MEDICAL DOCTOR for those of you who can't imagine that when we say we go to the doctor when we get sick...of what we are referring to) takes 8-14 years on average (depending on if they specialize and where they go) to get their degree, could be analogous to class...

And is a far cry different than a skillset that enables you to build your own computer from parts or change your oil. A doctor could learn to do that too...but it's not comparable to being a doctor.

Navy Seals have a commitment of 6-10 years as a Navy Seal...and even then they may still be considered as such...it may never go away. Most consider it more than just a career or job...it's a total way of thinking...a way of life. Many want to be imposters as one...but they simply can't do what a Navy Seal does...as being a Navy Seal is far more than a simple...job.

Which is a far cry different than someone who is able to build a fire and go camping on weekends....

Are they skill sets...sure you can see it as such...but at the same time...the fluff...or what defines them what they are is so much more than a simple skill set. There is so much time and commitment to attain the skills they have, it's far more than simply learning a skill set.

It's the depth of commitment, the time, the money, the effort, that sets them apart that makes them far more than a skill set...and something that is defined by more than simply changing the name.

OR, if you see it as fluff, the most important thing...the fluff piece of paper that states they are such and have the ability to act as such in the Nation they are in (in this case, the authorization from the US govt. to act as such...being a medical doctor...or wear the insignia of the Navy Seal and act as such with the military). In this case...what is truly important after gaining the skills, is the acknowledgement of such skills (in this case, by the US govt.) in order to validate that point.

That's the difference between those who would play with things as fluff being pertinent and classes being more solid than simple skill sets.

For example, in D&D...take clergy. A clergy man of the middle ages would start their training at or near their infancy. This training would continue onwards for 13 to 15 years. That's more than a skill set training as most here would perceive it...it's something that takes time and effort. It's not something most simply pick up and do.

However, numbers wise...sure...someone else might be able to do that.

This is where fluff comes in. A Clergy man of the Church in Europe would have to be acknowledged by the church. You could have others who claim to be such...but the only true power from the Church comes from the Church acknowledging such. Hence, without that investment (and there were other ways than 13-15 years of training, nobility could send a child to the church and with enough money have fewer years of training for the child to be a Priest...or even a Bishop which was more a political position later on anyways) it is very hard to get the FLUFF part of that class.

But the fluff is Important...because without that acknowledgedment...it doesn't matter how many or how much of a skill set you have...the church will never recognize you and you will have no real power (at that time). In fact, you could possibly be executed as a heretic eventually if you continue to claim the skills (even if you have them), but the church states that you do not.


I've already explained why your modern day real world examples are silly. Back before a degree was necessary, or even recognized, all you needed to be a doctor was the knowledge and skill. Same scenario here.

Please, explain to me why you need someone to be called "Rogue" when you need someone to pick a lock, or smash someone over the head?

Why does it matter, as long as they can do what you need them to do?

Why do you need someone with the title "Fighter" to wade into battle in heavy armor swinging a greatsword?

You have written a hell of a lot of useless text on the subject that relies on the assumption that Pathfinder somehow runs on modern day value on degrees, and classes are somehow tied to background even where said background is NOT implied in fluff text (Clerics are not stated to be priest and clergy-men exclusively, quite the opposite in fact, and don't even have to serve a god).


GreyWolfLord wrote:

That's the difference between those who would play with things as fluff being pertinent and classes being more solid than simple skill sets.

For example, in D&D...take clergy. A clergy man of the middle ages would start their training at or near their infancy. This training would continue onwards for 13 to 15 years. That's more than a skill set training as most here would perceive it...it's something that takes time and effort. It's not something most simply pick up and do.

However, numbers wise...sure...someone else might be able to do that.

This is where fluff comes in. A Clergy man of the Church in Europe would have to be acknowledged by the church. You could have others who claim to be such...but the only true power from the Church comes from the Church acknowledging such. Hence, without that investment (and there were other ways than 13-15 years of training, nobility could send a child to the church and with enough money have fewer years of training for the child to be a Priest...or even a Bishop which was more a political position later on anyways) it is very hard to get the FLUFF part of that class.

But the fluff is Important...because without that acknowledgedment...it doesn't matter how many or how much of a skill set you have...the church will never recognize you and you will have no real power (at that time). In fact, you could possibly be executed as a heretic eventually if you continue to claim the skills (even if you have them), but the church states that you do not.

Except that this kind of fluff is not support by the game. Pretty much ANY version of the game...

In these games there are RAW ways to multiclass... soooooo yes. In RL you had to train for 13 years to become a cleric, but in Pathfinder/D&D you have to gain a level.

Even if you require a character to have the actual class 'cleric' in order to call himself a cleric in game... Nowhere in the games fluff does it require you to drop out of the game for 13 years in order to gain the abilities of Cleric. A 5th level fighter/1st level Cleric has all the rights and powers after a multiclass as a 1st level cleric who's backstory had him raised since he was a child in the holy orders...

To claim this kind of commitment to 'fluff' for ever class, also requires you to ban any and all multiclassing. Which a lot of people do, but that's not something supported by the actual Game.

151 to 200 of 355 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Fluff vs crunch: Do you need crunch to play certain flavor? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.