How much Fluff need the Coreclasses?

[mightyjules]

I´m kinda fanboy in terms of fluff concerning classes or coreclasses. I wonder how much fluff will be in the coreclasses.

In the Eberron Campaignsetting you have for example the classname a little Story and a bit of how the classes fit in the world.Quite nice!

But what I really would like to see is the fluff they made to the prestige classes:

- How to play your character
- Combat
- Advancement
- Resources
- The character in the world
- Organizations
- Npc reactions
- Lore
- Adaption
- Sample Encounter

and then the whole crunsh.I know Yankees are more into crunch as you can see it the 4th Edition:).

In general there won´t be anymore changes before next year in August but i would love to see characters this way

[Zmar]

Certainly a thing for 'in Golarion' section someone suggested elsewhere...

[Dennis da Ogre]

mightyjules wrote:

I´m kinda fanboy in terms of fluff concerning classes or coreclasses. I wonder how much fluff will be in the coreclasses.

My feeling is that the bulk of the fluff should be in the campaign setting books, not in the rulebook. A little fluff is inevitable and required to build the characters, the biggest example is the list of the deities (fluff) and domains (crunch).

Incidentally I think almost all PrCs should be campaign based and therefore fluff and crunch all mixed together for them.

[Pangur Bàn]

mightyjules wrote:

But what I really would like to see is the fluff they made to the prestige classes.

Prestige classes were always meant to be quite specific. They turned out less so as soon as it dawned on WotC they had a goldmine in releasing more and more of them, but still.

Base classes are supposed to be more generic. Several of them come with hefty bagage (the paladin being the prime example), but I'd hate to see anyone tell me how to play my character, especially if that opinion is based solely on choice of class.

[Disciple of Sakura]

Pangur Bàn wrote:

mightyjules wrote:

But what I really would like to see is the fluff they made to the prestige classes.

Prestige classes were always meant to be quite specific. They turned out less so as soon as it dawned on WotC they had a goldmine in releasing more and more of them, but still.

Base classes are supposed to be more generic. Several of them come with hefty bagage (the paladin being the prime example), but I'd hate to see anyone tell me how to play my character, especially if that opinion is based solely on choice of class.

Quite true! A base class should avoid having too harsh a set RP associated with it, in general. Certain archetypes and classes of course come with more baggage that others (paladin, cleric, druid...), but I can take a core class and make a lot of "unexpected" characters from it (as an example, it once dawned upon me that using the barbarian "chassis," I could build a better and more thematically appropriate swashbuckler than I could with the fighter, especially with a small amount of fighter or rogue splashing. This was before the swashbuckler class came out, but it's still a viable build and concept. If the class was so heavily invested in the fluff, it would be much harder to do).

This is one of those things that is what turns me against 4.0 - the forcing of classes into very specific archetypes, rather than the general leeway to adapt the class as one sees fit. But I admit that I approach the class mechanic as a package of abilities, rather than a job description.

[SirUrza]

Core classes shouldn't have fluff.. the moment you start fluffing them is the moment you tie them to a campaign setting. Look at the Complete books. There are many prestige classes are Greyhawk specific, while they can be easily adapted to another setting, they shouldn't be.

If I want to be a Tomb Raider (for example) there should be a Tomb Raider class... not a Tomb Raider-like class that for whatever asinine reason is linked to a greyhawk god and church that doesn't exist in any way shape or form in another setting.

While such a class might appeal to someone playing in Greyhawk, someone playing with the Greyhawk gods, or someone playing in a setting with a gods like the Greyhawk ones.. it fails for a setting that doesn't have a god like Olidammara.

If it's suppose to be a "core class" in a "core book" that's supposed to be setting neutral, then the fluff has to stay out of player options in the rules system.

That said, the Pathfinder Companion books are the place to fluff up any and all classes, whether they be the original 11 core, 15 prestige, or any other 3p related class Paizo makes for the game system.

Pathfinder RPG is not Golarion RPG.

[Freesword]

Fluff is nice, but it is really world/campaign specific and should be limited to campaign setting books rather than core rules. While I can see the benefit to having fluff material right at hand at character creation (especially for new players), it only works if the information matches the setting. Fluff is interesting and can provide inspiration, but it can also be limiting and frustrating.

I have my own home made campaign setting and it often conflicts with published racial fluff (and sometimes class fluff as well). I've actually gotten to the point of where I actually disallow some core races which don't fit into my world and have replaced others with new but similar races with fluff appropriate to my world. It saves me the arguments when players want to play an elf that is not like the elves in my world (But according to the book elves are supposed to...).

With regard to prestige classes, my stance stays the same. If in a core book they need to be campaign setting neutral (minimal fluff). In a campaign setting book they can have as much fluff specific to that campaign setting as the author wants.

[Dennis da Ogre]

I think both 3.5 and Paizo got it right (so far in Alpha 3). There needs to be a just enough fluff to make a playable system for DMs who don't buy campaign settings or make their own (and just wing it). Deities are about the only piece I can think of off the top of my head. I also like a little fluff attached to magic items and some spells, it gives a little character to the game. "Babba Yaga's Hut"... classic stuff.

[Jal Dorak]

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

I think both 3.5 and Paizo got it right (so far in Alpha 3). There needs to be a just enough fluff to make a playable system for DMs who don't buy campaign settings or make their own (and just wing it). Deities are about the only piece I can think of off the top of my head. I also like a little fluff attached to magic items and some spells, it gives a little character to the game. "Babba Yaga's Hut"... classic stuff.

Very much agreed. One of the best things about the Magic Item Compendium was the little description of the item you could read to players when they found it, and further history for the more powerful items.