|
Of course that's just fluff, right?
Completely malleable if you just want the mechanics without any of the in-world trappings.
Not any more than having to have studied to be a Wizard, no. Some things really are baked in, and an Oracle's power being something that just came to them is sorta one of those things IMO. There's some room for blurring around the edges, but the corer idea of 'A God empowered you, because they felt like it, not because you studied.' is pretty hardwired in, IMO.
My previous comment was an example of "I want Cha for reflex" being, more or less, an in-universe concern as well as an ooc descision.
Sure. And you could take a level of Monk (or any other purely training-based class) to get Wis to AC in-universe. But Oracle isn't such a Class. It's a Class that requires a deity to bless you directly. And few will bless you for a reason like that.
Now, you might well be able to make a deal with a deity searching for such a power...but in that case, what was the deal?
You say that, but I could easily see a character that might not work that way. For example, let' say that we have a devout worshipper of Iomedae who one day sees his town invaded by orcs. He makes a vow to his goddess that he will never tell a lie if she will grant him the power to save his home.
Mechanically, he would be an Oracle with the Battle Mystery and the Legalistic Curse. In-universe, though? He totally asked for those powers, and his goddess answered!
Sure, I'd allow that in a heartbeat. But the key component of that remains that a God looked down and said "Hey, I'm gonna bless that guy!' Which is what the Oracle fluff necessitates.
What that was in response to was someone saying that the Oracle needed such a justification. One where they went looking for the power. They don't. Some may do so, but they're the exception, not the rule.
I don't understand, the paladin decided his faith was stronger than steel and so shed off her armor, and it worked.
Sure. Again, Oracle is like the easiest Class ever to justify. That is, in fact, sorta my whole argument here.
To sum up:
#1: I feel Classes need appropriate in-world justification for training logically needed for the Class in question.
#2: This is usually super easy to get. No, really, super easy.
#3: In regards to Oracles specifically, the justification in question is 'I woke up with superpowers one day. I guess a God likes me.' since that's literally what happens to the vast majority of Oracles.
|
so what, I can't play a barbarian as a black knight at your table?
Never said something to that effect, as you probaby are very well aware off.
there's no explained deviation other than "he's not actually an oracle, he's just a unique version of a paladin.
And that's the ooc-explanation and I have no problems with that. Still, there must be a reason why this deviation came into existence in the setting and to give an ooc-explantion for that, is not acceptable to me, because to me fluff is way more important than the rules (which are, to be frank, not really important at all).
That's why I have no problems with kyrt-rider's approach at all, I even admire him a bit for that. It's just that I like my games to be a bit more simplistic than real-world complexities and class concepts are very helpful for that. And if I did want to play like kyrt does, I'd probably play GURPS or something like that. But I'm actually in the same boat that rules aren't the law but "optional narrative and in-game substance".
The thing is, that the mechanical approach between kyrt and me differs. I still think, that I can play any character I want to play with my approach and that I'm in no way more limited than kyrt is in my choices. Just maybe in the way that I translate that into mechanics and that's a price I'm willing to pay.
I don't understand, the paladin decided his faith was stronger than steel and so shed off her armor, and it worked.
Yeah, but this way you overwrite the default fluff of the oracle class as delivered in the books. I've already established that I'm more than ok with that generally. Still, if you're anyhow interested in the narrative of this decision, you'd probably be interested in exploring the question why this decision worked. I mean there must be a reason why you want to play an holy warrior in light armor, right?
As long as you have a reason that is more than just mechanics, we're probably sitting in the same boat.
Not any more than having to have studied to be a Wizard, no. Some things really are baked in, and an Oracle's power being something that just came to them is sorta one of those things IMO. There's some room for blurring around the edges, but the corer idea of 'A God empowered you, because they felt like it, not because you studied.' is pretty hardwired in, IMO.Of course that's just fluff, right?
Completely malleable if you just want the mechanics without any of the in-world trappings.
i don't even agree a wizard need to train for wizard class levels, so... we just disagree on a fundamental level, i guess.
|
|
Now I'll quote the Pathfinder core rulebook on page 9 in the "getting started" section. : "The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is a tabletop fantasy game (...) Think of it as a cooperative storytelling game." And: "The Most Important Rule - The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your...
The interesting thing about that is that our interpretations of this sentence seem to differ. My interpretation of this is that while "the rules are here to help", they are neither sacrosanct nor unmalleable. So you are totally free to remove or replace them or use them in creative ways not laid out by the system, if something else work better for you.
So if I'm stuck with how to breathe life into my setting, yeah, the rules can be a help. But in creating my homebrew, I've actually found that they (or at least the way they get commonly interpreted) can also be sometimes an impediment to my vision of my world. In this case, I'd rather change the rules than the world.
Now that we got that laid out let's scale down and bring it back to game level. The "fluff" is not fluff at all. It is the material with which the fabric of Golarion's reality is made.
And here we are at my second counter-argument. I'm not sure if we couldn't find instances where the setting creators of Golarion took some liberties with the fluff from the Rules book. But even if you're right to 100%, there's still the fact that the rules and the setting lines are separated for a reason. Because a lot of people might play in Golarion with different rules. A lot of people might play with the Pathfinder Rules, but with another setting. And another lot of people might use the Pathfinder rules and the Pathfinder setting, but still change it because they don't like things as written or simply have another vision about roleplaying.
And all those people are perfectly in their rights to do away with the class system if that's an impediment for their playstyle.
so what, I can't play a barbarian as a black knight at your table?Never said something to that effect, as you probaby are very well aware off.
there's no explained deviation other than "he's not actually an oracle, he's just a unique version of a paladin.And that's the ooc-explanation and I have no problems with that. Still, there must be a reason why this deviation came into existence in the setting and to give an ooc-explantion for that, is not acceptable to me, because to me fluff is way more important than the rules (which are, to be frank, not really important at all).
That's why I have no problems with kyrt-rider's approach at all, I even admire him a bit for that. It's just that I like my games to be a bit more simplistic than real-world complexities and class concepts are very helpful for that. And if I did want to play like kyrt does, I'd probably play GURPS or something like that. But I'm actually in the same boat that rules aren't the law but "optional narrative and in-game substance".
The thing is, that the mechanical approach between kyrt and me differs. I still think, that I can play any character I want to play with my approach and that I'm in no way more limited than kyrt is in my choices. Just maybe in the way that I translate that into mechanics and that's a price I'm willing to pay.
I don't understand, the paladin decided his faith was stronger than steel and so shed off her armor, and it worked.Yeah, but this way you overwrite the default fluff of the oracle class as delivered in the books. I've already established that I'm more than ok with that generally. Still, if you're anyhow interested in the narrative of this decision, you'd probably be interested in exploring the question why this decision worked. I mean there must be a reason why you want to play an holy warrior in light armor, right?
As long as you have a reason that is more than just mechanics, we're probably sitting in the same boat.
but there is no deviation, the character isn't even aware he has oracle levels, that just how he specifically progressed. in other words the character doesn't even know that 1 he is different than the majority of paladins in any regard other than he chose to forgo armor and 2 has no personal reason to explain his difference because of that.
the best explanation he could give someone in-character as to why he forgoes armor, is because, that's how I fight. You might as well ask the paladin why he DOES wear armor, there's just no in-character explanation to give.
and this is what I mean, making me explain it, doesn't add anything, because it's nothing I want to include.
who cares how he fights? he just cares that people are getting saved and demons aren't killing anyone.
----
personal corner v3.0
"why you want to play an holy warrior in light armor, right?"
i've actually done the above, it's because I wanted to have a nobles outfit on while adventuring, full stop. he wasn't as much a crusader in full plate, as guy with ideals to stand for, so wearing heavy armor just didn't look right.
so i took a single oracle level for ascetics, bite me.
|
|
the best explanation he could give someone in-character as to why he forgoes armor, is because, that's how I fight. You might as well ask the paladin why he DOES wear armor, there's just no in-character explanation to give.
Not true. The paladin is specifically trained in fighting with heavy armor, so there is an in-game explanation for it. Now you can say that he is also proficient with light armor (as stated by the rules), but the in-game reality is that he isn't as proficient with light armor as with heavy armor (won't have the best DEX modifier most of the time, so he can't make up with DEX for losing on AC) showing in that he get's hit more often and takes more damage.
You could play an light-armored paladin without taking levels in oracle if you want to. But there would probably be a cost involved because of the higher DEX you need. Instead, you decide to solve this problem by going the oracle route. So from one moment to the other, you do not only use a different type of armor you probably didn't use for quite some times (aka lost on proficiency), it's also that suddenly it doesn't matter because instead of DEX, your using CHA as the attribute related to max attribute bonus.
So no it's not simply the way you fight, because you didn't fight this way until the very moment you leveled up. Which to me poses the question why this suddenly is possible.
Answer 1: You already hinted at this development during gameplay so that it doesn't come up as an abrupt change (and if it is only that your character thought about if faith shouldn't be stronger than armor beforehand), and we have this moment as the answer for the implied question,
Answer 2: We explore this sudden change during gameplay (why did you were especially chosen, or why are you so unique compared to other paladins, however you want to frame the question).
Answer 3: Don't care, doesn't change anything, doesn't actually matter to my character's story at all.
other possible answers as well, if there are any.
Your choice is, which answer to give, my choice is which answer to allow in my games. And if you aren't willing to even make a slight effort to make this thing acceptable to me, our game styles are not compatible.
Could you highlight how a world where people walk around with their classes metaphorically float over their heads is a rich experience?
You've piqued my curiosity here. Maybe something like DotHack?
I've been pondering this, because there's a part of me that likes the idea of classes-as-in-game-professions but I think it's only in certain circumstances. I don't have a problem considering a fighter or rogue as a bunch of abilities but baulk at seeing a cleric in the same light, for example. However, I'm not really able to articulate what the relevant distinguishing factor is. Suffice it to say, I also feel that a cleric-with-all-the-flavor-included is richer than cleric-as-a-bag-of-abilities-with-flavor-yet-to-be-filled-in.
A probably better example is that I really enjoyed Paths of Prestige and think there's something gained by considering the flavor as essential to a Razmiran Priest or Knight of Ozem, for example. In fact, I feel the same even about something like Mammoth Rider. Intellectually, I can appreciate the viewpoint of putting a line through class on the character sheet and just choosing 'bags of abilities' but for some classes it feels like something essential is lost to me.
Not sure if that makes sense.
|
In that case take the Daring Champion! This being an archetype for lightly armoured A Paladin with other benefits as well. You still haven't justified the Oracle level with an in game explanaion.
Personally if you weren't willing to go through the effort I didn't offer this: "Fine your character has the Oracle level to get Sidestep Secret, but they also still have a deity that chose them for some purpose even if they don't realize this. You can't escape what an Oracle is."
|
|
With all due respect Jonathon... why do you abuse your players like this?
The GM is responsible for roleplaying the entire world, why do you feel the need to impose your story on the Player Characters as well?
This is the sort of iron-handed GMing that would have me walking away from a table.
I'll be honest, I've never had to use such methods because no player has been stubborn enough to not want to use the fluff/whole of a class or ignore everything about a class but the mechanic.
I am simply of the belief that, even if it is only a one-level dip, multiclassing to a particular class should have some narrative effect in character that matches in some way with what the class is... expecially classes such as the Cleric, Druid, Witch, Oracle, and Sorcerer. Especially the last three and even the first.
There's never been an issue because I've never had a player like some of those here in this thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin of one God and oracle of another?
"The phylactery of Faithfullness is telling me to do two things at once...
"Mom and dad fighting again?
"Like crazy..
Now I want to see what happens when you have a Cleric/Oracle/(grey)Paladin/Inquisitor/Warpriest/Druid, all of different deities, with one of those.
Baring DM Fiat, oracle and one other and MAYBE druid is all you can squeeze in. The rest require you to pick and worship a deity (although maybe the pantheon mechanics would work?)
|
|
Why?
Why do you feel the need to have any class be a narrative thing rather than mechanics?
Why can't a character just be him/her self, just be Robert instead of Bob The Fighter or Bert the Bard or Rob the Rogue. Or Roberto the Fighter Bard Rogue.
Because classes are a thing, in some for or another.
Fighters are those who have focused on combat, the use of armours and weapons, and training for battle.
Druids are those devotes of nature, able to call upon their power, shapeshift, and have friendship with an animal who fights by their side.
Rangers are those with an understanding of the land, with a closer connection to nature, an animal companion, and skill in hunting down and fighting certain enemies.
Sorcerers are those with unique blood which unlocks great power from within, and ability in arcane magic.
Wizards are those who have focused their time studying magic, carrying a spellbook and adding it as time goes on and they continue their studies. Bonding with a familiar or item to increase their ability.
Witches are those with a patron who gives them power by forming a pact or service with them, with a familiar that stores their spells. Able to use hexes both for good or ill of others, with a reputation that makes it so that others don't always trust them.
so on and so forth, not counting archetypes which can't certain details or overall feel of the class and characters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a Holy combatant for my god (all classes qualify for this)
I'm a holy warrior for my god (all classes qualify for this)
I'm a holy warrior that can touch people and heal them (all classes can qualify for this)
I'm a holy warrior that can heal with a touch and am good at fighting certain enemies. (any class can qualify)
Like especially with archetypes that remove things or add things it really is hard to classify what a class is.
I'm a paladin, but I have no charisma and no bonus on saving throws and a base 4 skills per level.
I'm a paladin, but I can't cast any spells.
I'm a paladin, but I have no bonus to saves.
I'm a paladin, but I have no smite evil and I can inspire like a bard and no saving throw bonus but can grant bonus to sonic effects to an area.
I'm a paladin, But I'm LN or NG.
I'm a palaidn, but I use light armor and can't smite and fight with my fists.
Lay on hands is merely a few feats away for any LG class.
Like saying "Paladin" doesn't mean as much as it might have before archetypes.
My character Seth was obsessed with chivalry, and sworn to a religious order of knighthood. He had max ranks in Ride and Diplomacy, wore a hat with a long feather, had a warhorse he lavished attention on.
When in battle, he fell into a trance that helped him ignore wounds, and he would strike with greater zeal against evildoers. He also manifested supernatural abilities that seemed like obvious gifts from the gods to help him fight. Everyone introduced him as a Paladin of Heironeous.
the best explanation he could give someone in-character as to why he forgoes armor, is because, that's how I fight. You might as well ask the paladin why he DOES wear armor, there's just no in-character explanation to give.Not true. The paladin is specifically trained in fighting with heavy armor
which my counter is, this guy specifically learned to fight without armor. like i said, you explained it with "this is how i fight"
It does make sense, especially in the case of Prestige Classes. That being said I feel it works best as an optional thing. GMs can use it for worldbuilding and players can take it or leave it for their individual characters.A probably better example is that I really enjoyed Paths of Prestige and think there's something gained by considering the flavor as essential to a Razmiran Priest or Knight of Ozem, for example. In fact, I feel the same even about something like Mammoth Rider. Intellectually, I can appreciate the viewpoint of putting a line through class on the character sheet and just choosing 'bags of abilities' but for some classes it feels like something essential is lost to me.
Not sure if that makes sense.
Yeah, I must admit I don't see the furore. Even if I wanted class to be an in-game label, I'd be happy for a player to just invent a new class - mechanically identical to a canonical one with their own flavor.
Seems to me that meets everybody's needs (unless the DM is running a class restricted game or something - I've played in those before and enjoyed them).
In that case take the Daring Champion! This being an archetype for lightly armoured A Paladin with other benefits as well. You still haven't justified the Oracle level with an in game explanaion.
Personally if you weren't willing to go through the effort I didn't offer this: "Fine your character has the Oracle level to get Sidestep Secret, but they also still have a deity that chose them for some purpose even if they don't realize this. You can't escape what an Oracle is."
guy uses a greatsword brah, can't finesse a greatsword.
With all due respect Jonathon... why do you abuse your players like this?
The GM is responsible for roleplaying the entire world, why do you feel the need to impose your story on the Player Characters as well?
This is the sort of iron-handed GMing that would have me walking away from a table.
I'll be honest, I've never had to use such methods because no player has been stubborn enough to not want to use the fluff/whole of a class or ignore everything about a class but the mechanic.
I am simply of the belief that, even if it is only a one-level dip, multiclassing to a particular class should have some narrative effect in character that matches in some way with what the class is... expecially classes such as the Cleric, Druid, Witch, Oracle, and Sorcerer. Especially the last three and even the first.
There's never been an issue because I've never had a player like some of those here in this thread.
i do it regularly, my knights are barbarians, my rogues are fighters, my wizards are sorcerers, my clerics oracles, my monks clerics, etc.
|
|
Yeah, I must admit I don't see the furore. Even if I wanted class to be an in-game label, I'd be happy for a player to just invent a new class - mechanically identical to a canonical one with their own flavor.
Well I think reskinning class is another thing at least for me; I would have no problems with Kirth Gersen's barbaripaladin at all, because it oozes story, and is not just a lame excuse for using different mechanics. Still, it is another narrative as if he would have simply gone the paladin way.
I would probably have a problem with that, if Kirth chose to pull the same stunt without any effects on the narrative at all. Because then I would start to suspect that it was all about mechanics and not about the story and that's not something I encourage in my games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see much advantage in asking a player who is choosing based purely on mechanical gizmos invent a whole bunch of flavor they're not interested in.
If you were really faced with someone who wanted to take some mechanical option which was contradictory/unmotivated according to the 'default' flavor and didn't want to reflavor things - would they really be a good fit for your game? It seems to me that they're fundamentally looking for something different and that the disconnect is probably broader than just the issue of 'how essential is the flavor text to a class'?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see much advantage in asking a player who is choosing based purely on mechanical gizmos invent a whole bunch of flavor they're not interested in.
If you were really faced with someone who wanted to take some mechanical option which was contradictory/unmotivated according to the 'default' flavor and didn't want to reflavor things - would they really be a good fit for your game? It seems to me that they're fundamentally looking for something different and that the disconnect is probably broader than just the issue of 'how essential is the flavor text to a class'?
I absolutely agree but that's why I'd like to have a simple label to differentiate between those styles so that everyone directly knows if my game might be for him. Needn't be roleplayer vs. rollplayer, but in fact I fear that no matter the label, there will still be players feeling offended by being excluded this way.
Because no matter how I frame it, in the end it says: I have no interest playing with you. And even if it saves them what might be a disappointing game experience because of my preferences, they'll probably not like to hear this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I must admit I don't see the furore. Even if I wanted class to be an in-game label, I'd be happy for a player to just invent a new class - mechanically identical to a canonical one with their own flavor.Well I think reskinning class is another thing at least for me; I would have no problems with Kirth Gersen's barbaripaladin at all, because it oozes story, and is not just a lame excuse for using different mechanics. Still, it is another narrative as if he would have simply gone the paladin way.
I would probably have a problem with that, if Kirth chose to pull the same stunt without any effects on the narrative at all. Because then I would start to suspect that it was all about mechanics and not about the story and that's not something I encourage in my games.
I don't see what you're getting at. This good guy barb could have been made only for the mechanical bonuses over being a paladin. Like, I don't see any specific story or effects on the narrative implied in his post of why be a "barb paladin" instead of a paladin. Him being a barb class instead of paladin class SHOULDN'T have any differing impact on the narrative. He's just a good guy doing good things. That's what the "non-fluff" people are trying to say. You build your character and just choose the classes that give you the abilities you want, and not limit yourself to having to play like the stereotype.
Like what in his blurb indicates that he had "any effects on the narrative at all"? I'm really curious as I can't really see where you're coming from.
I don't really see much advantage in asking a player who is choosing based purely on mechanical gizmos invent a whole bunch of flavor they're not interested in.
If you were really faced with someone who wanted to take some mechanical option which was contradictory/unmotivated according to the 'default' flavor and didn't want to reflavor things - would they really be a good fit for your game? It seems to me that they're fundamentally looking for something different and that the disconnect is probably broader than just the issue of 'how essential is the flavor text to a class'?
I absolutely agree but that's why I'd like to have a simple label to differentiate between those styles so that everyone directly knows if my game might be for him. Needn't be roleplayer vs. rollplayer, but in fact I fear that no matter the label, there will still be players feeling offended by being excluded this way.
Because no matter how I frame it, in the end it says: I have no interest playing with you. And even if it saves them what might be a disappointing game experience because of my preferences, they'll probably not like to hear this.
Can't ignore "fluff". boom, this, it seems, describes exactly what you're looking for and what type of players you are okay with in your game. As for a "label" - "Non-fluff-ignorers". Because it seems what your saying has very little in common with the "roleplayers" that has been put forth so far.
There was a guy in another thread who was seriously claiming that if you didn't have "black pajamas" written on your character sheet under equipment, you couldn't use the ninja class.
|
|
Would this be acceptable?
----------------------------------
All players allowed, though focus within the campaign with be on exploration, puzzles, intrigue, and social interaction over combat or battle. Experience given based on completing tasks and party goals, overcoming scenarios based on the challenges presented not simply killing things. If the party is able to do such creatively, with players coming up with solutions that are true to their character personality and outlook, there may even be a bonus. Minor Encounters may be from a quarter to half level, while Major Encounters would be a full level.
Since combat will be of lesser focus, it is suggested players consider other areas of optimization then damage output, and the offer that they look to other strengths for their character. DM will tailor battles based on the strengths and weakness of party, with thought put into allowing all players to shine at different points while keeping things challenging, and for different solutions for a problem or conflict to be possible. Again, creativity will be reward! Especially in ways other then merely killing things, though there will be times were such may be required.
|
There was a guy in another thread who was seriously claiming that if you didn't have "black pajamas" written on your character sheet under equipment, you couldn't use the ninja class.
Lol - especially since they didn't even wear that historically. They wore street clothes so that they would blend in.
The all black clothes tradition came from kubuki theater where (like all theater I know of) the props guys would wear all black to blend in. Then, to represent someone being assassinated, one of them (who the audience was ignoring) would draw a blade and stab someone.
Are you sure that they weren't being sarcastic?
|
|
Looks good Jon.
Thanks, I feel the above was a fair way of wording and handling the situation of avoiding labels while establishing expectations for players and of the DM while not excluding others unnecessarily because of play style.
The above allow a player to decide if such a campaign is right for them, while still allowing optimization of one sort or another for those who do tend to focus on mechanics. This also avoiding the issue of players believing they have to kill everything to level up, and opening opportunities of trying other ideas such as even considering social skills, not dumping intelligence or charisma for combat improving stats, and archetypes or concepts that otherwise would be ignored.
I would be making use of Ultimate Intrigue and Ultimate Charisma.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see much advantage in asking a player who is choosing based purely on mechanical gizmos invent a whole bunch of flavor they're not interested in.
If you were really faced with someone who wanted to take some mechanical option which was contradictory/unmotivated according to the 'default' flavor and didn't want to reflavor things - would they really be a good fit for your game? It seems to me that they're fundamentally looking for something different and that the disconnect is probably broader than just the issue of 'how essential is the flavor text to a class'?
I absolutely agree but that's why I'd like to have a simple label to differentiate between those styles so that everyone directly knows if my game might be for him. Needn't be roleplayer vs. rollplayer, but in fact I fear that no matter the label, there will still be players feeling offended by being excluded this way.
Because no matter how I frame it, in the end it says: I have no interest playing with you. And even if it saves them what might be a disappointing game experience because of my preferences, they'll probably not like to hear this.
There is always the risk in saying "I don't want the same thing you do" that it will be read as "You want the wrong thing".
I think that being dispassionate, fact-based and overly-wordy is the answer, not looking for a term but rather a paragraph. When you try and distill it down to one word, you will lose nuance. It's even worse with terms which have a lot of usage but no consensus (like rollplayer) or which have multiple meanings (like roleplayer).
I think explicitly saying that, if you choose a class you are choosing all of the flavor material as well is better than saying "I'd prefer people not make choices based purely on mechanical grounds". The former is a judgement-free statement of preference (although I grant it is likely to invite the follow-up question "why?"). The second tries to legislate the player's motivation. To me, at least, it sounds accusatory. Not to mention the fact it's impossible to know for sure what motivates anyone else.
Personally, I think it's also worth acknowledging the weaknesses of your chosen path ("Yes, I am restricting player choice and creativity") rather than trying to counter or focus on something else. It also provides them with a fact-based, judgement free metric with which to measure whether they want to play in your game or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would this be acceptable?
----------------------------------
All players allowed, though focus within the campaign with be on exploration, puzzles, intrigue, and social interaction over combat or battle. Experience given based on completing tasks and party goals, overcoming scenarios based on the challenges presented not simply killing things. If the party is able to do such creatively, with players coming up with solutions that are true to their character personality and outlook, there may even be a bonus. Minor Encounters may be from a quarter to half level, while Major Encounters would be a full level.Since combat will be of lesser focus, it is suggested players consider other areas of optimization then damage output, and the offer that they look to other strengths for their character. DM will tailor battles based on the strengths and weakness of party, with thought put into allowing all players to shine at different points while keeping things challenging, and for different solutions for a problem or conflict to be possible. Again, creativity will be reward! Especially in ways other then merely killing things, though there will be times were such may be required.
so i choose investigator and play a strong man who can intimidate people and get us out of any physical encounter. he kicks down doors and can jump or climb like a madman. sure he has 14-16 int, but he never went to no school, never went to no college, and sure as hell was not taught a thing by that wicked priest overseeing the orphanage. also, as soon as he can, he's getting a level of duelist, so he can get int to AC(don't want to get hit by any of those traps).
this isn't even a discussion about combat versus non-combat. it's a discussion about mutable or immutable fluff. I'm arguing fluff is mutable, and as such can be literally the simplest of things that a person in real life doesn't spend 2 seconds thinking about, or complicated intricacies.
the opposition appears to be arguing a paladin has to be the paladin class, unless the character is apparently interesting to them as a GM, then they can be whatever class they want. (though many people also appear to not even allow you after that)
|
|
So i choose investigator and play a strong man who can intimidate people and get us out of any physical encounter. he kicks down doors and can jump or climb like a madman. sure he has 14-16 int, but he never went to no school, never went to no college, and sure as hell was not taught a thing by that wicked priest overseeing the orphanage. also, as soon as he can, he's getting a level of duelist, so he can get int to AC(don't want to get hit by any of those traps).
this isn't even a discussion about combat versus non-combat. it's a discussion about mutable or immutable fluff. I'm arguing fluff is mutable, and as such can be literally the simplest of things that a person in real life doesn't spend 2 seconds thinking about, or complicated intricacies.
the opposition appears to be arguing a paladin has...
Sighs, fine if that's what a concept you want to play go right ahead. Just create a detailed character, explain to me how you would build such a concept and show me how it would work.
Really, while I prefer official fluff to be used, it isn't worth arguing. If a player wanted to take the mechanics of a class and create their own thing with lore different from what is official for the class... Okay, fine. If they explained the concept and it fits the setting I guess there is little to really complain about. If it leads a strong roleplaying, keeps player interested, to then bring into the campaign a detailed and interesting character. Well, I'd much rather have that then argue fluff.
Hopefully this insistence of divorcing fluff from mechanics would be the exception to the rule I admit. I'd still encouraging players to use the official fluff and detail of classes when possible.
So i choose investigator and play a strong man who can intimidate people and get us out of any physical encounter. he kicks down doors and can jump or climb like a madman. sure he has 14-16 int, but he never went to no school, never went to no college, and sure as hell was not taught a thing by that wicked priest overseeing the orphanage. also, as soon as he can, he's getting a level of duelist, so he can get int to AC(don't want to get hit by any of those traps).
this isn't even a discussion about combat versus non-combat. it's a discussion about mutable or immutable fluff. I'm arguing fluff is mutable, and as such can be literally the simplest of things that a person in real life doesn't spend 2 seconds thinking about, or complicated intricacies.
the opposition appears to be arguing a paladin has...
Sighs, fine if that's what a concept you want to play go right ahead. Just create a detailed character, explain to me how you would build such a concept and show me how it would work.
Really, while I prefer official fluff to be used, it isn't worth arguing. If a player wanted to take the mechanics of a class and create their own thing with lore different from what is official for the class... Well if they explained the concept and it fits the setting I guess there is little to really complain about. If it leads a strong roleplaying, keeps player interest, while bringing into the campaign detailed and interesting character. Well, I'd much rather have that then argue fluff.
Hopefully this insistence of divorcing fluff from mechanics would be the exception to the rule. I'd still encouraging players to use the official fluff and detail of classes when possible.
good, because the rogue is my least favorite class but a fairly common concept. also, I genuinely almost always make my own fluff, that character might have been a fighter if you hadn't insisted of a lack of combat orientation, with probably lore warden.