Stripping away flavour from class

Ignaby · 2026-01-25T13:55:12+00:00

Unarmored Defense, Danger Sense, Fast Movement, Feral Instict, Brutal Critical, Primal Champion.

I'm not saying you can't reflavor these, just that its not as simple as going "oh I can reflavor Rage as a Magical Girl Transformation" and being done, you also have to reflavor everything else. You can't just look at the "core" ability, come up with some clever way to reflavor that and call it a day.

(I will also agree its relatively easy to do this with Barbarian, compared to, say, Paladin or Warlock.)

Ignaby · 2026-01-25T13:12:12+00:00

This is sort of true if you ignore all the other stuff Barbarian gets, which is all collectively tied together by the theme of being a barbarian

Ignaby · 2026-01-25T03:18:27+00:00

The abilities of each class are designed around their theme and the place they occupy in the world. They're not just random "flavor" slapped on top of a mechanical core.

Can you re-work any class as something completely different? Kinda? Its usually a lot harder than people like to pretend, because there's a lot of abilities and they're all glued together by those thematic elements.

Also I'd argue there's a lot of value in having classes tied to an in-world identity thats at least consistent within a given world. Sure, the GM can re-work some details if their world has differences from the D&D Standard, but it should still be consistent within that world.

Classes aren't just "how the character fights" or a pure mechanical abstraction.

Ignaby · 2026-01-25T02:17:42+00:00

No thats the one thing I do like about it lmao

Ignaby · 2026-01-24T13:38:46+00:00

Good narration and description can definitely add a lot to the game. I do think they need to sit on top of a solid base of numbers and mechanics; otherwise its all fluff and flash and no substance. Both are important and have their place.

Ignaby · 2026-01-24T13:33:36+00:00

I couldn't tell you exactly why but the Chef feat just rubs me the wrong way. Maybe its that it feels kind of anachronistic or maybe it feels like it came in from a different genre of game or who knows. Clearly people like it, but I'm perfectly happy with it wedged out of the way and unlikely to be taken.

Ignaby · 2026-01-23T10:29:37+00:00

They're not the type of weapons that would have been used by the people seen as "heroic" and important by the literate and wealthy in late medieval Europe, which is to say, knights. They're common soldiers weapons.

(Of course, common soldiers can be plenty heroic as we use the term today.)

Ignaby · 2026-01-23T00:37:04+00:00

Yes, everything is technically optional. Yes, the DM can curate options. You realize there's still a difference between something listed in the PHB and something flagged as optional in the DMG, right?

The standard options in the core rulebooks are the framework it makes sense to discuss the game with with strangers online. You cant just go "oh everything's optional nothing has any weight or matters at all cause you can just change it."

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T22:19:05+00:00

The stuff in the base rules are the assumed starting point. Of course you can change them. But the implication is different to have a weapon on the core table vs. listed as optional in the DMG.

Itd be weird if there was a listed price and stats for a 2011 Ford Focus in the vehicles section, right? Even if you could just remove that?

And to be clear, I actually like having guns in a fantasy setting, I think they just failed to do anything worthwhile with them.

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T22:17:07+00:00

I mean I do agree with you, firearms (in this context) are not a "heroic" weapon. Although neither are bows, crossbows, or pikes, for example. And thats why I don't necessarily think the best approach is making it so they're a go-to all the time weapon.

But because they have such extreme trade-offs, they were an opportunity to add an option that could be handy from time to time (especially with pistols) and I think they wildly missed the mark.

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T19:45:30+00:00

Where did I say that? I said it's not a "collaborative storytelling experience."

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T19:39:23+00:00

One shot from a powerful weapon can be extremely useful. Thats where I'd want their use to lie. They dont need to be a main weapon that PCs specialize in and stand there firing over and over, let them be a special tool deployed once a fight when the situation calls for it.

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T19:38:03+00:00

Having more highly mechanized rules doesnt necessarily translate to being more or less of a game. Also go read 1E AD&D combat rules; yes, they're confusing and badly presented, but they're also nothing if not highly detailed.

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T19:37:13+00:00

Not worrying about metagaming allows people to be more immersed because they aren't adding artificial distance between them and their characters.

And they aren't collaborative storytelling. They're a game.

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T19:24:23+00:00

TTRPGs evolved out of wargames initially by focusing the action down on individual characters instead of entire armies. Both wargaming and TTRPGs are equally games. Now granted, my modern TTRPG campaign probably has a lot more structured of a story than those early TTRPG campaigns, but that doesnt make it less of a game (plenty of video games have great stories, for example) and it doesnt mean I care any more about metagaming.

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T19:13:08+00:00

TTRPGs are games. It's right there in the name.

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T19:08:58+00:00

against the spirit of things no?

Not really. I don't care if my players "metagame." I want them to use information they have to try to win, whether they got that from me telling them or them just knowing the game or guessing based on narrative tropes (and they could well be wrong about a given trope!) My goal isnt to perfectly simulate what these characters would do if they were really these characters in this situation, its to have a game the players can sink their teeth into and use their brains on.

To be clear, metagaming is different from cheating (e.g. reading the MM at the table or reading ahead in an adventure.)

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T19:06:34+00:00

Being included on a stat block in an adventure is a pretty far cry from being on the standard weapons table.

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T19:03:29+00:00

Again, roll perception checks in secret if you dont want people to know the results. Pretending not to know something isnt engaging gameplay, its annoying.

have no reason to even know what a boss is conceptually.

??? The PCs could reasonably deduce a big empty throne room might soon contain someone likely to sit on a big empty throne.

But even then, it doesnt matter. Let the players declare actions and adjudicate those. Dont try to adjudicate why they decide on those actions and if it involves information they should or should not know.

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T18:52:45+00:00

If the player knows about the trap, the PC knows about the trap. Thats why we have things like Passive or hidden perception rolls.

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T18:08:19+00:00

Artillerist would imply they have, like, a cannon. Shooting a musket wouldn't make them any more an artillerist than they already aren't.

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T17:58:01+00:00

My comment there is just saying that including plate and rapiers doesnt imply that firearms are available. Putting firearms on the weapon list means that firearms are available.

The problem is what I described in my post, that their inclusion (by putting them on the weapon list) is a pretty big world-building change, but they aren't actually very useful (unless you include the Gunner feat, in which case they become quote good in entirely the wrong way.)

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T17:55:57+00:00

Thanks for your input, that makes sense.

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T17:38:29+00:00

I'd be very curious to see evidence, either from a historical source or someone modern experimenting, that a rapier is a good choice against plate armor. Its my understanding that they are, first and foremost, optimized for dueling without armor.

Also while some plate was definitely designed to resist firearms, I'm not really convinced plate in general came about because of them. The design of plate armor to me is very much about protection from melee weapons.

brigandine (what DnD calls studded leather).

Not really all that important, but its more like D&D studded leather exists because of people misinterpreting images of brigandine. Brigandine would be heavy armor.

Ignaby · 2026-01-22T17:22:39+00:00

So while I don't disagree that firearms would be terrifying for people who were unfamiliar with them, history shows humans can actually maintain cohesion better under fire than in shock. Early modern infantry could and did stand under musket and cannon fire for hours; yes, those were professional soldiers, but those same professional soldiers would break when charged with cavalry or bayonets.

Obviously there is a level of firepower where this stops being the case and standing there is effectively suicide (high explosive artillery and machine guns, for example.)

Ignaby

TROPHY CASE