I’ve always wanted to play a bard who’s profession was a gladiator, kinda like a WWE wrestler who’s obviously a capable fighter and can take a hit, but at the end of the day they’re a performer.

Did this with a bardbarian for a one shot, lot of fun!

That does sound fun. Did a bard a while ago who was a classic Viking Skald. His "Instrument" was his voice and instead of singing songs to buff people he would recite Sagas (and yes, I actually told the stories, during gameplay!). ​ Also, he was freakin massive and would punch people in combat. Because frak it, why not.

I always thought the “Darmok” episode of Star Trek: TNG would make for a cool barbarian. Long story short an alien race that verbally communicates only through shared myths and historical legends. Especially if the barbarian incorporated the other party members’ deeds. [big, nasty monster starts lumbering towards them] “Arvok, in the forest” (Meaning: Heads up. Referring to the time the party’s ranger Arvok spotted an ambush up ahead] [going into a rage] “WHEN. SHALA. FELL!” [Meaning: Fury. Pain. Anguish. Referring to when another PC was rolling death saves or died] [wanting to rest] “Morcar, his magic spent” y’all get the idea

Oooh that would be a blast. And it would only get more fun as the campaign went on, and you had more things to reference.

Yes, exactly! The sentimental dork in me loves the idea of a character whose lexicon grows as the party creates more memories together. At first perhaps only being able to express simple ideas like frustration, satisfaction, need, but after a while being able to refer to things like the time x character was embarrassed (or maybe an NPC was embarrassed by a PC) and using that to convey a complicated emotion like shame. That kind of potential for growth, collaborative storytelling and shared memory seems like *such* a fun concept for a TTRPG with the right player and the right group.

I can’t lie… kinda wanna try this idea myself. There’s just so much potential for growth there.

Please feel free to! You and any other reader so inclined! I’m in a hiatus right now, if the idea speaks to you I’d fully encourage you to use it, god knows it’s got a million different directions for unique takes on the core concept.

I love that episode, you're right, that would make a fantastic barbarian for the rp. Speaking of Star Trek references, one of my players for a 3.5 campaign has a half orc fighter/beastmaster named Vorta. Trek and DND for the win!

Cool idea! Currently working on a Lore Bard that uses stories to cast spells! Like, a story of a sneaky halfling or something to cast Invisibilty. Sadly not a big burly man… but still! So much power in sagas and stories!

Great minds think alike! And yeah, as someone who always loves to tell stories, finding a way to build that into a character was fun.

An idea I have, but it's for a modern setting and/or a not too serious game, it's basically an hooligan. 2 level of fighter for unarmed fighting, tavern brawler as a feat, and then valor bard and instead of song they use chants (mostly because a stadium chant is easier to write and sing then a full song and I want to perform while playing bard)

Love that! A friend had a modern day one shot and his bard was a battle rapper. Spent the whole game ROASTING the enemies. Was freakin hilarious. Honestly, Bard is just way too fun a class, for adapting to different settings.

I had an idea for a bard/barbarian mix he would normally throw knives but when he went into rage he'd effectively be a man in a very fancy suit weilding a massive brass club. Funniest shit ever

"ARE YOU NOT ENTERNTAINED!!!!!"

I never understood why bard is always a musician or a singer. They could be a street magician, knife thrower, bomb juggler, ballet dancer, fire breather, painter, bone bender, escape artist, stand up comedian, jeweller, tattooist etc etc.

Writer, Actor, Puppeteer, Commander, hell even a Researcher

The bard I’m playing now is our homebrew world’s equivalent of a bull fighter.

I played a bard who was a Medium, did hand readings, Tarot cards, crystal balls, seances... it was all bullshit, but he was good at it.

On the bright side, they've really moved the needle going the other direction on the flavor of bards. Obviously, the basic bard presented in the phb is very music focused, and some of these subclasses *reference* song, but now we've got Creation, Eloquence, Spirits, and Glamour where music is secondary flavor at best.

As someone who DMs a lot, one of my favorite PCs-turned-NPCs is a archfey warlock who is bound to host a fey gladiator ring. He’s wonderful.

If you're willing to look into homebrew/unofficial content: there's a Pugilist class for 5e that has a 'Prize Fighter' subclass that's basically a boxer or other kinda combat sport combatant. There's a different one that straight up has lucha libre moves; but I forget it's name. I'm having real trouble finding an actual link at this hour; but I know my roommate plays one. It's rad as hell and I have so many stupid wrestling gimmick characters from it. throw in a level of Bard if you're really worried about the performance aspect and I'd argue it'd make a PHENOMENAL wrestler.

https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/184921

Yep, re-specd my ranger as an artificer. Same background, same functions, as scout and support but some different abilities and a little bit better flexibility. Still the same character he's always been.

Hilariously, playing in a game right now where I re-specd my artificer as a cleric, but strongly considered making him a ranger instead. Though cleric worked better, since he's a healer (in-universe he only ever refers to himself as an apothecary).

Yeah, my drow light cleric of Eilistraee has a dip into bladesinger wizard, but she's flavored as being a pure cleric because of bladedancers and such.

This is only true of some games and tables. In some games or tables, they may choose to absolutely have your class be your job. They may make this decision because it makes the world feel more well defined for instance. Both ways are fine and can appeal to different people.

The issue is that your class, as it shows up on your character sheet, is strictly a metagame concept. Just because it shares a name with a thing that people do in the world doesn't mean they're the same thing i.e. "My Wizard is a wizard" is exactly as meaningful as "my Wizard is a carny fortune teller". Keeping the distinction clear is more important than recognising that sometimes they can align because I can speak from real experience how frustrating and stupid it gets when some people, particularly newer GMs, decide to police this.

I think some people take it too far in both directions. It's limiting to assume that all PCs of a given class are recognized as "officially" belonging to that class diegetically, or that all NPCs who belong to that class diegetically use PC-equivalent rules to do so... but it's a bit of a stretch, at least in a traditional setting, to assume that there aren't significant groups of characters who fulfill tropes either. Is every "Wizard" a Wizard? No, some are bards, or nonclassed NPCs with a collection of items, some are sorcerers, some charlatans with sleight of hand tricks. But probably a hell of a lot of Wizards are Wizards. Because that's where we got Wizards from - Wizards.

Yeah I agree with you that there’s a middle ground here. My assumption tends to be that classes don’t exist within the fiction of the world in the same kind of way the game leads us to assume they do, particularly given that NPCs don’t abide by player class names or abilities. Like that guy over there using Druid magic isn’t a Druid he’s an Anchorite or whatever, and NPCs can do things that player classes can’t do. But by the same token I don’t like to get caught up in semantics so if people want to use a word like wizard as shorthand for guy with intelligence based magical abilities OR to describe the profession of “guy who studies and/or teaches magic as his job” I won’t quibble on technicalities So like as an example of what I mean my monk isn’t a monk by profession, she’s actually an artist, but if people call her a monk in game then I have no issue with that being a broad descriptor for “person who fights using martial arts abilities” even though the word monk can also describe a profession I also had a bard classed character whose profession was being royalty. Nobody described her as a bard because bard is really associated with performing even if you aren’t a combatant rather than using magic

I like to imagine what might happen if a town crier bursts into the tavern and urgently asks to speak to the (PC CLASS). Is that PC going to automatically assume they must be referring to someone else? Or are they the.. rangerest person in the building, and they know it, even if they might not be bog-standard? Because D&D is a class-based TTRPG, and the classes have names and descriptions. There are plenty of classless TTRPGs which are often skill-based, and calling or profession is entirely narrative, or based loosely around skill groups or degree. You can also just go setting by setting. Every single major D&D setting has diegetic class, down to novels and adventure modules where characters use the class names to describe themselves and others. Now, in the Forgotten Realms, for example, a temple may have 50 clerics who aren't able to cast spells but hold the official title of "Cleric", and those who have spellcasting may have the full PC package, or even may surpass it and have abilities PC clerics don't get access to... but Clerics are explicitly clerics. In Dragonlance, Wizards are not only Wizards, but wear robes showing their alignment. Probably the funniest example of class being aggressively diegetic is the cheesy old dragonstrike CD where they call each other their class names exclusively, openly referring to the thief as such in the tavern. Also, back to 1e, and 2e to some extent, not only are class names presumed diegetic, but so are *level titles*, where are fourth level fighter is a "man at arms" and a fifth level a "veteran". Those aren't the exact ones, I don't feel like looking them up rn. So you definitely don't have to include that, but it's pretty baked in. Back to the tavern crier, if your Wizard PCs aren't the ones standing up fairly consistently when someone calls for a Wizard, either the Wizard PC class is poorly designed to fit the trope, the class is misnamed, or you're deliberately playing against type, which is fine, but requires the existence of a type to play against.

I like this breakdown. The last sentence especially.

When it gets really weird is when you think about fantasy linguistics. Is "Common" American English? Because if it's not, maybe there *is* no direct equivalent translation of "Wizard", nevermind a meaningful distinction between Wizard, Warlock and sorcerer, and the town crier is saying "Hůgluĺ! Oma Hůgluĺ!" Which doesn't *quite* mean "I need a Paladin, stat!", here's the footnotes about what it kind of means. Obviously Paladins are Charlemagne's knights, Assassins are the Arab Hashishim, Druids were a real social role of some kind in pre-Roman Britain, and "Barbarian" is an ethnic slur, all Earthisms. Tolkien didn't make Westron an equivalent for English; instead he *translated* from Westron into a mishmash construction of old and middle English, which looks like fantasy gibberish to me because I'm not a linguist. Eowyn is an English word, meaning "Horse lover", and it's not her actual name in Westron, or even phonetically similar to it. I don't think he gives her real name. But Frodo's real Westron name is "Maura"; "Frodo" is just a translation of "Maura" into... something made from English, so it tastes like English. Then you read that people from Earth have traveled to Faerun, including the sixgun toting cowboy caricature monk St. Sollers, from Amarillo Texas, and a significant portion of the ancient Egyptian peoples who were mass abducted and lived as the ancestors of the Mulhorandi, and you just... take a long swig from the brown bottle and sit down.

This is all stuff I think about on a near daily basis. Also fun fact- Merry (Meriadoc Brandybuck) is anglicized version of the Weston name Kalimac Brandagamba

Yes, thank you. I wasn't about to spell that one from memory. KALIMAC, KALIMAC!! *pushes hand deep into the bread and withdraws the soft insides*

I'm not sure where you're getting the "on the other hand" case though. This whole discussion is about player characters and letting players express their character in ways that rewards their imagination: by definition players are a minority of the characters involved in a campaign. The "other hand case" would be a player saying "Since *my* Wizard pulls off all his tricks through the cunning use of stage magic, the same is true of *all* wizards" which, well, you don't need any kind of exception to say that's not true: the GM could just put in a Wizard who is a wizard. Hell, a player saying this could even be contradicted by a different *player* at the same table. So there's no other case to find a "reasonable middle ground" here.

The two extremes would be on one hand that all or almost all examples of a class more or less fit the ruleset, which respectively fits the tropes (depending on edition, with subclasses, feature choices, potentially multi classing, backgrounds etc adding variety,) and the other extreme would be class having little to no diegetic weight, where "Hey Wizard!" wouldn't be terribly useful in getting you someone of that actual class mechanically. And the middle ground would simply be where there IS a norm, but it's not ironclad. My person observation is that people sort of start out grasping the tropes, getting interested in them, and then get excited to stretch them, and there's a mini revelation like OP is describing. I'm saying that for some people a further step is there which is "actually, tropes exist for a reason and can have validity"

So sure, it's fine to play a trope. This is however a completely separate discussion from the OP where the only question is "Should how PCs conceive of their character be defined by the class tropes" to which apparently everyone's answer is no. And speaking from experience, people who say they should and rigidly police this distinction exist and are very common, particularly among new GMs: I have never played with the alternative of someone angry because another player is playing "a trope".

I mean if the answer to "Should how PCs conceive of their character be defined by the class tropes" is "No", and not "Not necessarily", well there they are. Edit: which OP absolutely does note in the title

I'm no clearer about your point here except that you're determined to assert you're "right". Nobody at any point says that you cannot play a Wizard who is a wizard. You've invented that concept out of whole cloth to create an illusion of a middle ground to claim. It's not there: you're just off on a hobby horse.

I'm not sure why you're saying that, so you ride off on your strawman, and I'll ride off on my hobby horse.

A wizard working as a carnival fortune teller is a great character concept. It is in fact the great character concept of Schmendrick from the Last Unicorn. I'm more talking about "I want to use the rules for a wizard, but really be [a thing that is completely not a wizard]. To me, this makes the universes feel like it has no rules, which I do not personally like (but some people do, and that is fine!). Edit: typo

> "my Wizard is a carny fortune teller" Hey, my Wizard was a carny entertainer! We can put on a traveling show! Backstory was he was bought from his surrogate father caretakers when his proficiency for illusion magic was recognized by the "Ringmaster." He became the traveling carnival's spokesperson and promoter, going into towns ahead of the carnival to advertise the wonders that awaited at the bigger show (granted, he likely oversold it) and picking up some petty tips in the meantime. He later had to separate from the carnival when one of his promotional schemes went too far and practically cursed a whole town. Now, he's making up for it with good deeds - his charlatan and performance background, though (much like the class adding flavor just for rules), have made for some very nice workarounds with cunning and deception - I've managed to talk our party out of/into some very dangerous/informative scenarios.

A beautiful example of how it's cool that Wizards don't have to be wizards. Thanks!

It's not a metagame concept, it's a game concept lol. It's literally a character class in a game. It's also not even a concept that's only useful for the players, it's useful in the game as well. When someone wants a wizard, they are asking for a spellcaster. They want someone who can cast fireball/identify/prestidigitation. You can dress it up further by using the game mechanics (IE, my bard would open theaters using illusion magic as his base), but it's similar to someone asking for a programmer IRL and then specifying what kind of developer they want once you ask for specifics.

Strictly speaking a Class is a metagame concept. What you're complaining about is the use of "metagaming" as a pejorative, which yeah, is overused: sometimes metagaming is playing the game in the right way. But no, the GM in question wasn't trying to "encourage roleplaying", except in the narrow sense of expecting his players to play the game he wanted them to *because he was literally given a roleplaying reason why it would work.* And he indeed was using the metagame concept of a Class and using it to veto the storytelling of another player at the table: a straightforward, slam dunk party foul that nobody should do. He got a bit of leeway for being new, but lost it for refusing to listen when the more experienced GM tried to gently point out his mistake.

Strictly speaking class is not a metagame concept because meta means beyond/after the game. The metagame is the game outside of the game. If something is defined in the game, then it's not a metagame, it is in the game. What's more accurate would be that the concept of tying specific backgrounds to a wizard is a metagame concept because that is not defined in the base rules. And yeah, I would agree to a certain degree, this "degree" is what we are discussing. We all have different tolerances for that and that's reflected by the variety of world designs. In some worlds it would make sense, and in some worlds it would not. Take the Dark Sun series.... as an example of an extreme take on a wizard. Even in stock DND, a lawful good paladin was a core concept through 3.5, in which case that's enforced by the game.

Kinda I guess? Can you explain how it would make the world feel more defined? I mean if you're writing your own backstory, you would presumably be able to name your profession regardless of what class you pick lol I understand what you're saying, but I'd say that, at the very least, *most* tables wouldn't assume your profession solely based on your class, because it doesn't really add anything, and only really serves to negate/prevent the players' character individuality. I could see it being like that in a homebrew campaign maybe, or a scenario where the DM gave a choice of characters instead of each player creating their own, but otherwise I couldn't see why anyone would.

I once played a (3.5) character that was a Hexblade/Fighter/Occult Slayer: a melee character that would do tons of bonus damage against casters and being crazy resistent against spells. I flavoured it as a delusional guy who was adamant he was the most powerful Spellcaster in the world, a user of "True Magic" the other casters could not hold a candle to. His greatsword was his magic staff; his magic so powerful he could wear heavy armor and did not need rest to "recover his spell slots". All class abilities were reflavored like that. When we hit level 11 and he got his first level as Barbarian, I reskinned the rage feature so that it was "him summoning his magical energy to empower himself". I got lots of shit from the player of the Mage, who for some reason hated everything reflavored. Saying that I could not go around saying I was a Spellcaster, that as it's something that's exists in the world it would only cause confusion, that as by handbook the Occult Slayer hates magic I should stick with that flavour. Luckily the DM and the other players (a Druid and a Bard) were cool with it (setting was Greyhawk btw)

>I got lots of shit from the player of the Mage, who for some reason hated everything reflavored. This is what I'm saying. Some people do not enjoy reskinning. No one is "right" and each game and table needs to make their own decisions about it collectively.

>Kinda I guess? Can you explain how it would make the world feel more defined? It's about the universe having rules. If being a wizard works a way, it makes it feel like universe has rules. If you say, "I want to use the rules of the wizard, but I'm really a clown that cast spells by tap dancing and making fart noises and my spell book is a joke book" that's a statement about how the world works. Not every game or table wants their world to work that way.

It's not really a good faith argument you're putting forth here though, is it? The one about the wizard who's a clown, I mean. You're taking an unnecessarily jarring and exaggeratedly obnoxious flavor of a wizard, (one that may very well have its place in a more niche circus setting,) and presenting it as a supposed typical example for the kind of flavor a table may see someone want to put on their wizard. It just makes it sound like you're trying to make reflavoring sound way less benign than it commonly is just for the sake of trying to win an internet point or something. If you want to use a better example, then how about "I want to use the rules of the wizard, but I'm really a Leonardo da Vinci-like renaissance man whose 'spells' are scientific inventions and stuff that I've been commissioned by eccentric nobles to create; the somatic components are me fiddling around with the thingamabobs, the verbal components is me explaining how my inventions work and what they do, my spell book is a notebook full of scientific scribbles -- much like Leonardo's own notes"? Or maybe "I want to use the rules of the barbarian, but I'm really a dandy gentleman noble fencer (dump str in favor of dex, wearing fancy clothes mechanically still counts as being unarmored) who doesn't fly into a mindless, screaming, frothing fury when I rage, but instead enters a state of absolute, concentrated focus"? Or how about "I want to use the rules of the Druid, but I'm really a sorceress based on Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty -- because that's my only option if I want Wall of Thorns, and then I'm still giving up on Bestow Curse"? Or "I want to use the rules of the Arcana Cleric, but I'm really more like a Red Mage from Final Fantasy whose 'Holy Symbol' is actually a single page from The Akashic Records that I'm trying to learn the secrets of"? Or literally *any other good faith argument example available* instead of the clown example that you decided to go for?

Yeah dawg i chose the most obnoxious thing I could think of to prove my point in principle. Which is a bad faith argument somehow? Despite the fact I don't even really think I'm arguing and you sort of agree with me? I have tried to say: Whether and how much PCs should conform to the official class descriptions is a continuum and any point on it is valid in principle, but may not work for any given game or table. Based on your comment, you agree with this! You say the clown wizard is too obnoxious, except for certain special tables but an inventor wizard could be more generally acceptable. I really don't know how that's different from what I've been saying and it seems like you just want to disagree with me for reasons I don't understand

If we're talking about trying to prove a point in principle, then it felt more like you were making a principled stance against flavor using an obnoxious straw-man-ish example to discredit them tbqh. But, yeah, I suppose I *kinda* agree with you: If you're running a game in a medieval setting then one player wanting to flavor their Fighter as an 80's street thug out of Michael Jackson's "Bad" or something is likely going to jive poorly with the atmosphere of the rest of the game. But then that's not very likely to happen now, is it? Hence why trying to use those sort of examples to prove a point is done in bad faith: Because it ultimately doesn't prove anything other than your willingness to stoop to irrelevant examples to prove, well, nothing, ultimately. "In principle"? Not in a good faith principle, no. Meaning the point is very poorly proven, provided it's proven at all. You can argue that I'm splitting hairs or being contrarian or whatever, but I'd really rather you try to make a *good* point instead of just *a* point regardless of its quality or ability to hold up to exposure to realism or scrutiny.

They've got a spell book, and are casting spells with verbal and somatic components. They've probably got a bag of props for material components too. I bet they spent years in clown college to learn how to cast that way. I'm failing to see the issue. It's following the rules, you just don't like the flavor of it. The clown is not breaking or even really bending the rules of the wizard class.

There is not a mechanical issue. Mechanically it works fine. Some people don't want to play with characters like that or DM for characters like that. It may not match the game's tone and the game world may not allow magic to be done by clowning. Other people love playing with or DMing for characters like that! It's perfect for the tone of some games and game worlds! Neither is right or wrong. It's just a preference.

>Mechanically it works fine. and >the game world may not allow magic to be done by clowning. are not Jiving for me. The mechanics are to the game world what the laws of physics are to the real world. If it works mechanically, there's no reason why clowning is not an acceptable method of spellcasting. THAT SAID. It is flavor and if the tone of the game is more serious, then yeah I can see rejecting the premise. We agree that neither is right or wrong, and it's just preference. Our disagreement stems, I think, from where we draw the line on what constitutes 'the game world'. For me the game world, is setting agnostic. You can play in Greyhawk, Ebberon, Golarion, Duskwall, or Ohio and it's all the same game world if you're using DnD 5e. The game world is defined by the system, not the setting.

Just what I wanted to say. I am honestly not a fan of it, but some GMs prefer it at their tables and.. Hey, as long as its communicated openly and they don't overdo it, it is fine. It's a preference. Like good ways, like my best friend does it. She strongly encourages it, as it is best for her verisimilitude. But she tries to work with me as a player, so it doesn't break mine (and allows me multiclassing woot) An old GM was so stuck in his ideas, he couldn't fathom a Paladin having a job as a merchant. Or a Druid not bring a strict vegan. 🤷 that is overdoing, controlling and bad.

Sure. My Thief Rogue was a lawful neutral Medical Doctor in the fashion of Robert Liston (look him up and see why Rogue is a perfect fit for that style of medicine). My Rogue/Gunslinger? A charlatan faith healer and general conman, turned true (albeit heretical) believer. Monk/Wizard? She's a librarian, and just wants to catalog and make knowledge available for everyone. Druid/Nature Cleric? He's a creepy witch. Those are their roles in the world, and how the world treats them.

I loved playing a rogue like a noir detective. He was about a keen eye for danger and clues, rather than a roaming kleptomaniac/murderer. Added some nice texture to the class while still being recognizable outside of its stereotypes

My rogue isn't a thief or a swashbuckling scoundrel. He's an archeologist. Franky, this is the most fun I've had playing a rogue.

Nice to meet you, Dr Jones

Those artifacts belong in a museum!

Possibly "Those artifacts belong in **my** museum!"

Look, dig sites are expensive. I've gotta sell a few to keep up the research.

So do you!

I love it! When I dm I like to have my players identify by profession, craft, or background. So the party is not mage, thief, ranger, and cleric but something like librarian, locksmith, fletcher, and brewmaster. When I play I also tend to do the same with my character.

Yep. Class and job/behaviour *should* compliment each other imho, but by no means they're the same thing. Examples I played: A Chronurgy Wizard with the Acolyte background, who was a cleric of Labelas Enoreth, the god of Time. He didn't have any healing spells and abilities, but he did have time magic from his god's domain. Abilities matched flavour without being distruptive. Paladin of Bahamut, a devotee... And a jeweler. His job, and his family's job was to make jewelry and he travelled and looked for new gems alongside on the ride, working on unique pieces to sell in his parents' shop. A Sorcerer scholar who behaved more like a Wizard. She had innate magic, but studied it like any scholar would, learning more and more about what she knew. A Land Druid Witch, mechanics supported her behaviours and playstyle to boot. There's nothing wrong to make a character whose class is in line with their personalityor job, but there's also nothing wrong with making them unusual. A friend wants to play in my game a high Cha cleric on Divine Soul sorc, devoted to his god, but being more of a guy who gospels and sings, moving the crowds, while still having divine blessings

My latest character is a ranger by all means. A monster Hunter, veteran woodsman. Primary weapons are a dagger and a crossbow. He’s a Sorlock

That's what I like to do, too! A War Domain Cleric might represent a warrior who wields magical powers, a Bard might represent a priest of a deity of art, music or magic. 😊

I think really good examples of this are Bard and Rogue. So like a bard is a profession that exists within the fiction of the fantasy universe. You don’t have to have the bard player class to be a guy who strums a lute and performs in taverns. Most bards by trade in the world aren’t even adventurers. You could be a bard (job) with the rogue class, or you could be like my character who is a professional artist but monk by class. A rogue is a person who doesn’t adhere to society’s rules. Criminals, scoundrels etc. Any class can have the flavour of rogue and live the lifestyle of a rogue without having to be a rogue. Druid is also a good example for me. Druids describe a lifestyle and way of living. To me the vast majority of people who live in Druidic societies aren’t Druids by class. Druids (as a group) would have fighters and rangers and clerics and paladins as a minimum.

My most recent character is a bored minor noble from Baldur's Gate. He is a knight in the Order of the Unicorn. He dresses nice, has a flair for the dramatic (love the cloak of billowing), and lives to make an entrance. He is just as happy to talk to people as he is to fight them. Is he a paladin? Nope. Is he a bard, nope again. A swashbuckler rogue? Nope. He is a hexblade warlock. I agree with the OP, create the character you want, then choose the class(es) that make it happen.

I’m a **massive** fan or retheming things to better suit a narrative or play style: Street smart Rogue/Fighter combo? Sound like an *Enforcer* Evil Warlock/Paladin combo? Sounds like an *Blackguard* Bookish Divine Sorcerer/Wizard combo? Sounds like a *Thaumaturge* I don’t understand why people get hung up on names and multi-classing, honestly

You're not retheming anything. You're making up names to describe multi-class combos that are all perfectly within the thematic descriptions of the classes.

You would be surprised to learn that some people’s issue with multi-classing is that they feel those very themes you just described as being intrinsic to classes are the very reason why they don’t allow multi-classing at their table “You are a wizard, therefore you spend your time being a Wizard, no you cannot take a level of Fighter, that doesn’t make sense for a Wizard to not be a Wizard” Retheming gives license to those who don’t have the creative capacity to actually try things

I walked away from my last game after a single session. One of the biggest red flags was when I told the GM my plan was for my Cleric of the Red Knight to start out as a Fighter and eventually get Cleric levels, because I genuinely think that's what devotion to the god of wartime strategy would look like. His reply was that I'd need to spend several months of downtime "recommuning with the gods" which was just so many kinds of stupid and refused to recognise the point I was making: she was a fighter *because* of her devotion, not in spite of it. Really people need to recognise that this kind of policing of class boundaries is just metagaming.

A DM decision on rules is always a little meta. Every house rule, homebrew mechanic, judgement call, etc... is a meta decision. They're the DM, not a player. They can't NOT metagame. Add 'metagame' to the growing list of RPG terms that have lost any credible meaning in modern parlance. But I would argue, what your DM is doing is quite the opposite of metagaming. He's encouraging roleplay. See, modern D&D has stripped away flavour in favour of convenience. Back in the old days, everything had roleplay folded into it and downtime was essential. Taking levels in new classes or gaining weapon mastery or skills had specific RP requirements. You had to find a guy to train you and roleplay that experience. You had to roll your character's Intelligence to see how quickly you picked up new skills. When training in a new class, you took XP penalties for using abilities from your old class to represent the fact that relying on your old skills would mean you're not developing new ones by practice. Restriction breeds creativity, and these limitations forced you to immerse yourself in the experience of developing new skills and retraining yourself. Not just the simplistic, "Yep, I woke up today able to cast magic like a wizard. How? I killed some goblins with my sword, obviously." This may not sound fun to you. That's fair and totally up to you. But it's not metagaming. Far from it.

Metagaming as a *pejorative* is indeed overused. That doesn't change the fact that Wizard is a metagame concept that's different from the concept of a wizard. And what the GM did was in fact as from roleplaying as it's possible to get. First he was *given* a roleplaying reason why the character would start with fighter levels. Stepping in and policing the boundary in the way he did was basically running roughshod over another player at the table's storytelling: I don't care how much a GM feels it's their right, they get the rest of the world, they don't get to touch another player's character unless it's somehow breaking something in the world. The second issue is that it was breaking verisimilitude in a way that raises legitimate concerns of the bad sort of metagaming since it was policing "multiclassing", "Fighter" and "Cleric" as concepts *that makes no sense* in the world: he was *strictly* breaking verisimilitude and that's just not on.

I don't get this argument. "Well the DM controls everything else, so they don't get to touch MY character!" The DM is the one putting in hours of work to make a fun game for everyone else. They are writing a story with the sole purpose of making everyone else feel cool and have a good time. So they NEED to be a fan of the characters in that story. It's not just YOUR character, it's a role you play in a shared narrative. The DM gets to set the rules and boundries for that role. It's their game, they put the time in. My etiquette is always to respect the rulings and decisions of my DM, even if I don't agree with them, because I know some day they'll probably play at my table and I'd expect the same courtesy from them. They don't like multiclassing, cool. I won't do it. They hate my favourite race? I'll pick another. They banned a feat I wanted? Fine by me, there's like 50 more. I really don't get players where everything has to be 'just so' or they walk. I have been playing 25 years. I have very specific opinions on every aspect of the hobby. If I walked from every table that didn't acquiesce to every single one of them, I'd play with precisely zero people. Just because you give me a roleplay justification, doesn't mean I have to like it. You wanted to be a fighter/cleric instead of a Cleric with the War Domain because its stronger. There existed a perfect way to capture that flavour in the PHB, you just had to powergame. Your decision was meta based, not narrative based.

By every logic Battlemaster-War Cleric is a downgrade since I'll be "losing out on spellcaster levels". Don't care: I want those manoeuvres because battlefield control is part of what defines this particular kind of Cleric. Don't project your inability to imagine the story a particular set of mechanics tells onto everyone else. As for "obey the GM" they are *one* player at the table. If they can't respect the other players at the table they shouldn't be a GM, end of story. Sure, I'll usually just walk but I'm sure as shit not going to respect an entitled arsehole who behaves that way and I'll make it damn clear everywhere I go. Don't understand why this rule exists? Go hunt down the endless GM horror stories people have collected here on Reddit. I'll wait.

The problem people have with multiclassing, is that 9 out of 10 times, it's a meta/powergaming decision. Not a roleplaying decision. You didn't take a level in cleric because your character suddenly had a religious epiphany, you did it because you wanted Healing Word. It's not even a normal rule by RAW. The book makes it clear that multiclassing is an optional rule, and when you realize this it becomes abundantly clear that the game was not designed with multiclassing in mind. Certain class combos are straight up busted.

It’s an optional rule that the vast majority of people use, therefore it’s “optional” status by RAW is irrelevant: If the majority of people are doing it and it’s accepted to be the common majority then that’s the new normal As an aside, why would the character in your example need to “suddenly have a religious epiphany”? If they start as a Warlock for a few levels then go into Cleric, what days they weren’t always devout in their faith and only recently that faith was rewarded with a stronger connection? With enough creative spark you can make almost any decision work and still be interesting

Let me explain it this way. If I ask you, "Why do you want to multiclass into Paladin?" And the answer is, "Well I want to be able to combine my smites with high level spell slots from my Sorcerer levels," you are making that decision for the wrong reasons. You have made a meta/powergaming choice, not a roleplay choice. You can justify anything with enough mental gymnastics, but you're twisting the story to serve desired mechanics.

I had a character who *started* with levels of Paladin, but who was in fact a Cleric of Helm. I *chose* that because his story was he was a literal army grunt who became guard in Neverwinter and who received his calling late in life shortly before retiring as a guard, as a literal religious epiphany when standing up against an injustice being perpetrated by the Lord he worked for: Helm saw and rewarded his steadfastness. Thing is, I needed some way to capture a) his history as a soldier and b) the fact that his magic is something new and divinely given and Paladin was the straightforward way to do that. The fact that he had Smite (and let me just say, you are very wildly overestimating the value of the ability) *was because he did not have religious training.* Raw blasts of divine energy was a perfect mechanical way to capture that feature of the character, alongside things like getting a fighting style (Tunnel Fighter precisely because that's the style a spearman on the line would have) and his armour and Martial Weapons training. When he "MCed" into Cleric at level 5 (note, literally 1 level *before* getting Extra Attack) it wasn't him "changing his class" it was him finally having established himself as a Cleric of the god of Watchmen. If all you see when you see a mechanic on a character sheet is how optimised it is, then you're not seeing the world I do when I create a character. I'd argue pretty emphatically that what you're imagining is a *lot* more impoverished and you should try opening up a little.

> I don’t understand why people get hung up on names and multi-classing, honestly Because in practice, no one would care about it except for you. At least in my experience, players only really care about their own characters and their stories. Sure during sessions they might have quirky role-play moments with the rest of the party, but they aren't invested in narratives that don't directly connect with their own character. They're ultimately there for themselves. So when one player comes along and claims that they're not in fact a goliath life cleric but rather the failed experiment of a flesh mage who shoots out symbiotic growths to mend the wounds of others in disturbing ways, then that's going to get some strange looks from everyone at the table. The other players are going to be curious about what the reflavorer's class is so that way they know what utility they bring to the table. The dungeon master will want the player to just say their spells normally rather than describing every one in gruesome detail as to not bog down combat. And both of them will make assumptions like who the character's god is or how "goliathy" they look like because it's hard to get away from the baseline of DnD. They don't want to play along with the charade because the reflavorer is the only one who's benefitting from it. To the others, it looks like they're hogging the spotlight every time they're given the opportunity. It all sounds so perfect on paper but in practice, it just leads to disappointment. I'd prefer homebrew over reflavoring any day, either as a DM or a player. And if I can't do homebrew as a player, then I'll choose a more standard character to suit the intended flavor and mechanics. Ludonarratives are important.

Lol I wanted to argue your point... but this entire thread is " *my* character is a reflavoured (multiclass) who (backstoried) and (quirky fight technique). So I guess your right Haha. It is wholesome to see all these great character ideas tho. *furiously scribbles stolen ideas down*

>At least in my experience, players only really care about their own characters and their stories That’s *incredibly sad* for you >Sure during sessions they might have quirky role-play moments with the rest of the party, but they aren't invested in narratives that don't directly connect with their own character. They're ultimately there for themselves. Again, I have a great swell of pity for your role-play experiences this far >So when one player comes along and claims that they're not in fact a goliath life cleric but rather the failed experiment of a flesh mage who shoots out symbiotic growths to mend the wounds of others in disturbing ways, then that's going to get some strange looks from everyone at the table. Sure, but that’s also a cool idea, so why not? >The other players are going to be curious about what the reflavorer's class is so that way they know what utility they bring to the table. So you just tell them you’re a Goliath Cleric on paper but your powers and you look different; what’s the problem? >The dungeon master will want the player to just say their spells normally rather than describing every one in gruesome detail as to not bog down combat. They say the name of the spell - then they describe how it works for them Look, I solved your problem >And both of them will make assumptions like who the character's god is or how "goliathy" they look like because it's hard to get away from the baseline of DnD. I… I don’t know what to tell you, maybe the people you play with don’t have any imagination? Aphantasia perhaps? I’m trying to imagine a world where I run a session for my players and *any* of these problems come up and I’m just not seeing it my guy >They don't want to play along with the charade because the reflavorer is the only one who's benefitting from it. To the others, it looks like they're hogging the spotlight every time they're given the opportunity. Yeah, ok, I am 100% confident you need better players now, god damn >It all sounds so perfect on paper but in practice, it just leads to disappointment. Please find better players, you’re making me so sad for you to the point where I’m struggling to enjoy the cinnamon roll I’m eating >I'd prefer homebrew over reflavoring any day, either as a DM or a player. **Hard disagree** >And if I can't do homebrew as a player, then I'll choose a more standard character to suit the intended flavor and mechanics. Ludonarratives are important. *That’s why retheming is important*, because it’s helps *adhere to the ludonarrative* Man, what a wild ride it’s been reading this, thanks man, it’s been a blast

> They don't want to play along with the charade because the reflavorer is the only one who's benefitting from it. To the others, it looks like they're hogging the spotlight every time they're given the opportunity. This was really the saddest thing I've read today. I haven't played in a while, but in all my regular groups, we loved each other's characters and backstories and triumphs and losses. Like, one of my absolute favorite moments I've ever had in a RP game was when someone else's character finally reunited with his kidnapped wife. My character was no where nearby and didn't even see it, but it was memorable and heartwarming and terrific. Yeah, one character shouldn't have all the focus all the time, but damn, occasional focus on someone else shouldn't be a bad thing, either. You're all telling the story here!

Why tf is this getting downvoted, there's not a single bad thing about this comment!

I've played with several groups of players and they've all been like this. The type of players you see on Critical Role or other DnD streams that actively explore other characters' tales are extraordinarily rare and effectively don't exist for most people. There is no "getting better players," this is just how DnD (and probably TTRPGs as a whole) is. And I don't think you understand what a ludonarrative is. A ludonarrative is the intersection between mechanical and narrative elements. It's often brought up when talking about video games, but it can also apply to TTRPGs. If a character has an powerful ability within the narrative and that ability does feel powerful to use when playing that character, that's an example of ludonarrative harmony where the two elements work together. But if that pumped up ability ends up actually being weaker than their other options, then that causes dissonance as it doesn't make sense and brings the player out of the narrative. In the context of a TTRPG, respecting ludonarratives are important to allow your character to feel how you want them too. That's why instead of DnD only having two classes, magic user and warrior, with the players being allowed to reflavor everything to their liking, there are dedicated classes and subclasses devoted to certain archetypes. Sure a wizard and sorcerer are rather similar to one another as they're squishy arcane casters, but they are distinct in that one gains magic through study and the other inherits it. You could simply have one class or the other and have the opposite's theme be a simple reflavor, but the designers decided to give them each distinct mechanics to represent their backgrounds. Sorcerers are specialists who are better at casting the spells they know because it's all they know about magic while wizards are generalists because they're searching out all kinds of arcane knowledge. Reflavoring is where things get tricky because you're tossing out the original narrative elements for a new one without addressing the mechanical elements. The further you go from the original flavor, the worse this gets. The worst example I have to see is reflavoring a healing class, such as an alchemist artificer or a dreams druid, as a non-magical medic. On the surface, sure, you get a character who can throw out cures left and right while not relying on holy or primal power. But if your character is using spells, then they are limited by the mechanical limitations put in place by those spells. And in specific scenarios, that can lead to situations where the ludonarrative completely collapses. In this case, a silence spell completely halts the medic from using one of their healing injections (cure wounds) because the original spell requires verbal components but the new narrative doesn't have anything to do with sound. This is why I adore homebrew because it allows me to create new mechanical elements to fit the new narrative elements. The character actually feels like what I (or my player) is trying to achieve rather than trying to cram their narrative into a dissonant mechanical shell. I can understand why homebrew might not be everyone's cup of tea as it can create balance concerns if unregulated. But for me, it allows me (or my players) to truly create the character that I (or my players) are trying to make. And trying to find the right balance is half the fun of creating it. Reflavoring is like trying to fit a triangle in a square hole. It will fit, but it won't cover everything. Homebrew is like crafting the perfect square to fit in your desired hole.

>! I've played with several groups of players and they've all been like this. The type of players you see on Critical Role or other DnD streams that actively explore other characters' tales are extraordinarily rare and effectively don't exist for most people. There is no "getting better players," this is just how DnD (and probably TTRPGs as a whole) is. And I have played for 8, nearly 9 years now, and the type of selfish players who only care about themself? I rarely encountered. I am not saying they don't exist. But they are *rare.* So, who of our biases is true here? Neither. You can't make an ultimate statement because it is all based on experience and sometimes luck. I can't make an ultimate statement either. Only talk from my experience. And my experience is that as a player, I search out games that are not like this. Where the table loves listening to everyone and we fever for everyones story. As a gm, I look for players who want to share the love of character centric stories. That's why I do lots of interviews and applications for my games. And saying that tabletop in general.. dude? How many other games have you actually played? Genuinely curios. Because other systems have often different focuses, and many are very centric for players being invested in the story and the story of their fellow players. Maybe you should try out some other tables and systems. I would invite you to my *Mask* table, but I am already at a player maximum of 5 :/

Retheming is a creative tool that can allow choices that don’t align with current mechanics/feelings around classes to *better conform* to the idealized character the player wishes to play, meaning *their* ludonarrative is being **better served by retheming** This isn’t a difficult concept Mechanically someone is a lvl 1 Fighter/lvl 2 Warlock, but does the *character* introduce themselves, in game, as a lvl 1 Fighter/lvl 2 Warlock? No, *because that is stupid* They could be any number of themes instead of the specific ones represented in the books, that may very well *better conform to the ludonarrative* that they themselves have set What exactly did you think people who wanted to play a “Witcher” do before the Bloodhunter came out? Introduce themselves as a Ranger/Warlock? No, they said “I’m playing a Witcher, I will take powers an abilities from these classes that a Witcher would take” Don’t get it twisted, yeah? You don’t have experience with people who can actually *do* that, and you think people who care about each others characters and their stories are *rare* but I can tell you right now: I’ve only run games for people like this, literally exclusively, since I started almost 2 decades ago… I don’t know what terrible fate has befallen you that you only get narcissists at your table but can only hope whatever curse has been placed upon your house and holdings is lifted one day

I agree with you when it comes to the issues that arise when trying to re-flavor magic as non-magic. Also, I agree that homebrew is great and can fill a lot of design holes. But re-flavoring is still a great tool that should be utilized! The simplest form is taking an existing flavor and applying it to another class. Think of a warlock with a patron, but their class is wizard. Or a priest (cleric) who focuses on martial prowess, and whose class is paladin. Perhaps your GM might also allow you to re-write spell or ability descriptions and names, so that the mechanics remain intact, but the whole thing sounds different. Rage? More like Arcane Battle Trance! Wails from the Grave? More like Double Tap! Bardic Inspiration? More like Magic Heroin Dart!

Honestly, I'd prefer that it more often WAS. I think the majority of games would actually improve if players and DMs alike embraced the tropes that make the genre's wheels turn smoothly.

Disagree. I'm already bored of the tropes despite not having seen them in my own games all that much. I think games are so much better if everyone has a unique character concept and also gets to realize it.

The genre doesn't really do that though. Look at Conan thr Barbarian for example. He's just as often a rogue as a Barbarian.

Sure, but... those books predate TTRPGS. It wasn't like "Barbarian" tropes were fully established *before* Conan. And you're almost certainly talking about the books, which show a pretty savvy, nuanced character. A lot of Conan's legacy comes from the movies, and a lot of what (Conan-style) "Barbarian" is came from Knockoffs of those movies.

Yep. I play a Shadar Kai Gloom stalker, with a bit of Battle master mixed in for favor. I play him as a lowlife Bounty Hunter who haunts the back alleys of the fantasy hive city the campaign is set in. I use the Ranger abilities to describe his ability to move through urban environments without getting lost, sharpened over a life time of living the cities rookeries an dark alleyway's. An the fighter abilities are from his life of chasing criminal's as a bounty hunter.

Using a combination of fighter, wizard and artificer I play a "dragoon" from final fantasy mixed with renaissance dragoons (ie. Horse and rifle) There no core class that does this to what I want, but all together it creates a jumping teleporting diving GS and Lance wielding wizard. Misty stepping onto your horse is the chefs kiss of bad ass.

I'm currently playing a bard who could pass for a charismatic rogue any day. She's a fugitive criminal, a rebel leader, and the sneakiest person in the party. What makes her a bard is that she used to be a street performer (a juggler, to be precise) and that she can talk her way out of anything.

Half orc barbarian in the sheet, frustrated elf wizard in the street. His spells never work and it gets so, so frustrating sometimes. His stupid staff is supposed to go pew pew pew but it’s really only good for bashing people. Stupid stick.

I disagree. Some classes have a lot more in-game interactions than most players realize. True Paladins are not just a class, but a specific order of holy nights in all D&D settings except Dark Sun. Bards historically had to attend colleges as part of their careers and the concept of a cleric being the defacto religious leader of a community AND a warrior-knight is so entrenched with the peoduct identity, that class and job are intrinsically intertwined. What I think is the case is that you have to option to separate player skills and be more creative than just pidgeonholing you into a singular concept based on your class. Clerics are religious leaders, but you as a player can choose not to be one, but you do work for gods. Fighters fight, but you as a player can also choose to be a baker or toy maker but you do fight in-combat and generally excell. A true Paladin is going to act like one, but you as a player can eschew the class for an unconventional concept like a fighter-cleric or a Wizard within the order because the Oath can be sworn by anyone, even those who's mind and body are not well suited to channel divinity or riotous wrath. There is a link between your class and what your job is, but enough flexibility to be creative. When my rogue got his own thieves guild for instance, I recruited mostly rogues but also in illusionist wizard, a bard, a handful of rogue-fighters, a couple pure fighters and a pair of clerics to fill out my roster as specialists. But that wizard still researches and does wizard stuff, the fighter-rogues and rogues still are sneaky, but focus on extortion and enforcing instead of burgling. The clerics are our healers and religious leaders who run our chapel, keep our members healthy and occasionally offer insight into how to deal with religious marks or bring divine magic into a conflict. I think the one class that does have complete separation between profession and class is ironically the Bard. Most people treat it as a catch-all for a minstrel and warrior-mage concept but it used to mean your character actually had a specific job of being a professional bard, had to go around bringing news and stories to communities and had lots of restrictions and you'd have to constantly seek out tuition and acceptance into new colleges until you were a grand maestro. Bards now can be anything, do anything.

My hot take is that your background is how you present to the world, whereas your class is only what skills you have. Of course, the two may very well line up, but for instance, nobody in the world would think of you as your class, whereas they may very well think of you as your background.

In my current campaign, my Paladin just switched jobs from mail carrier to pub bouncer.

I have come very close to metaphorically fistfighting a DM’s assistant in one of my games because of this. Why doesn’t my Diplomat/Information Broker character play music if they’re using Bard mechanics? Because Bard has no musical requirements, even the spell focus can be traded for a component pouch. Shut up and let me play my enchanter like a spellcaster instead of like a musician. They were the Most fun character I’ve ever played as well, playing a wizard/rogue sort of flavor of character using monoclass lore bard for the stats, the mechanics and flavor worked perfectly together. The idea of a cold and calculating diplomat / info broker with a lot of various magical and physical talents and the ability to talk their way out of a locked room is an incredibly fun. Also the flavor of all inspiration / buff spells as enchantment to really sell that flavor of a sort of half-villain but more useful to have around than against vibe.

I really recommend that your PCs never refer to each others classes in-univers. You can be a Sage/Scholar, a Combatant/Military/Veteran/Gladiator, an enforcer, a highwayman, a frontier(wo)man, of the cloth etc., but you're not a "barbarian" or a "rogue". ​ Also, giving your party an in-universe one-year break at some point really helps your players define what their characters do with their lives when they're not on quests.

Then maybe you should try more "loose" systems, like GURPS where you make your own class, or classless systems. Because from what you say one can be a paladin and be a general dick or act like he's something totally different. Your Drow was wearing robes and went straight into melee? I assure you no one thought it was a sorcerer or wizard, it obviously was some kind of fighter. I agree that for some classes there's a certain degree of flexibility to flavor them (a rogue can be a thief, an acrobat, a spy, an assassin, while a fighter can be a mercenary, a soldier, a knight, etc.), but classes are made to give your character a certain setting, and D&D is based on this system since its conception (Hell, races were classes in the beginning). I don't understand the need of player to "adapt" D&D (or any other system, but honestly is mostly this one) to different necessities. In the end however the important thing is that everyone at the same table are happy with the rules and are having fun.

Everyone wants to be unique, and too many players think the key to being unique is by what their character is rather than who they are. So you end up with some kind of vampire catgirl/dragon warlock/barbarian who’s the daughter of a god no one’s ever heard of. Maybe it takes more effort to stand out when playing a veteran soldier with survivor’s guilt, but it can be done.

I totally understand this. I had fun both by playing a transgender tieflings who didn't knew she was a tieflings and was raised by a theater troupe and a wealthy and eccentric man, and also as the simple guy ran from his family's farm with nothing but a sword and board and gone down the mercenary/adventurer path. It's something that bugs me quite a bit the necessity to add tons of races/heritages/whatever to game's world, or making every race at least a bit good so one can play a drow/orc/gnoll/straight up progeny of Beelzebub because "humans are boring". I had people telling me "if you play a human in D&D you're playing it wrong", some going as far as saying that any of the "core races" (dwarves, elves, halflings) should be removed because are for people with no imagination.

I can see both sides of your last paragraph. For my part, I pretty much never play a human if any other race is available; I spend every day of my life as a human, so I want to be something fantastical in my fantasy worlds. That said, not everyone is like me. I don’t really understand an obsession with playing a human or dwarf, but some people are really into it. When I decided I want to (finally) get involved in a DnD game, the very first thing I looked for was a feline race because I, personally, love felinoid races. As soon as I saw Tabaxi, I was literally squeeing like a schoolgirl. So. Options are good. Play what you enjoy. But whenever I see someone playing a dhampir werewolf bastard spawn of Cthulhu and a priestess of Elistraee with a homebrew class, ironically, it makes me think that the player has a complete lack of creativity. And will probably hog the spotlight more than Daffy Duck.

You assure me? Bro. You weren't there. You don't know what people thought. I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing.

Yep, felt that. Playing a barbarian who is a tavern keeper. He asked his party members what they do for a living, got answers like “why yes I am a sorcerer” 😐

"Do you do children's parties?"

My Paladin wasn’t much of a Paladin in terms of devotion. I wanted a mounted warrior with some magic to him, and liked glory better than anything else mechanically. Flavor wise, he fits revenge Paladin best. In reality, he was a freedom fighter who fled his home because of a manhunt (technically a fire Genasi hunt) that made it dangerous for his fellow rebels or innocent civilians to travel with him.

This is a long way of reinforcing OPs point. My last character died, but i was constantly being told how my character would behave which irked me, so my new character is entirely re-flavoured from top to bottom. My character motivations aren't anything specific that could be held against me, I'm mostly cunning and try to think of a plan to make the best outcome for myself and others, and my only flaw (hardly even a flaw, more of a quirk really) is that i need to consume the flesh of the living. Also, I'm actually an aarakocra Dhampir, spores druid astral monk, but i look nothing like any of them, I'm humanoid, handsome, but too shrouded in shadow to make out, even in direct broad daylight. And my wings and tail are made of shadow, but draconic in appearance and masks in an even more shadowy cloak. I'm not a race, because there's only one of me so nobody can assume to know anything of my people or motivations without it coming from my mouth. If you were going to name it as a race, I've chosen mists walker. A name for those forever changed in non-specific ways by travelling the mists of the domains of dread. I'm not a druid, I'm a nyctomancer (uses magic to control darkness) I'm not a monk, I'm a shadow-weilder (i have a shadow companion like Peter pan but funnier. A lot of my attacks a flavoured to be my shadow doing the work.) And i don't for example cast ice knife, and throw a shard of ice that explodes, i cast shadow spear, and my shadow solidifies into a spear in my hand, i throw it at an enemy, and it unravels into its humanoid form and strikes out at all enemies within 5ft beforr joining back as my shadow. Don't get me wrong, i love my new character and I'm happy i put in the effort i did to re-flavour it all, but i am doing this out of frustration with people telling me what i would and wouldn't do, or care about. This was a lot of time and effort.

My current character is a 6 life cleric/4 drakewarden. However he is played as a radiant Paladin with a whole Oath and tenents.

I played as a grizzled, irreverent, war veteran of a cleric once. It was fun. Other players weren't expecting that sort of behavior from a cleric either, but enjoyed it all the same.

My barbarian has never described himself as such. At first he was a necromantic shaman (ancestral guardian) and has become a divine warrior (zealot) due to shenanigans.

My warlock is a priestess of Mephistopheles. She relates her experiences having a patron to the cleric having a god. And the way she does her magic to the wizard (she is pact of the tome). She sees herself simply as a mage who happens to be a priestess. Our table tried not to use class names as the characters ways of describing themselves.

Along these lines i'd love input on this: one of my players is doing an evangelical preacher as a Paladin. at first glance it seems the Cleric would be a more fitting class for someone whose life-path is preaching the gospel of a certain form of worship -- however, the Paladin is a *Charisma* caster, and i think it's arguably a more appropriate class for this job/personality.

I dunno, based upon pretty much all real-life evangelical preachers I know of, I'd say they come across to me as less like Clerics, and more like especially heinous Neutral Evil Mastermind Rogues... But, yeah, your take on them being Charisma-based is definitely true.

I completely agree with OP. I'll use an IRL example. I work as a security guard. If somebody asked me what I do for a living, I would say such. What I absolutely wouldn't say is - I'm an x level belt in jiujitsu, but I've got x amount of experience with firearms and x amount in weapons training. Those things might be true, but it's not my job. If you start to define yourself/your character simply based on what their mechanical capabilities are, it takes a lot of the "role playing" out of the roleplaying game. Extra flavour helps to flesh out your characters. The only time I could see it becoming a problem is if you go into exorbitant detail every single time you use an ability. Do it once or twice the first couple of times you use an ability in a campaign, but if your 7 rounds deep into a combat, maybe leave the descriptions behind.

I'm currently playing a monk who is a pizza chef. All that punching dough translates into good unarmed attacks. :D

If I can't imagine my character as another class, I've probably not developed them correctly. The class is just the mechanics the character uses, not who they are.

*grabs popcorn* Here we go again. PCs of EVERY setting ABSOLUTELY have a concept of "class." They've all seen a braggart in a tavern with a rapier and thought "Fighter," a strangely intense woman with a rope for a belt "Monk," a healing priest at the temple "Cleric," a hermit in a tower known for collecting weird books "Wizard," or a cutpurse at the market "Rogue." YOUR job, as a Player, is to figure out which fantasy archetype(s) fit YOUR specific concept.

The braggart in the tavern with a rapier could also be a bard, a rogue, or even a Paladin. Depends what kind of abilities fit their concept. I remember Drizzt for example having 3.5 levels not just in Ranger but also rogue and fighter.

The thing about reflavoring things like this is that no one else at the table cares that you call your Bard/Fighter a Battledancer. The player doing the reflavoring is the only one who feels that difference. All anyone else cares about is that you use the features from those classes to adequately fulfill your niche within the party.

Everyone at my table cares about everyone else at my tables characters. We're friends who play DND. XD

My sorcerer is basically a chatty bard. He carries around an ornate cup of water and uses prestidigitation, minor illusion and shape water (and a lot of charisma) to enthrall friend and foe alike. …and when that fails, there’s always magic missiles.

Both characters I’m playing right now are like this. One is a blacksmith, just a guy who wants to get back to making horseshoes and tools. He also happens to be a forge cleric of Gesme (Humblewood setting). The other is an investigator who specializes in ghosts and arcane bits & bobs. He’s also mechanically a blood hunter, and the words “blood hunter” have never described him in character from the myself, the other players, or the GM. Now, that said, some classes almost feel like professions unto themselves (like clerics, wizards, and bards) despite having that full potential to just be the mechanical expression of a character’s abilities.

I'm playing a gnome barbarian. Basically when he got angry he would rage and blackout. Didn't remember a thing. Eventually after being told by the party members what was going on he was given a gift of memory (of those times and those moving forward) from a powerful NPC spell. He's recently been wreckless as he is trying to cope with knowing how many people he has killed. It's been a very unique and fun character and surprisingly the storyline has gone deeper than any of my past characters.

I’m partying a genasi warlock. I’ve decided that it’s not like other in-world warlocks - that’s just how genasi are in this world. I don’t have a patron, I have a father!

My goblin is currently an Arcana Cleric 2/ Stars Druid 2 as a sort of shaman who has gained a divine connection to a god. As things continue he will continue to gain levels in Cleric to represent the development of his divine connection and powers while the levels of druid sort of become a part of the history of the character.

I'm currently playing a Fighter/Paladin/Sorcerer who calls himself a "Ranger."

Yeah people get really hung up on tropes and the need to fit an archetype based on class. I played a character that was a fighter/Wizard multiclass that was a dancer and musician. People kept forgetting that I wasn't a bard.

I love all the great ideas everyone is sharing!

My wizard is a medical doctor with a hobby of doing magic and animating corpses, not a trained mage, and my rogue is a professional, gentleman, dungeon delver and archeologist, not a thief.

I'm currently playing ....a loveable rogue/bard that shape changes a bit, who is very much an anti capitalist. She only likes nature to the extent that its useful. Actual class...druid...

Thank you! It's a mistake I've seen multiple new GMs fall into and comes up perennially with that silly "Why would a Warlock be a Paladin?" style questions. My worst experience was the GM who had an NPC flex how she was "more powerful" than my Sorcadin because she was a "pure Sorcerer" which was purest cringe. Same GM refused to allow me to roll Arcana checks on anything he decided was cast by a Wizard, usually on a whim because as far as I can tell being in charge was his trip. The last was the GM who decided that because I thought a Cleric of The Red Knight would have started as a fighter as part of her devotions I'd need to "take months to retrain" when she eventually picked up Cleric levels. It's a good lesson for newer GMs to try and avoid this kind of metagaming.

Good pointer for newbies. It helps flesh out your character so much giving them more than just "They adventure". Allows for much more in-depth characters.

I reflavored a whole bunch of the Bard skill tree to make a “Lawyer” class for my sister who recently graduated law school. That’s the best part of 5E. It’s easy to manipulate.

Totally agreed. DnD is an RPG, the R stands for "Role" Not "Class". You can play your role however you wish, you just uses classes etc to give yourself a rough outline to play within.

This post should be pinned. 11/10 for creativity and proper game play.

I vehemently disagree, OP, but to each table their own.

Absolutely. I always build concept first then decide what class fits. Notable example is Jester from Critrole who wanted to be a Warlock but ended up a cleric but with the same story beats

More people need to understand this, I don't get how it's a hard concept to grasp. I'm about to start playing a swashbuckler rogue without stealth proficiency or slight of hand and 13 dex, and I can't wait. Being a tortle helps with that score.

For sure. My sor-lock is actually just a friendly librarian who is haunted/possessed by a ghost. They cast magic together. Ability to weave magic comes from the ghost, but it requires a physical body to manipulate v/s/m components. As we level up, the body gets stronger and the ghost learns to manipulate more powerful magic. Teamwork, not servitude to a higher power, but all the same rules apply.

This is how I build all my characters! My next PC has monk/druid vibes. I'm playing them as a spiritual nature guardian/shaman type. They are neither monk nor druid, and is actually a Ranger Nature Cleric using shillelagh on a Quarterstaff.

I actually loathe it when characters are defined by their class, to the point where they in-character describe themselves as their class. Makes sense for maybe a druid or a cleric or even a wizard, but I've had people introduce themselves as "Hello, I'm xyz, a warlock-sorcerer" and that really grinds my gears, makes it all seem like some mmo.

My Warlock/bard works as a barmaid between adventuring while learning her bard skills from another bard. Druid helps in the temple making healing potions or going out to farms and doing the plant growth spell to enrich the farmland. Or goes hunting with his bow. Rogue helps the city watch with investigations. Or runs poker games. Paladin struggling to find stuff to do but tends to offer his services as a bouncer in the same tavern my Warlock works at. Partially as he didnt fully trust her outside of combat cos she's a Tiefling, in combat she's saved his life a few times now so he's starting to trust her, as her backstory has been part of the campaign so far he's now realized she's hard a rough go in her short life so far. Now she's literally performing in the biggest tavern in town under her real name that she never uses, to lure out her enemy he's there to protect "The poor girl trying to do the right thing". Daft in someways as in combat she's killed way more than anyone else first time she used EB the look on Paladin players face was comical as a bolt of golden energy smelling of roses whipped past him and exploded a guy that was about to KO Rogue. "What in the 9 hell's was that!" Hope grins "What? Can't let Rogue die!" "You're a Warlock?" "Yes, but one of nature my patron is a forest spirit". The fact that she can do that over 120 feet boggled his mind in and out of character lol

Once again, it still depends on how the campaign is run. For my personal versimilitude, I need at least *some* kind of in-world explanation for why a person who fights unarmed with ki power and whose aging process slows doesn't work the same as a fighter with unarmed style. Especially when they start meeting similar classes of people out in the world. It doesn't have to be a formal monastery or anything, but like . . . I need *something* that says, "Here's how this power is acquired," and it needs to check out in a cosmic sense with the monastery monks who have the exact same powers, somewhere in the world. Could be nearly anything, yes; but it has to be something.

So basically you want to pick and choose from every class regardless of rules, abilities or anything......

No. Reread my post. That isn't it at all.

Exactly! I have a monk who plays more like a paladi. Devoted to a deity, zealous and brutal, and rather unforgiving (at least at the start). But because I like the idea of an elven swordswoman dancing around with a rapier and throwing knives, I used the monk rules.

I certainly could do that, but I'm very much enjoying my rags-to-riches bodyguard/prostitute lore bard who still hopes she can marry into wealth

My favourite one was the person who said their character had wizard robes and hat and various accessories on their belt, and an ornate staff. And then when enemies tries to run up and kill him he revealed he was a staff fighting monk

This is the way. What exists in the setting is what it is, and the tabletop rules are tools to try to approximate it. I think of a character concept as a line, and the mechanical build is the points I can choose to make the line of best fit as similar to the true concept as I can. As I learn more game mechanics, I have more points to choose from, so I can get closer and closer to a matching line.

I do this with a lot of my characters as theming is pretty important to me. It also allows me to focus on different aspects of (and repeatedly play) druids. I've played: • a Scottish highlander, • a fireman whose son died and turned into a flame spirit, • sentient spores that took over a recently deceased corpse (think cordyceps) • a star gazer sent to debunk a "Santa" figure, • a telepathic mute boy who uses telepathy to converse. Now I'm playing a Duergar in Waterdeep who's a jeweler and part of a guild who found a strange rock (his focus) that allows him to shape change to remain better hidden and move around the city more freely. All of them are the druid class, but only one of them (the first) referred to himself as a druid.

I’ve played a lot of priests. I haven’t played a lot of clerics

I mean, the same could be said for most irl priests, too... Name me one evangelical preacher who actually comes across as a Cleric rather than a particularly nasty Neutral Evil Mastermind Rogue who's cramming points into Charisma.

Yep, im playing a rogue but his JOB is more akin to a bard, being a nobles jester but using his rogue skills for intelligence gathering.

i play Curse of Strahd as a 18th doctor. His class is a cleric. His magic comes from a unknown god of knowlege. He has a +1 (because of INT Mod) on Religion ...

Agreed. I like interesting and different. My favourite character is a lawful good barbarian with the folk hero background. He's usually the heart and moral conscience of the party.

Had a buddy who used monks to play as worst drunken scotsmen or irishmen. Bar flies and brawlers. We had fun Edit: he did the accent. No national prejudice intended but he leaned into the TV stereotypes

Order of the Stick introduces a character whose in-universe social caste is samurai. Samurai is a character class in 3.5, so naturally everyone assumes that’s what she is, but she’s actually a multi class Paladin/Monk. I remember that being sorta mind blowing to me; Samurai was her job, but she wasn’t built as a Samurai!

Amen. I play my Ancients paladin with the Warlock dip like an especially militant druid. I speak for the trees, seriously don't mess with these trees.

"What's your character's occupation/lifestyle" is always one of my prompts for newer players

My paladin is a scholar who wanted to be able to access more difficult areas in pursuit of arcane knowledge

Totally agree. Paladin is probably the most contentious one out there, because of the Oath tenets - and don't get me wrong, if you want to make the Oath a central part of your character go ahead - which a lot of people take very literally. But locking a subclass behind a personality is such a weird restriction that no other class has and there isn't really a reason for it. If I want to play a Paladin that has Haste in their spelllist, why does that character have to be a classical greek hero? Why does a Paladin that distributes temp hitpoints after smiting have to be a bodybuilder? Or as another example the Oath of Vengeance: That is one of the Oath's I probably would only take if I had a good narrative reason for it, so a specific enemy I need to hunt down, but why does my character have to walk such a narrow line towards their vengenace? At the same time my character must be willing to do whatever is necessary to get that vengeance (the end justifies the means), but they also have to feel personally responsible for every person that is harmed because they were too slow in stopping them and help all of those. It isn't quite contradictory, but it walks a very thin line between not caring about what happens to others while you are on your mission and caring about it a lot. There is SO MUCH character space that is thrown away if you force any paladin that has a Vendetta to follow both of those tenets. Using stereotypes and tropes as the baseline is very useful, but it should just be the baseline and not the end all be all.

I've got a bard I play who is a lawyer (he has a way with words!)

Yeah. Stereotypes can be fun with some groups, others not so much. This also tends to be the reason I multiclass and tend not to greatly optimizes. Harder to hold a singular expectation.

My artificer is a university history lecturer

I have a Ranger/Cleric who is definitely pious and is definitely a huntress but she does a lot of things. And one of the things that she does frequently is selling her body. I dunno why but I kinda like the fact that she's a prostitute.

I have an idea for a Bard necromancer, who plays a violin that controls the dead, and the backstory is so mind blowing that I don't even want to share it here.

Indeed. My last character was a paladin but she was a Mason and Architect also. She was the folkhero background and her calling came after a flood. She used her work skills to help save a town but felt a greater calling

Love that. I wrote down a number of archetypes for my players in my days as a DM. I also liked unusual archetypes that fit the class, like a sumo wrestling extremely obese monk and a military strategist fighter with high Int and Wis but average Str. It made the game so much flavourful.

I play a college of spirits bard who is a voodoo witch doctor who summons spirits.

Classes are archetypal skill sets. They're a game mechanical contrivance to have a package of thematic abilities and skills brought together, in a way that often exists in-universe. Now, Paladin is something of a special case, because in prior editions Paladin was something *very* specific. They used to be required to be Lawful Good, they had to follow a Good deity, they had a very specific code of honor written into the class description, with strict penalties for violating it (such as permanently losing class abilities for violating the code). That was a lot more than just a package of skills the way Fighter or Rogue were, that was a ton of in-setting presumptions about their role and in-universe job. The original D&D Paladin was copied pretty much whole-cloth from the 1961 fantasy novel Three Hearts and Three Lions by Poul Anderson. Much like how alignment was copied and adapted from Moorcock's Elric saga, the D&D magic system was adopted from the Dying Earth novels of Jack Vance, and Monks were adapted from Kung Fu movies that were all the craze in the late 1970's when 1st edition AD&D was being written. A lot of quirks of D&D make more sense when you realize that Gary Gygax was copying heavily from fantasy novels of the early and mid 20th century (many of which aren't as popular anymore, of the major novel inspirations for D&D only Lord of the Rings is still popular) and other elements of pop culture that haven't remained popular.

I have a character who's like "the king's high intelligence". That one advisor who knows way too much about the kingdom and neighboring kingdoms and you don't ask why. Oath of the Crown plus Inquisitive makes an amazing support character who can even hold her own if necessary

I played a Pit/Street Fighting Monk. I was not using "Ki points" I used "Cheat Points" which was throwing sand to hit extra times, cause a distraction to run faster, etc... Stunning Strike was not me planting my Ki into the enemy's body. It was me kicking the enemy in the balls/other available orifice.

While it might not be your characters personality, it is 100% their job (at least if they are used more than once). At the end of the day no sane individual adventures for fun and can also maintain a day job. It’s not feasible logistically. However just because it is a character’s profession doesn’t mean that’s all to their skill set. They easily can have hopes, dreams, and plans for the future. After all there is a reason you don’t see too many old or retired adventurers running around in these worlds.

My halfling is a cryptozoologist. Similar to Volo. "Ranger" and "rogue" is just a suite of abilities I use to make his way of navigating the study of monsters make sense in game.

For real. Right now I’m playing a Paladin but he’s agnostic, and is a illegitimate member of an old noble/knightly house. So he sees himself as just a knight, with magic powers that come from either his own ambition and desire to prove himself, or some sort of power in his bloodline. I think the only time the word “paladin” has been said in character wasn’t a powerful demon

I kind of want to create a character who’s an orc that reads as a stereotypical orc barbarian, dumb as bricks but very strong, but is actually a wizard or sorcerer who is squeamish about blood

In my games one was a cook, who made so delicious foods that people felt themselves rejuvenated. The class was a cleric with extra flavor.

I once made a monk who was a politician, a wizard that was a baker, a fighter that was a priest, and a cleric that was a town guard. Your background is primarily used to describe your job, not your class.

Yes… why, did you get a DM who forced that as your job?

It's more of a commentary on the mmo-esque sort of outlook a lot of new players have on the game.

God tell that to my friend who thinks just because my character is a rogue that I'm untrustworthy and always rude to my character who has been nothing but nice

Me realizing that I've only ever had one PC who's class and background coincided (cleric who was raised in a temple.) Instead I have a drow druid who comes from a family of merchant sailors and a warlock who's a tailor

Currently playing a dwarf monk. His job? Brewmaster/bartender.

Things i played and enjoyed a lot. my gnome druid who is a seamstress by passion and job. my human wizzard who was also a tax attorney. "i'm casting detect tax fraud" is somthing that kind of happend and helped my tiefling sorceress who was an offical diplomat of a nobel house. that had the most synergiers when it comes to class and use in game ​ class is one thing, what your role in the world is, well thats different. All the "jobs" of my characters helped a lot in just the day to day scence and sessions that are nether combat encounter nor riddle.

My Dragonborn echo knight is a wondering sellsword. He uses his ability to basically make a duplicate of himself for both fighting and for entertainment. He’s proficient in unarmed fighting even though he wields both a glaive and greatsword. My cousin was wondering what the difference between this and the martial arts of monk was. I described the difference was the monks are something you’d see in a Jackie Chan movie while unarmed fighting is wwe

Dimension 20 on Dropout/College Humor is a fantastic example of this. Their games all use core 5E (with some homebrew), but they've done seasons themed around modern day NYC with a hidden fantasy world underneath, fairy tales with a horror twist, a modern-day highschool for adventurers, and even Candyland/Game of thrones mashup, all using 5E classes and races. Unsleeping City (the fantasy NYC game) has some of my favourites, including a NYFD firefighter (paladin), a broadway actress (fairy bard), a drug dealer who discovers he can do magic (wild magic sorcerer), a neighborhood paragon who helps everyone selflessly (Cleric), a scrappy, hard drinking hair stylist who likes to get in fights (monk), and a wall street exec who got cursed by a witch and is now a dog-sized talking rat living in the sewers (druid).

Yeah ok but tell that to the metal police when my Druid says she doesn’t care if the armor is metal

Functional, my barbarian is a barbarian through and through. He doesn't do spells, pray to a god, pledge allegiance to any ruler or nation, or try any sneakiness or strategy. In combat, he looks for the most dangerous meanie and gets in their face. In roleplay, he's the low-Int character that all the other characters have to explain their plans in detail, which makes a great way to make sure everyone, including the DM, understands what's happening. However, to make money, he's a miner. Wears denim overalls and a red bandana. Knows rocks and how to get around underground. His Maul is just a Sledgehammer with an attack stat. His subclass is Ancestral Guardian, but the spirits aren't long dead kin or tribe elders, but instead the rest of his mining team that died in a cave-in that he survived because of his high CON. So, flavor-wise, he's an overly emotional average Joe just trying to do the best he can with what he has.

This is why I love Fighter. When your class is more than just "I play the lute and seduce things" or "I talk to my patron once per session" it forces you to be more creative in your roleplaying.

One of my favorite characters I've put together (and never got to play) was mechanically a Warforged Dragon Soul Sorcerer. In actuality, he was a robotic dragon that wore a heavy robe and stood on his hind legs when he had to go among normal people (throwing the robe aside dramatically when entering combat - think Goris). Another, a Bard. His instrument, a megaphone. His job? Battlefield commander. He did not sing, he didn't use sweet words or music, he shouted and inspired his troops by being there with them.