To me each class/subclass is the sum of its mechanical parts, and the fluff (like the warlocks patron or the paladins oath) is more like a suggestion/source of inspiration for the character concept. But in many dnd discussions I see stuff like “I would never let my player dip warlock from Paladin unless they can give me a really good role play reason.” To me this seems really weird, I was a magic swordy guy who expanded my magic to do magic blasty things. I’m not playing in any campaigns atm and obviously “ask your DM” is what you do for each campaign, but I wanted to get a sense of what people thought about this.
Edit: I realize from the comments that my question didn’t come through well. I am asking if the default lore character classes come with matter to you, or you’d allow players to adjust that to fit the flavor of the character’s more. For instance, would you let a warlock be flavored like a wizard, and a sorcerer flavored like a warlock if the player wanted those mechanics to go along side his concept? Would you let a paladin taking a warlock dip flavor his new powers as a development in his divine powers or would you force them to have a patron/go through a crisis with their oath for accessing those mechanics.
Depends on the person. It's all pretty much preference. I tend to like a lot of the fluff, but I'm also not opposed to bending it to suit the whims of my game's needs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
D&D is a roleplaying game, in that you're playing a role, a character, within a world. Things happen not because it's a game, but as consequences to actions within that world. Someone isn't 'just a fighter', they're a fighter because something lead to them taking that path in life. Someone isn't a warlock just because, they decided for a specific reason to make a pact with a powerful entity for magical power.
The point is the mechanics are a small part of the game to many who play and the 'fluff' (aka the story, the bit where you roleplay) is more (if not most) important. Multiclassing into some random second class just because it embigens your numbers may not sit well with those DMs and players that value the story. How would your paladin know they can make a pact with a higher power? What would drive them to do it? What would the process involve, how would they get that powers attention? The rules of the game provide a framework on how you can do something, but not the why, which is really what the game is all about.
Some people play RPGs on the stats alone. I feel confident to assert without data that a vast majority of people play D&D with a heavy penchant for story (which is referenced by the word, "fluff").
That doesn't mean people aren't allowed to play for just the numbers (but I think they're missing out).
Yet, D&D is a cooperative game between everyone involved (DM and players). Everyone should have some level of agreement on why they're playing. Playing for the sake of numbers alone doesn't mesh well when others play for the sake of story alone. Ask your DM will always be the consensus, but as stated, it's likely that "fluff" will be a significant part of most groups.
There is likely a group somewhere who is prefers to play the game as manipulating the numbers. I think they're rare, but they must exist. I wouldn't know how to find them, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
D&D is a roleplaying game, in that you're playing a role, a character, within a world. Things happen not because it's a game, but as consequences to actions within that world. Someone isn't 'just a fighter', they're a fighter because something lead to them taking that path in life. Someone isn't a warlock just because, they decided for a specific reason to make a pact with a powerful entity for magical power.
The point is the mechanics are a small part of the game to many who play and the 'fluff' (aka the story, the bit where you roleplay) is more (if not most) important. Multiclassing into some random second class just because it embigens your numbers may not sit well with those DMs and players that value the story. How would your paladin know they can make a pact with a higher power? What would drive them to do it? What would the process involve, how would they get that powers attention? The rules of the game provide a framework on how you can do something, but not the why, which is really what the game is all about.
Obviously role playing is important, so maybe the way I worded my OP was confusing. The way I look at it, you should be able to choose your own story for your character, and if you have a concept for a character who is a fighter who learned magic after his brute strength was useless in defending his village from a werewolf, you could go with eldritch Knight, but if you want him to focus more on dealing consistent magic damage than using magic to get really tanky, than a paladin/warlock multi class might be the mechanics that fit your concept better.
Now Paladin multi class has some min/max munchkin baggage with it so I’ll give another example because that isn’t what this is about. I love the concept of a dwarvish master craftsmen who creates magic items. Battle smith artificer has everything I want mechanically for this character, but I don’t like the way we are suppose to fluff the magic the artificer does. To me this character is basically a wizard, and they have specialized their magic into the creation and use of magic items, but they can still do some other magic. And for the race of the character I could choose mark of warding dwarf and get the int/con bonuses that would be the most useful to my class, as well as a bunch of spell options that would probably make my build stronger overall, but I actually think rock gnome fits better, because the racial traits tinker and artificer lore match with the character and I like the idea of him being weak and undersized and that is what drove him into his magical research, trying to find ways to measure up to his friends as a warrior. Take clan crafter as background and I have everything I want mechanically to support the role play concept I have in mind.
So you're talking about the default lore, rather than lore in general. Reskinning and reflavouring classes, rules and abilities is super common. In fact, the artificer itself reflavours it's magic as the work of artifice.
The default lore matters in different degrees to different people, I think you're initial wording however maybe misled on your point
I think the fluff/RP is important for the immersion and logic -BUT reskinning and reflavouring takes priority. For example if somebody started as a Sorcerer and wanted to multiclass into Warlock I'd fully allow the benefits and features of the Warlock class to be a manifestation of their sorcerous powers rather than a patron. It'll still play the same mechanically but the RP may be more fitting (to be honest the innate powers of invocations seems more sorcerer than warlock to me anyway by "nature"). Likewise, I see no reason to re-flavour a Clerics god to act similar to a patron so the Cleric could take a Warlock dip because that god offered some different gifts.
I have no problems somebody taking fighter as a multiclass later because it's easy enough to explain they've become so used to battle they're naturally picking things up. Also, it can easily be retconned that during the unsaid times they've been practicing. Makes no difference to the story and it will be fun for the player to have the multiclass.
I'd rather refluff things to make things work that will be fun than say "no - because fluff".
Fluff is important, but it's changeable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
The crunch/mechanics is what you are able to do and there are rules guiding it. The fluff/flavor is how you do it and it is very open ended and subjective.
In terms of the game, the fluff is nothing compared to the rules and mechanics. The emphasis here is on game, input execution aspects.
In terms of play, the fluff is everything. The setting, the lore, the story, the personality, etc. The emphasis is on play, the immersion and enjoyment of the game.
Between the 2, fluff is more easily changed (and often requires change) to maintain the immersion and enjoyment, while the crunch is more sparingly changed with the occasional house rule (and is usually done to try to make it more immersive and less gamelike).
The majority of the best DnD experiences I have had don't have much to do with the rules. They come from character relationships, wants and desires, and how your strange powers make you act in a bizarre, magical world.
If you are more interested in rules (and on forums you'll generally see a lot of people talking about maxing out character abilities) and not interested in the RP, then a roleplay game probably isn't going to be that great for you. You might find a board game or tabletop battle game more up your street.
For me the only point of the rules is to give an element of uncertainty, danger and randomness whilst we tell a great story. I wouldn't allow a level 4 Fighter to suddenly multiclass Wizard without being able to explain how they've been studying a load of magic and building up a spellbook, but if they told me they wanted to do that, I'd engineer the story to make it possible.
That's sorta what the OP tried to ask, if somewhat hamfistedly. He wasn't asking "why is fluff important?", but rather "how important is the specific, official book-endorsed fluff." I.e. everything looking and acting exactly the way the book says it does, rather than reflavoring your own shit to better fit the idea or aesthetic of your particular character/story.
D&D with no fluff is not a game worth playing, and everybody more or less knows that. Forum discussions tend to hinge on the mechanicals because the mechanicals are common ground, the things everybody can discuss and agree on. Fluff is fluff - absolutely critical, but unless you're a lore hound in a lore thread (which is honestly just a different form of mechanicals) there's no real point in debating somebody else's fluff. If they like it and it works for their game? Fantastic. Fluff Accomplished.
That's sorta what the OP tried to ask, if somewhat hamfistedly. He wasn't asking "why is fluff important?", but rather "how important is the specific, official book-endorsed fluff." I.e. everything looking and acting exactly the way the book says it does, rather than reflavoring your own shit to better fit the idea or aesthetic of your particular character/story.
D&D with no fluff is not a game worth playing, and everybody more or less knows that. Forum discussions tend to hinge on the mechanicals because the mechanicals are common ground, the things everybody can discuss and agree on. Fluff is fluff - absolutely critical, but unless you're a lore hound in a lore thread (which is honestly just a different form of mechanicals) there's no real point in debating somebody else's fluff. If they like it and it works for their game? Fantastic. Fluff Accomplished.
yeah maybe I missed that.
The official fluff is completely mostly irrelevant to my games. I keep things for players mechanically in line with the core rules, because otherwise they can't really play their classes, but I am entirely ok with them completely renaming their class, abilities, and what have you provided they are mechanically the same.
So for instance, if you want to be an agent of Em Eye Six and want lethal martial arts abilities, you can operate exactly as a monk but instead of Ki points you can have Suave points. Instead of Way of Shadow you can have Black Ops Training. It doesn't matter to me, provided the class works mechanically in an identical manner.
I’ve added an edit to my OP to hopefully clarify my question, but it seems like the people who have replied so far agree with me that changing the fluff text to fit your character is fine. I’m curious to hear from anybody who feels that the published/default/official lore for classes etc is important to adhere to, because I would like to get a better understanding of your thought process.
In many cases it's a case-by-case thing. In your given example of a paladin wanting to "access warlock mechanics" as an extension of their divine power, that's doable fluff. Especially dependent on how one goes about justifying their paladin levels in the first place; the classic example of a Vengeance-oath Raven Queen paladin basically being the same thing as a Raven Queen warlock is one way of going about it.
A lot of the pushback you've likely seen, however, comes from munchkins trying to tack a flimsy, surface-level "story" onto whatever outlandish mechanical combination they want to use to punish their DM for daring to run a game for them. These're the folks who'll run two levels of palladalladingdong, one of Hexblade warlock, one of fighter, and however many levels of sorcerer they can get to make an Action Surging quadruple-smite war machine, and when asked "Okay. How did this character come into being, what's motivating them to split their focus so many ways? What drives them to be how they are?" answer with "Uhhh...he's, uhh...a seeker of power, I guess? Yeah. He seeks power; anything that makes him stronger excites him so he chases it. Awesome magic gear, more spells, better damage, cool stuff like that, yeah! He wants to be the strongest guy out there, so he does whatever it takes to get stronger!"
Some games are fine with that. It's all you need for beer-and-pretzels Friday Night D&D, where the DM's job is to run the dungeon and everybody else's job is to wreck it. It's significantly less okay if the rest of the players in a group are looking to tell a story about flawed heroes trying to solve problems bigger than they are while Michael J. Unchkin is chasing three hundred damage nova rounds With No Save(C).
If you're combining classes and mechanics to try and tell an interesting story or realize a character concept that doesn't fit well in a single class, most DMs will be happy to help. if you're combining classes and mechanics because doing so lets you deal four hundred damage in one turn and those sorts of numbers give you nerd boners, most DMs will be much harsher about it. A DM can tell the difference between those two, and one of them is not really okay for more story-driven or character-driven campaigns.
To me each class/subclass is the sum of its mechanical parts, and the fluff (like the warlocks patron or the paladins oath) is more like a suggestion/source of inspiration for the character concept. But in many dnd discussions I see stuff like “I would never let my player dip warlock from Paladin unless they can give me a really good role play reason.” To me this seems really weird, I was a magic swordy guy who expanded my magic to do magic blasty things. I’m not playing in any campaigns atm and obviously “ask your DM” is what you do for each campaign, but I wanted to get a sense of what people thought about this.
Edit: I realize from the comments that my question didn’t come through well. I am asking if the default lore character classes come with matter to you, or you’d allow players to adjust that to fit the flavor of the character’s more. For instance, would you let a warlock be flavored like a wizard, and a sorcerer flavored like a warlock if the player wanted those mechanics to go along side his concept? Would you let a paladin taking a warlock dip flavor his new powers as a development in his divine powers or would you force them to have a patron/go through a crisis with their oath for accessing those mechanics.
Depends on the person. It's all pretty much preference. I tend to like a lot of the fluff, but I'm also not opposed to bending it to suit the whims of my game's needs.
D&D is a roleplaying game, in that you're playing a role, a character, within a world. Things happen not because it's a game, but as consequences to actions within that world. Someone isn't 'just a fighter', they're a fighter because something lead to them taking that path in life. Someone isn't a warlock just because, they decided for a specific reason to make a pact with a powerful entity for magical power.
The point is the mechanics are a small part of the game to many who play and the 'fluff' (aka the story, the bit where you roleplay) is more (if not most) important. Multiclassing into some random second class just because it embigens your numbers may not sit well with those DMs and players that value the story. How would your paladin know they can make a pact with a higher power? What would drive them to do it? What would the process involve, how would they get that powers attention? The rules of the game provide a framework on how you can do something, but not the why, which is really what the game is all about.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Some people play RPGs on the stats alone. I feel confident to assert without data that a vast majority of people play D&D with a heavy penchant for story (which is referenced by the word, "fluff").
That doesn't mean people aren't allowed to play for just the numbers (but I think they're missing out).
Yet, D&D is a cooperative game between everyone involved (DM and players). Everyone should have some level of agreement on why they're playing. Playing for the sake of numbers alone doesn't mesh well when others play for the sake of story alone. Ask your DM will always be the consensus, but as stated, it's likely that "fluff" will be a significant part of most groups.
There is likely a group somewhere who is prefers to play the game as manipulating the numbers. I think they're rare, but they must exist. I wouldn't know how to find them, though.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Obviously role playing is important, so maybe the way I worded my OP was confusing. The way I look at it, you should be able to choose your own story for your character, and if you have a concept for a character who is a fighter who learned magic after his brute strength was useless in defending his village from a werewolf, you could go with eldritch Knight, but if you want him to focus more on dealing consistent magic damage than using magic to get really tanky, than a paladin/warlock multi class might be the mechanics that fit your concept better.
Now Paladin multi class has some min/max munchkin baggage with it so I’ll give another example because that isn’t what this is about. I love the concept of a dwarvish master craftsmen who creates magic items. Battle smith artificer has everything I want mechanically for this character, but I don’t like the way we are suppose to fluff the magic the artificer does. To me this character is basically a wizard, and they have specialized their magic into the creation and use of magic items, but they can still do some other magic. And for the race of the character I could choose mark of warding dwarf and get the int/con bonuses that would be the most useful to my class, as well as a bunch of spell options that would probably make my build stronger overall, but I actually think rock gnome fits better, because the racial traits tinker and artificer lore match with the character and I like the idea of him being weak and undersized and that is what drove him into his magical research, trying to find ways to measure up to his friends as a warrior. Take clan crafter as background and I have everything I want mechanically to support the role play concept I have in mind.
So you're talking about the default lore, rather than lore in general. Reskinning and reflavouring classes, rules and abilities is super common. In fact, the artificer itself reflavours it's magic as the work of artifice.
The default lore matters in different degrees to different people, I think you're initial wording however maybe misled on your point
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I think the fluff/RP is important for the immersion and logic -BUT reskinning and reflavouring takes priority. For example if somebody started as a Sorcerer and wanted to multiclass into Warlock I'd fully allow the benefits and features of the Warlock class to be a manifestation of their sorcerous powers rather than a patron. It'll still play the same mechanically but the RP may be more fitting (to be honest the innate powers of invocations seems more sorcerer than warlock to me anyway by "nature"). Likewise, I see no reason to re-flavour a Clerics god to act similar to a patron so the Cleric could take a Warlock dip because that god offered some different gifts.
I have no problems somebody taking fighter as a multiclass later because it's easy enough to explain they've become so used to battle they're naturally picking things up. Also, it can easily be retconned that during the unsaid times they've been practicing. Makes no difference to the story and it will be fun for the player to have the multiclass.
I'd rather refluff things to make things work that will be fun than say "no - because fluff".
Fluff is important, but it's changeable.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
The crunch/mechanics is what you are able to do and there are rules guiding it. The fluff/flavor is how you do it and it is very open ended and subjective.
In terms of the game, the fluff is nothing compared to the rules and mechanics. The emphasis here is on game, input execution aspects.
In terms of play, the fluff is everything. The setting, the lore, the story, the personality, etc. The emphasis is on play, the immersion and enjoyment of the game.
Between the 2, fluff is more easily changed (and often requires change) to maintain the immersion and enjoyment, while the crunch is more sparingly changed with the occasional house rule (and is usually done to try to make it more immersive and less gamelike).
The majority of the best DnD experiences I have had don't have much to do with the rules. They come from character relationships, wants and desires, and how your strange powers make you act in a bizarre, magical world.
If you are more interested in rules (and on forums you'll generally see a lot of people talking about maxing out character abilities) and not interested in the RP, then a roleplay game probably isn't going to be that great for you. You might find a board game or tabletop battle game more up your street.
For me the only point of the rules is to give an element of uncertainty, danger and randomness whilst we tell a great story. I wouldn't allow a level 4 Fighter to suddenly multiclass Wizard without being able to explain how they've been studying a load of magic and building up a spellbook, but if they told me they wanted to do that, I'd engineer the story to make it possible.
That's sorta what the OP tried to ask, if somewhat hamfistedly. He wasn't asking "why is fluff important?", but rather "how important is the specific, official book-endorsed fluff." I.e. everything looking and acting exactly the way the book says it does, rather than reflavoring your own shit to better fit the idea or aesthetic of your particular character/story.
D&D with no fluff is not a game worth playing, and everybody more or less knows that. Forum discussions tend to hinge on the mechanicals because the mechanicals are common ground, the things everybody can discuss and agree on. Fluff is fluff - absolutely critical, but unless you're a lore hound in a lore thread (which is honestly just a different form of mechanicals) there's no real point in debating somebody else's fluff. If they like it and it works for their game? Fantastic. Fluff Accomplished.
Please do not contact or message me.
yeah maybe I missed that.
The official fluff is completely mostly irrelevant to my games. I keep things for players mechanically in line with the core rules, because otherwise they can't really play their classes, but I am entirely ok with them completely renaming their class, abilities, and what have you provided they are mechanically the same.
So for instance, if you want to be an agent of Em Eye Six and want lethal martial arts abilities, you can operate exactly as a monk but instead of Ki points you can have Suave points. Instead of Way of Shadow you can have Black Ops Training. It doesn't matter to me, provided the class works mechanically in an identical manner.
I’ve added an edit to my OP to hopefully clarify my question, but it seems like the people who have replied so far agree with me that changing the fluff text to fit your character is fine. I’m curious to hear from anybody who feels that the published/default/official lore for classes etc is important to adhere to, because I would like to get a better understanding of your thought process.
In many cases it's a case-by-case thing. In your given example of a paladin wanting to "access warlock mechanics" as an extension of their divine power, that's doable fluff. Especially dependent on how one goes about justifying their paladin levels in the first place; the classic example of a Vengeance-oath Raven Queen paladin basically being the same thing as a Raven Queen warlock is one way of going about it.
A lot of the pushback you've likely seen, however, comes from munchkins trying to tack a flimsy, surface-level "story" onto whatever outlandish mechanical combination they want to use to punish their DM for daring to run a game for them. These're the folks who'll run two levels of palladalladingdong, one of Hexblade warlock, one of fighter, and however many levels of sorcerer they can get to make an Action Surging quadruple-smite war machine, and when asked "Okay. How did this character come into being, what's motivating them to split their focus so many ways? What drives them to be how they are?" answer with "Uhhh...he's, uhh...a seeker of power, I guess? Yeah. He seeks power; anything that makes him stronger excites him so he chases it. Awesome magic gear, more spells, better damage, cool stuff like that, yeah! He wants to be the strongest guy out there, so he does whatever it takes to get stronger!"
Some games are fine with that. It's all you need for beer-and-pretzels Friday Night D&D, where the DM's job is to run the dungeon and everybody else's job is to wreck it. It's significantly less okay if the rest of the players in a group are looking to tell a story about flawed heroes trying to solve problems bigger than they are while Michael J. Unchkin is chasing three hundred damage nova rounds With No Save(C).
If you're combining classes and mechanics to try and tell an interesting story or realize a character concept that doesn't fit well in a single class, most DMs will be happy to help. if you're combining classes and mechanics because doing so lets you deal four hundred damage in one turn and those sorts of numbers give you nerd boners, most DMs will be much harsher about it. A DM can tell the difference between those two, and one of them is not really okay for more story-driven or character-driven campaigns.
Please do not contact or message me.