So one thing I like to do sometimes is see what kind of characters you can make mechanically follow the rules, but diverge quite heavily from the class archetypes that they belong to. I was wondering what others have seen or heard. In other words, what can you get away with mechanically while changing the fluff/lore? For example:
NOW: BEFORE I PUT THESE DOWN, please note that these are just fun role-play ideas based on popular tropes in pop culture. Please don't play them if you don't think you can do them well, or if they would be too 'cultural appropriation-ey.' These are just thoughts or musings I had about ways to play character classes different than you see. Don't use these as a way of attacking or belittling someone else's culture.
You can actually build a Samurai Jack/Anime style samurai character (The theme, not the fighter subclass) using a barbarian! Yeah, because they get con to AC, They can run around in their Kimono and cut the crap out of people. If you flavor a Katana as a Longsword (or say they have a Nodachi as a greatsword) then it totally works. You can reflavor your rage as like, heightened battle awareness, or that you are hyperfocused on battle. As long as all the enemies know that the hyperfocus is equivalent to rage, all the mechanics work out.
Another Eastern Inspired reference is the Wushu swordsman, such as Li Mu Bai from Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. This actually can be done by the ranger, as they get all the spells needed to replicate those wushu feats, such as jump, water walking, and eventually, tree stride (which you could flavor as running on trees. Pick up the dueling fighting style, and flavor a Chinese Jian as a Rapier and you are good to go!
You could build a Warlock as a sort of blessed one, like a more magically based paladin if you go with the celestial patron. Not an option I see talked about much, but you could flavor your eldrich blast as shooting out purifying light and the bonus spells you get from your patron really help sell the idea that you are some sort of blessed one.
Surprisingly, a Bard could make a great shaman. Many of their 'colleges' could easily be reflavored as shamanistic teachings. Plus, many shamans in cultures around the world are supposed to be masters of storytelling, dancing, and singing, which is right in the Bard's wheelhouse. And with Bardic Secrets, you can pick up any spells you think you need to complete the trappings of Shaman.
An Eldrich Knight or Arcane Trickster could be retooled as a magic-school dropout, a person who wanted to become a wizard but just didn't have the temprement or proper mindset to get all the way there.
Well, those are just some of my ideas to get the ball rolling, let me know what you think or ideas you have come up with to buck the stereotype of what class you are.
I don't think any of these risk being controversial considering that the basic ideas have been around for ages. Especially the "samurai as a barbarian" has been a staple for a long time. You can also do the same but switch it around and having what is basically Norse Bezerkers using the Kensei Monk rules.
One of my favorite ways to brainstorm concepts for new characters is to take the narrative archetype from one class, and try to apply it to a different class.
Like "a thieving street urchin who spent his life hiding, pickpocketing and spying.... and is a druid" and then expand upon it until it makes sense :D!
I have yet to play a monastic Monk. I know there are pugilist rules now, but when I fancied the class, that was the closest option and the DM agreed to let me "reflavor" the class using the same mechanics but calling it different things. (Things like simply a "point" instead of a "Ki point" to take the martial-arts aspect out of it.)
The closest I got was a janitor ("custos") who didn't follow the practices of the monastery. (For one, he couldn't read and they wouldn't speak. So, he never learned even the name of the place. Second, he was lazy when it came to chores and was sleeping in a latrine beyond the monastery walls when some unknown attackers killed everyone inside and burned the place down. So, he didn't even know where to start on any journey of retribution for his silent friends. Third, he loved a good old fashioned tavern brawl if it meant drinks would be had, and he wasn't really the best at it given that he was Level 1.) So, he was a Monk class technically from a monastery, but he still wasn't monastic.
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.
I don't think any of these risk being controversial considering that the basic ideas have been around for ages.
You’d be surprised about that. There are plenty of tables where a DM might get frustrated or actively angry at someone trying to play against tropes, or who will not allow items, spells, etc. to be reskinned to be more flavourful.
I recently had a rather miserable experience with a DM who kept trying to force an off-trope character of mine (a good necromancer, with a backstory explaining how he came to be) to either become evil or abandon necromancy entirely. Neither of those are what I wanted… so he just refused to put us in a situation where I could use the Oathbreaker’s necromancy ability (they can take control of undead, but not raise them until higher levels the campaign never reached).
I I wasn’t the only character in that campaign he did the same thing to - we had several folks who liked playing off-trope and a DM who was clearly incapable of seeing outside their own narrow perspective of what everything “should” be. They were in another group where we both were PCs, and their character was likewise consistently rude to anyone playing moralities and class alignments they saw as “impermissible,” killing that campaign. Needless to say, I won’t be playing with them again.
Next campaign I’ll be in as a player, if the DM ever starts it, I’ll be playing a Neutral Good Damphir Barbarian, with rage being reskinned as vampiric bloodlust. The homebrew itself is heavily styled after gothic horror, so should be a fitting character for the setting, and the DM is clearly one to allow flavour to trump tropes. It’s been over six years since I’ve been able to break free from “perpetual DM syndrome” and find a group that should be “play the character you want to play,” so should be fun.
As a DM, I just want folks to play what they want to play, and I’m happy to facilitate that in any way possible. I am DMing two campaigns right now, both have a substantial number of players who wanted to do things like “play a monk who is also a thief” or “play a fire Genasi with a pertinence for ice magic.” No reason not to accommodate them and work with them on who they choose to be.
I absolutely approve of this approach. I generally don't like letting the classes/subclasses define my character idea... I just build for mechanics and imagine a character where they all fit together as one. I have yet to do any radical reflavorings but I wholeheartedly approve of them.
As you mentioned yourself in the OP, the barbarian in particular is great for entirely different flavours.. You might be an ethereal spirit fighter whose rage is actually you becoming semi-incorporeal.
I've been playing with the idea of a bounty hunter character based on a valor/swords bard. Most of his spells would be tracking, healing or buff related and I'd essentially flavor him as you would an artificer, with each spell be a piece of gear he activates.. Buff/healing spells being syringes.. Grabbing Swift quiver through magical secrets and flavor it as a special rapid fire mode on his heavy crossbow... that kinda thing. Why not just play a battlesmith you might ask? Well... Full caster allows for more fun "tools" to play around with, I don't like the pet and being charisma based is very handy for a bounty hunter.
Sorta comes down to the fact that I'd rather have my fellow players think as my character as his own thing rather than a class defined archetype.
I don't think any of these risk being controversial considering that the basic ideas have been around for ages.
You’d be surprised about that. There are plenty of tables where a DM might get frustrated or actively angry at someone trying to play against tropes, or who will not allow items, spells, etc. to be reskinned to be more flavourful.
I was more talking about something like . . . oh, making a very stereotypical Native American Shaman without doing any research, or a 1940s characiture of a Japanese guy. Things that might be offensive to cultures if they aren't done in good faith or if they are done without doing some research beforehand. Just. . . . don't be a jerk, basically. If you want to play a shaman character, make sure you do some research not to disrespect the culture you are emulating, especially if you aren't actually a member of that culture.
I don't think any of these risk being controversial considering that the basic ideas have been around for ages.
You’d be surprised about that. There are plenty of tables where a DM might get frustrated or actively angry at someone trying to play against tropes, or who will not allow items, spells, etc. to be reskinned to be more flavourful.
I was more talking about something like . . . oh, making a very stereotypical Native American Shaman without doing any research, or a 1940s characiture of a Japanese guy. Things that might be offensive to cultures if they aren't done in good faith or if they are done without doing some research beforehand. Just. . . . don't be a jerk, basically. If you want to play a shaman character, make sure you do some research not to disrespect the culture you are emulating, especially if you aren't actually a member of that culture.
Making characters that are racist stereotypes is something completely different than reflavoring the mechanics of the game (the classes) to suit many different archetypes. The first is something you should never do, the second is quite common and should be encouraged if it fits the group.
So one thing I like to do sometimes is see what kind of characters you can make mechanically follow the rules, but diverge quite heavily from the class archetypes that they belong to. I was wondering what others have seen or heard. In other words, what can you get away with mechanically while changing the fluff/lore? For example:
NOW: BEFORE I PUT THESE DOWN, please note that these are just fun role-play ideas based on popular tropes in pop culture. Please don't play them if you don't think you can do them well, or if they would be too 'cultural appropriation-ey.' These are just thoughts or musings I had about ways to play character classes different than you see. Don't use these as a way of attacking or belittling someone else's culture.
You can actually build a Samurai Jack/Anime style samurai character (The theme, not the fighter subclass) using a barbarian! Yeah, because they get con to AC, They can run around in their Kimono and cut the crap out of people. If you flavor a Katana as a Longsword (or say they have a Nodachi as a greatsword) then it totally works. You can reflavor your rage as like, heightened battle awareness, or that you are hyperfocused on battle. As long as all the enemies know that the hyperfocus is equivalent to rage, all the mechanics work out.
Another Eastern Inspired reference is the Wushu swordsman, such as Li Mu Bai from Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. This actually can be done by the ranger, as they get all the spells needed to replicate those wushu feats, such as jump, water walking, and eventually, tree stride (which you could flavor as running on trees. Pick up the dueling fighting style, and flavor a Chinese Jian as a Rapier and you are good to go!
You could build a Warlock as a sort of blessed one, like a more magically based paladin if you go with the celestial patron. Not an option I see talked about much, but you could flavor your eldrich blast as shooting out purifying light and the bonus spells you get from your patron really help sell the idea that you are some sort of blessed one.
Surprisingly, a Bard could make a great shaman. Many of their 'colleges' could easily be reflavored as shamanistic teachings. Plus, many shamans in cultures around the world are supposed to be masters of storytelling, dancing, and singing, which is right in the Bard's wheelhouse. And with Bardic Secrets, you can pick up any spells you think you need to complete the trappings of Shaman.
An Eldrich Knight or Arcane Trickster could be retooled as a magic-school dropout, a person who wanted to become a wizard but just didn't have the temprement or proper mindset to get all the way there.
Well, those are just some of my ideas to get the ball rolling, let me know what you think or ideas you have come up with to buck the stereotype of what class you are.
You can also change your characters style just by reflavoring a weapon or ability.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I've dabbled in this. For me, though, I find myself having more fun when I just play to type. There's a reason the Barbarian is an enduring icon of the game, while the "Sherlock Holmes battle genius" isn't. I'd hesitate to tell anyone not to follow their heart, but I dunno. For me, I would rather use the mechanics with their given names and descriptions.
As for concepts that I have brought to the table... I had a Battle Master Fighter who wasn't a scholar of war but a scrappy, panicky goblin. And I've got a Spirits Bard whose Telekinetic feat is the spirits of his tribesmen reaching through the veil.
My favorite one I've seen someone else use, is the Fast Hands feature from the Thief being attributed to a secondary character. In this case a very clever rat.
"A Bard can be a great shaman" basis isn't really much of a surprise, it's practically baked into the class features and some of the colleges.
I think as other folks are noticing, the siggestopms arem't so much radical challenges to the classes so much as recongizing the possibilities within them. They don't go against type at all, rather the "types" have manifolds potential.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Im not sure how much this plays against type, but I've always wanted to play a Bladesinger wizard as a "Typical Anime Protagonist Swordsman." Someone less concerned with the intricacies of magic and the weave, and more about using the power of friendship/training/yelling to produce powers.
All of their spells are just "special techniques" or "sword forms" that they yell the name of ever time they cast one. Except for Haste. Haste is just "forgive me master, for I must go all out...just this once"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
As for concepts that I have brought to the table... I had a Battle Master Fighter who wasn't a scholar of war but a scrappy, panicky goblin. And I've got a Spirits Bard whose Telekinetic feat is the spirits of his tribesmen reaching through the veil.
I have this idea for a Battle Master, Inquisitive Rogue, Barbarian and Great Old One Warlock multiclass that is basically Commander Vimes of the Night Watch series. His maneuvers are just the dirty tricks he learnt growing up in the streets...
My favorite one I've seen someone else use, is the Fast Hands feature from the Thief being attributed to a secondary character. In this case a very clever rat.
I've thought about playing an 'inverted warlock.' Like a celestial-pact warlock that a power is trying to urge to redeem themselves. Instead of trying to make a good man fall, they want to make a bad man rise. I think that would be a fun take on the stereotype.
Also, I guess you could make a Sherlock Holmes style 'genius battler' as a rogue and just flavor their sneak attacks and precice strikes.
Personally I always thought it would be fun to do a campaign where psyonics were super common. Psy Warrior, Abbarant Mind sorcerer, soulknife, Astral monk (or any monk, ki could be flavored as a form of psychic), Spirit barbarian could be re-flavored as psychic. Too bad there isn't like, a Mind Flayer or Psychic Warlock option. Or a Psionic wizard or something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So one thing I like to do sometimes is see what kind of characters you can make mechanically follow the rules, but diverge quite heavily from the class archetypes that they belong to. I was wondering what others have seen or heard. In other words, what can you get away with mechanically while changing the fluff/lore? For example:
NOW: BEFORE I PUT THESE DOWN, please note that these are just fun role-play ideas based on popular tropes in pop culture. Please don't play them if you don't think you can do them well, or if they would be too 'cultural appropriation-ey.' These are just thoughts or musings I had about ways to play character classes different than you see. Don't use these as a way of attacking or belittling someone else's culture.
You can actually build a Samurai Jack/Anime style samurai character (The theme, not the fighter subclass) using a barbarian! Yeah, because they get con to AC, They can run around in their Kimono and cut the crap out of people. If you flavor a Katana as a Longsword (or say they have a Nodachi as a greatsword) then it totally works. You can reflavor your rage as like, heightened battle awareness, or that you are hyperfocused on battle. As long as all the enemies know that the hyperfocus is equivalent to rage, all the mechanics work out.
Another Eastern Inspired reference is the Wushu swordsman, such as Li Mu Bai from Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. This actually can be done by the ranger, as they get all the spells needed to replicate those wushu feats, such as jump, water walking, and eventually, tree stride (which you could flavor as running on trees. Pick up the dueling fighting style, and flavor a Chinese Jian as a Rapier and you are good to go!
You could build a Warlock as a sort of blessed one, like a more magically based paladin if you go with the celestial patron. Not an option I see talked about much, but you could flavor your eldrich blast as shooting out purifying light and the bonus spells you get from your patron really help sell the idea that you are some sort of blessed one.
Surprisingly, a Bard could make a great shaman. Many of their 'colleges' could easily be reflavored as shamanistic teachings. Plus, many shamans in cultures around the world are supposed to be masters of storytelling, dancing, and singing, which is right in the Bard's wheelhouse. And with Bardic Secrets, you can pick up any spells you think you need to complete the trappings of Shaman.
An Eldrich Knight or Arcane Trickster could be retooled as a magic-school dropout, a person who wanted to become a wizard but just didn't have the temprement or proper mindset to get all the way there.
Well, those are just some of my ideas to get the ball rolling, let me know what you think or ideas you have come up with to buck the stereotype of what class you are.
I don't think any of these risk being controversial considering that the basic ideas have been around for ages. Especially the "samurai as a barbarian" has been a staple for a long time. You can also do the same but switch it around and having what is basically Norse Bezerkers using the Kensei Monk rules.
One of my favorite ways to brainstorm concepts for new characters is to take the narrative archetype from one class, and try to apply it to a different class.
Like "a thieving street urchin who spent his life hiding, pickpocketing and spying.... and is a druid" and then expand upon it until it makes sense :D!
I have yet to play a monastic Monk. I know there are pugilist rules now, but when I fancied the class, that was the closest option and the DM agreed to let me "reflavor" the class using the same mechanics but calling it different things. (Things like simply a "point" instead of a "Ki point" to take the martial-arts aspect out of it.)
The closest I got was a janitor ("custos") who didn't follow the practices of the monastery. (For one, he couldn't read and they wouldn't speak. So, he never learned even the name of the place. Second, he was lazy when it came to chores and was sleeping in a latrine beyond the monastery walls when some unknown attackers killed everyone inside and burned the place down. So, he didn't even know where to start on any journey of retribution for his silent friends. Third, he loved a good old fashioned tavern brawl if it meant drinks would be had, and he wasn't really the best at it given that he was Level 1.) So, he was a Monk class technically from a monastery, but he still wasn't monastic.
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.
You’d be surprised about that. There are plenty of tables where a DM might get frustrated or actively angry at someone trying to play against tropes, or who will not allow items, spells, etc. to be reskinned to be more flavourful.
I recently had a rather miserable experience with a DM who kept trying to force an off-trope character of mine (a good necromancer, with a backstory explaining how he came to be) to either become evil or abandon necromancy entirely. Neither of those are what I wanted… so he just refused to put us in a situation where I could use the Oathbreaker’s necromancy ability (they can take control of undead, but not raise them until higher levels the campaign never reached).
I I wasn’t the only character in that campaign he did the same thing to - we had several folks who liked playing off-trope and a DM who was clearly incapable of seeing outside their own narrow perspective of what everything “should” be. They were in another group where we both were PCs, and their character was likewise consistently rude to anyone playing moralities and class alignments they saw as “impermissible,” killing that campaign. Needless to say, I won’t be playing with them again.
Next campaign I’ll be in as a player, if the DM ever starts it, I’ll be playing a Neutral Good Damphir Barbarian, with rage being reskinned as vampiric bloodlust. The homebrew itself is heavily styled after gothic horror, so should be a fitting character for the setting, and the DM is clearly one to allow flavour to trump tropes. It’s been over six years since I’ve been able to break free from “perpetual DM syndrome” and find a group that should be “play the character you want to play,” so should be fun.
As a DM, I just want folks to play what they want to play, and I’m happy to facilitate that in any way possible. I am DMing two campaigns right now, both have a substantial number of players who wanted to do things like “play a monk who is also a thief” or “play a fire Genasi with a pertinence for ice magic.” No reason not to accommodate them and work with them on who they choose to be.
You can get an awful lot of shaman flavor with a couple of martial classes:
3 levels Rogue (Phantom) can give:
3 levels Barbarian (Totem Warrior) gives:
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I absolutely approve of this approach. I generally don't like letting the classes/subclasses define my character idea... I just build for mechanics and imagine a character where they all fit together as one. I have yet to do any radical reflavorings but I wholeheartedly approve of them.
As you mentioned yourself in the OP, the barbarian in particular is great for entirely different flavours.. You might be an ethereal spirit fighter whose rage is actually you becoming semi-incorporeal.
I've been playing with the idea of a bounty hunter character based on a valor/swords bard. Most of his spells would be tracking, healing or buff related and I'd essentially flavor him as you would an artificer, with each spell be a piece of gear he activates.. Buff/healing spells being syringes.. Grabbing Swift quiver through magical secrets and flavor it as a special rapid fire mode on his heavy crossbow... that kinda thing.
Why not just play a battlesmith you might ask? Well... Full caster allows for more fun "tools" to play around with, I don't like the pet and being charisma based is very handy for a bounty hunter.
Sorta comes down to the fact that I'd rather have my fellow players think as my character as his own thing rather than a class defined archetype.
I was more talking about something like . . . oh, making a very stereotypical Native American Shaman without doing any research, or a 1940s characiture of a Japanese guy. Things that might be offensive to cultures if they aren't done in good faith or if they are done without doing some research beforehand. Just. . . . don't be a jerk, basically. If you want to play a shaman character, make sure you do some research not to disrespect the culture you are emulating, especially if you aren't actually a member of that culture.
I know, I was just making sure no one misinterpreted my ideas for 'please use this as an excuse to be a racist jerk.'
On a side note, I wish there was like, an urban ranger or urban druid option. That'd be nice.
Making characters that are racist stereotypes is something completely different than reflavoring the mechanics of the game (the classes) to suit many different archetypes. The first is something you should never do, the second is quite common and should be encouraged if it fits the group.
So here's a fun one. I'm running Curse of Strahd set in 1921. Here is a picture of the party monk:
Her Kensei Weapon is her parasol.
/MicDrop
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir
You can also change your characters style just by reflavoring a weapon or ability.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I've dabbled in this. For me, though, I find myself having more fun when I just play to type. There's a reason the Barbarian is an enduring icon of the game, while the "Sherlock Holmes battle genius" isn't. I'd hesitate to tell anyone not to follow their heart, but I dunno. For me, I would rather use the mechanics with their given names and descriptions.
As for concepts that I have brought to the table... I had a Battle Master Fighter who wasn't a scholar of war but a scrappy, panicky goblin. And I've got a Spirits Bard whose Telekinetic feat is the spirits of his tribesmen reaching through the veil.
My favorite one I've seen someone else use, is the Fast Hands feature from the Thief being attributed to a secondary character. In this case a very clever rat.
"A Bard can be a great shaman" basis isn't really much of a surprise, it's practically baked into the class features and some of the colleges.
I think as other folks are noticing, the siggestopms arem't so much radical challenges to the classes so much as recongizing the possibilities within them. They don't go against type at all, rather the "types" have manifolds potential.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Im not sure how much this plays against type, but I've always wanted to play a Bladesinger wizard as a "Typical Anime Protagonist Swordsman." Someone less concerned with the intricacies of magic and the weave, and more about using the power of friendship/training/yelling to produce powers.
All of their spells are just "special techniques" or "sword forms" that they yell the name of ever time they cast one. Except for Haste. Haste is just "forgive me master, for I must go all out...just this once"
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I was gonna play a Rock Gnome Artillerist Artificer named Rooster Cogburner and play him like a grizzled cowboy. Does that count?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I have this idea for a Battle Master, Inquisitive Rogue, Barbarian and Great Old One Warlock multiclass that is basically Commander Vimes of the Night Watch series. His maneuvers are just the dirty tricks he learnt growing up in the streets...
That is a good one. :D
I've thought about playing an 'inverted warlock.' Like a celestial-pact warlock that a power is trying to urge to redeem themselves. Instead of trying to make a good man fall, they want to make a bad man rise. I think that would be a fun take on the stereotype.
Also, I guess you could make a Sherlock Holmes style 'genius battler' as a rogue and just flavor their sneak attacks and precice strikes.
Personally I always thought it would be fun to do a campaign where psyonics were super common. Psy Warrior, Abbarant Mind sorcerer, soulknife, Astral monk (or any monk, ki could be flavored as a form of psychic), Spirit barbarian could be re-flavored as psychic. Too bad there isn't like, a Mind Flayer or Psychic Warlock option. Or a Psionic wizard or something.