To Spell Thematic or not to spell Thematic [3.5]

[Demons_eye]

So a while ago someone I was playing with picked up this feat basically to screw around, such as flaming sword becomes sword made out of bees. While in the same game I was doing this in a more serious but without the feat. When casting alter self musical notes would play related to the race I chose and meld into my skin changing me. The problem was I felt kinda dirty doing it as I did not have the feat but I do it in most games because fluffs is just fluff.

The questions are; Should everyone refluffing spells need to take the feat? Should you have to take the feat when someone else does? What if the player that took the feat got sore about you refluffing without it? Lets assume the DM is ok with refluffing without the feat.

For the record I would say no as to the firs two questions. I am wondering about the third.

[Aharon]

It provides a bonus to CL for some spells, so it isn't completely useless. It's probably fairer to restrict refluffing to people who took the feat than the 3.0 version.

So basically: no, yes, yes

[Ravens_cry]

If there is a precedent of refluffed spells in the game without use of the feat, then no, no one needs to take the feat to refluff a spell. if however spells have been constantly by the book, then sure, why not. It's a fun feat, even if it is all fluff.
Another nice thing is spellcraft and knowledge arcana are trained only, so if something looks like something else to many mundane types that's what they should report it as to superiors, unless the DM metagames.

[Jack DeCoeur]

I think I'd say, as you pointed out, that fluff is just fluff. Although there are limits, as long as it has no major effect on the game, mechanics or RP-wise then I'd say don't worry about it.

If you wanted to refluff spells to confuse those you are fighting however (is that even within the scope of the feat's abilities, I forget and am AFB), training or no in the relevant skills then I'd say, yes, you need the feat. Otherwise not.