Immutability of Class Fluff

[mootoall]

I'm not arguing the bastard sword. Maybe SOMEHOW it can be explained, but I don't care. My point about the halfling was proven. That's all I was arguing.

Alright, that's fine. I was giving the first example that came to me. The fact of the matter is, I still disagree with what some people (Typewriter, maybe) said about giving something an IC explanation makes it homebrew. It's frankly ridiculous.

The point was, you have a visible effect that has no in game ramifications excepting bigger damage dice. Entirely fluff, that it's 15' long. And yet, once you explain it ... it's a homebrewed rule?

Edit:

A fifteen foot long bastard sword would not be sized for a Medium creature; it is longer than most Large creatures are tall. And, in fact, there are rules for the weapons of one size functioning as a larger weapon for something of a smaller size and vice versa. I don't know what a fifteen foot long bastard sword would be for a Medium creature, possibly some sort of mega-lance, but I am pretty sure by that point it would have gained reach.

What ImperatorK said, it's only got a 5' reach, unless it's specifically a reach weapon or wielded by a character with natural reach.

[Rogue Shadows]

Or: Where does it state that a human CAN'T have fire for hair?

I'm a big believer in implied rules.

1) A human could be born with fire for hair.
2) A human does not under normal circumstances have fire resistance.
3) Children do not normally have stat blocks in D&D.
4) Therefore, a human could have fire for hair until they gain their first HD, at which point they are on fire and take 1d6 points of fire damage/turn until smothering the fire or dying.

In conclusion, it would be more proper to say that, without magical intervention vis-a-vis a human gaining fire resistance or immunity (a mechanical phenomenon), a human cannot naturally have fire for hair and have Hit Dice.

[Typewriter]

Somehow I can't take you seriously. What Thiyr said.

@ Typwriter
One question: Where in the RULES does it state that a human can't have fire for hair?
Or: Where does it state that a human CAN'T have fire for hair?

Sorry, I just saw that that this was the second time you've asked that question:

The answer is nowhere. Apparently physics is a rule unless contradicted so I would say that counts, but seeing as how that's new information to me I suppose I should give my original rationale.

Again, for clarity, I admit that the rules don't say "Humans can't have fire in place of hair". In fact, the only place I can see a direct reference to humans having hair in the SRD is:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/elementalRacialVariants.htm

In most, if not all, official D&D sources humans are depicted as having hair on their head, or they are bald. That tells us that the standard human in D&D has hair. If you are born and have fire on your head and there is not a reason you are an anomaly without explanation. You are contradicting racial norms for no reason other than "Whee". If you have a reason, then you are providing an in game justification that doubles as a rule. If "I have fiery hair because an elemental banged my great grandma" is your justification, then you are essentially creating a rule that says "People whose lineage has fire elemental banging can be born with fire on their heads".

The other option is that you are playing in a home brew campaign world in which "humans have hair" is not necessarily the norm. At this point you're character will fit in without requiring an explanation because the nature of this home brew world allows for it.

Again, I admit that nothing says humans can't have fire in place of hair, but I strongly contest the idea that the book not disallowing something is the same thing as allowing it. Above is my personal rationale, but I admit it may not work for everyone. If it doesn't I can fall back on physics or 6 ft. tall small halflings.

EDIT:
Halflings:

Sorry if people were being facetious and I didn't pick up on it. I thought the halfling statement was legitimate.

15 foot weapons and reach:

This doesn't require homebrew because it's all determined in the rules. If you have a mechanical way to get a weapon whose size is 15x15 ft. in size then you have that weapon. If it doesn't have reach though then it doesn't have reach. I wouldn't expect anyone to make anything up, because it's all handled right there. It doesn't make sense, but the rules say that's the way it is so that's the way it is.

The reason I have a problem with the fire hair is because the fire hair is not being attained by the rules. It's just something a character has for no reason that is defined by the rules.

[ImperatorK]

That's a failure on WotC part. There should be a rule on increasing reach.


or 6 ft. tall small halflings.
That I have already proven as false.

[mootoall]

I'm a big believer in implied rules.

1) A human could be born with fire for hair.
2) A human does not under normal circumstances have fire resistance.
3) Children do not normally have stat blocks in D&D.
4) Therefore, a human could have fire for hair until they gain their first HD, at which point they are on fire and take 1d6 points of fire damage/turn until smothering the fire or dying.

In conclusion, it would be more proper to say that, without magical intervention vis-a-vis a human gaining fire resistance or immunity, a human cannot have fire for hair *and* have Hit Dice.

Or, alternatively, they're fluffed as having it because it's self-sustaining magic from their heritage, or one of their parents mated with a Living Continual Flame. But once you give that explanation, it's totally homebrew, right? Even though their stats don't change at all.

[Rogue Shadows]

Or, alternatively, they're fluffed as having it because it's self-sustaining magic from their heritage, or one of their parents mated with a Living Continual Flame. But once you give that explanation, it's totally homebrew, right? Even though their stats don't change at all.

Yes they do. They gain a natural attack that can deal 1d6 fire damage.

Or 1d4, or 1, or what have you.

They also have to have some way of resisting extreme heat, suggesting Fire resistance of at least 6.

[mootoall]

Yes they do. They gain a natural attack that can deal 1d6 fire damage.

Nope. That's not an effect of them having firey hair. It just looks like it's made of fire. Why? Because it's fluff.

[Rogue Shadows]

Nope. That's not an effect of them having firey hair. It just looks like it's made of fire. Why? Because it's fluff.

But if it just looks like it's made of fire, but not actually fire (because how fire interacts with the D&D world is extenstively detailed mechanically), then you're just shown that humans can't have fire for hair without mechanical changes.

[Kojiro]

That's the silly thing. Bigger weapons, no mather how big, aren't gaining reach, by RAW. A halfling can wield a colossal quarterstaff and he still won't have reach.

Are you sure? I mean, I am almost entirely sure I saw this rule somewhere (I'll try to find its exact location), which basically described how, say, a human (medium) shortsword would effectively be a Large creature's dagger or a Small creature's longsword, Tiny creature's greatsword, and so on. I don't think it mentioned reach specifically, but I think that by a certain point, like weilding a Huge creature's shortspear as a Medium creature, it would be a weapon with reach to the wielder; while it doesn't have reach for the larger creature, they already have it as an inherent quality, meanwhile, and can still hit further away with it, too, so it actually makes sense physically as well as within the game rules.

[ImperatorK]

Yes they do. They gain a natural attack that can deal 1d6 fire damage.

Or 1d4, or 1, or what have you.

They also have to have some way of resisting extreme heat, suggesting Fire resistance of at least 6.
Wierd. I remember saying exactly the opposite. :smallconfused:

[Thiyr]

But if it just looks like it's made of fire, but not actually fire (because how fire interacts with the D&D world is extenstively detailed mechanically), then you're just shown that humans can't have fire for hair without mechanical changes.

How *mundane* fire interacts. This is, by its very nature, far from mundane. We're saying fire because it's easier than typing out "hair that looks like fire but is really more like a continual flame spell". Because as far as fluff goes, that's good enough. So they can have fire for hair, it's just not mundane fire.

[ImperatorK]

Are you sure? I mean, I am almost entirely sure I saw this rule somewhere (I'll try to find its exact location), which basically described how, say, a human (medium) shortsword would effectively be a Large creature's dagger or a Small creature's longsword, Tiny creature's greatsword, and so on. I don't think it mentioned reach specifically, but I think that by a certain point, like weilding a Huge creature's shortspear as a Medium creature, it would be a weapon with reach to the wielder; while it doesn't have reach for the larger creature, they already have it as an inherent quality, meanwhile, and can still hit further away with it, too, so it actually makes sense physically as well as within the game rules.
From what I understand, it only affects the damage dice. The weapon being mechanically bigger gives it bigger damage dice and it is longer/heavier fluff-wise, but there are no rules (that I know of) that say "If a weapon is this and this long it has reach". Look at the quarterstaff. It's very long and yet it's not a reach weapon. Instead it's a double weapon. :smallconfused:
Weapon Size (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#weaponSize). I assume you where talking about this, Kojiro? Unfortunately it doesn't say anything about reach, only damage size. Yeah, I know, stupid, but what can you do? Only houserule it based on common sense.

[mootoall]

How *mundane* fire interacts. This is, by its very nature, far from mundane. We're saying fire because it's easier than typing out "hair that looks like fire but is really more like a continual flame spell". Because as far as fluff goes, that's good enough. So they can have fire for hair, it's just not mundane fire.

This. To talk about how something regularly interacts with the game world, you have to have something that regularly happens in the game world. This is clearly a "special snowflake" case, hence requiring no mechanical change, but a fluff explanation. If you're saying that you're then homebrewing, then fine, you're homebrewing. I, on the other hand, am not.

[ImperatorK]

Every logical argument that there could be was brought up, yet Typewriter still doesn't get it. I say we just leave it at that, because this is going nowhere. Hor him it's homebrewing/houseruling and nothing will change his mind. Lets drop it guys. :smallannoyed:

[Rogue Shadows]

How *mundane* fire interacts. This is, by its very nature, far from mundane. We're saying fire because it's easier than typing out "hair that looks like fire but is really more like a continual flame spell". Because as far as fluff goes, that's good enough. So they can have fire for hair, it's just not mundane fire.

Actually there are pretty extensive rules for magical fire too. Again, proof by example: fireball, flame arrow, meteor storm, fire trap...

If by "not mundane" you mean "also not magical..." then what is it?

I only bring this up because your special snowflake fluff has potential in-game consequences.

1) If in an environment where the fire can't get oxygen (underwater, space, etc), does it go out, or keep burning?

2) Can you use it to light stuff on fire?

3) Does it shed light? How much? Is it sufficient for creatures with low-light vision?

4) Can someone use pyrotechnics on it? If so, does it cause damage to the person with the fire hair (as per the spell)? If not, why?

5) Does it go out in an antimagic field?

That's just off the top of my head. It seems to me that if your special snowflake fluff is going to have actual mechanical impact, then it should be represented mechanically.

[ImperatorK]

Actually there are pretty extensive rules for magical fire too. Again, proof by example: fireball, flame arrow, meteor storm, fire trap...

If by "not mundane" you mean "also not magical..." then what is it?

I only bring this up because your special snowflake fluff has potential in-game consequences.

1) If in an environment where the fire can't get oxygen (underwater, space, etc), does it go out, or keep burning?

2) Can you use it to light stuff on fire?

3) Does it shed light? How much? Is it sufficient for creatures with low-light vision?

4) Can someone use pyrotechnics on it? If so, does it cause damage to the person with the fire hair (as per the spell)? If not, why?

5) Does it go out in an antimagic field?

That's just off the top of my head. It seems to me that if your special snowflake fluff is going to have actual mechanical impact, then it should be represented mechanically.
No, dude. YOU are giving it mechanical consequences. We said nothing about such things. Quite contrary, actually.

[Hecuba]

This. To talk about how something regularly interacts with the game world, you have to have something that regularly happens in the game world. This is clearly a "special snowflake" case, hence requiring no mechanical change, but a fluff explanation.

This is my basic issue with a lot of re-fluffing: I don't care if you tell me the character's a special little snowflake and I prefer to avoid elements where the primary argument in their favor is "Dude! Wouldn't it be awesome if...".

Don't tell me with fluff, tell me with what your character does. Demonstrate your awesome. Prove that you are a hero, or at least a protagonist. As a result, you will become a special little snowflake. It's not an aesthetic argument against change (well made, well reasoned changes are often great things): it's an aesthetic objection against something that reeks to much of Mary Sue.

Moreover, with regards to the fire hair thing: I tend to aim for internal consistency (the minimization of it's importance in rule design is one of my primary complaints for 4th). If your hair is fire, I expect that if it interacts with the world it will interact like fire. If it does not, I expect there to be a reason why (even if the characters don't know it), and I expect that reason to delineate how it should interact with the world in a consistent way.

[Rogue Shadows]

No, dude. YOU are giving it mechanical consequences. We said nothing about such things. Quite contrary, actually.

...so, will pyrotechnics work on it, or not? Does it shed light, or not?

Because it seems to me that if it sheds no light, gives off no heat, and cannot be intereacted with by a spell designed to interact with any kind of fire, magical or mundane...then it's not fire.

[mootoall]

But it doesn't have a mechanical impact. At all. Which is the entire point of it being a fluff change. And we also have the much more similar to this situation "Continual Flame," which does exactly what we want it to, but we'd like it to not provide any significant illumination and be entirely self-sustaining. Or, alternatively, firey hair. When we say "No mechanical impact," we mean NO mechanical impact.

Edit: I don't think you're understanding us. No means no. As in there is none. As in no, that doesn't work. Nor does that. It just doesn't.

[ImperatorK]

Moreover, with regards to the fire hair thing: I tend to aim for internal consistency (the minimization of it's importance in rule design is one of my primary complaints for 4th). If your hair is fire, I expect that if it interacts with the world it will interact like fire. If it does not, I expect there to be a reason why (even if the characters don't know it), and I expect that reason to delineate how it should interact with the world in a consistent way.
My grand grand grand grandfather was a fire elemental. Or a Efreeti.


...so, will pyrotechnics work on it, or not? Does it shed light, or not?

Because it seems to me that if it sheds no light, gives off no heat, and cannot be intereacted with by a spell designed to interact with any kind of fire, magical or mundane...then it's not fire.
Because it's not fire. It only looks like fire.

[Rogue Shadows]

But it doesn't have a mechanical impact. At all. Which is the entire point of it being a fluff change. And we also have the much more similar to this situation "Continual Flame," which does exactly what we want it to, but we'd like it to not provide any significant illumination and be entirely self-sustaining. Or, alternatively, firey hair. When we say "No mechanical impact," we mean NO mechanical impact.

Pyrotechnics.

Instant mechanical questions are raised.

Also continual flame still interacts with the mechanics, RE: antimagic.


Because it's not fire. It only looks like fire.

...so then, a human can't have fire for hair without special mechanical considerations. Got it.

[ImperatorK]

Half-elemental. Or a genasi.

[Shadowknight12]

Spoilered by request. :smallwink:


Where does it say there are? "Humans are sometimes born with magical oddities" is a house rule.

And where does it say that they aren't? That's just as equally arbitrary.


Just checked the SRD and I don't see where it says that. I've heard it before, but I never knew where it was coming from.

The SRD is forbidden to have actual fluff. It's only mechanics. Go to the actual PHB for that kind of stuff.


Because hair is not fire? If someone told me "You having a blonde dwarf is home brew because the only colors listed as options are black, brown, and gray" I wouldn't argue because technically they're correct. If they tried to tell me I couldn't play said Dwarf it would probably aggravate me quite a bit, because hair is hair.

And to me, there's no difference between blond hair and fire hair, since it's equally as meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I'd be frankly just as aggravated.


I agree that we're basically arguing a semantic point. I'd say we have differing opinions on 'mechanics' and differing opinions on 'homebrew'.

You see mechanics and fluff as two separate entities Mechanics are the numbers, fluff is the rationale. I'm saying that mechanics are anything that people can observe and interact with. If you make a custom deity and clerics are able to gain power by praying to them then your clerics are interacting with that deity. If a fighter gains power from horses then that interaction is a mechanic. He is gaining something.

And to me, if it doesn't have a mechanical effect, it's not a mechanic. To me, what has a mechanical effect is a mechanic and what doesn't, is fluff.


My vision of home brew is anything that people can interact with or observe. If a power source exists, and you're saying that people are getting power from it then it's not just fluff. That is an interaction. Power source A is granting power to person 1.

Then there's no such thing as fluff, because everything can be interacted with.


And that's the whole point, isn't it? In our own opinion the other person is wrong because they're interpreting things differently than us. If I wasn't OCD I would probably take this time to stop responding to your post because we've essentially agreed that we're not going to see eye to eye.

Uh oh. I think I have the exact same problem. For the record, I don't think either of us are wrong, we just see things WAY differently.


My arguments consist of more than nope nope nope. You have been providing good examples - I'll admit as much. The only problem I have is that making a new example that shows off the same points as the first doesn't refute any of the points I already made to your first argument. You haven't convinced me that I'm wrong because you haven't addressed my arguments.

Yeah, okay, I get that, but I just don't see what else I can do. I mean, if someone says "I can jump over that railing!" and you say "No, you can't!" and the person goes and jump (which in this metaphor, that's me providing you an example of something being done), then... what else can the person do?


You can accuse me of not listening all you like, but I can point to an entire thread of you providing an example, me explaining why I disagree with it, and you starting a new example. You say in one place that it's just a matter of opinion, but when you make statements about me not listening, you're actually saying "You just don't understand". Not understanding and not agreeing are two very different things.

I will say that I don't understand why you disagree with me because you haven't refuted my points. You haven't explained why gaining power from a non-official source isn't homebrew, other than to say "home brew is numbers only", which I've also already said I patently disagree with.

No, I'm saying that you don't listen because in some cases, you're not actually responding to me, you're dodging the point, such as what you did with the angel flight thing. Other than that, you keep saying that I'm not responding to your points, when to me, that's exactly what I've been doing all along.

As for "why it isn't homebrew," I've said it many times. It's not homebrew because it doesn't have a mechanical effect. To me, homebrewing only covers mechanics. "Homebrewed" fluff is not homebrew, that's just refluffing.


Depends on the campaign. In a home brew world where all humans are born with fire instead of hair, fire would be the norm, but only because it's a rule specific to that home brew world.

And that's not what I said. I precisely avoided making it "the norm" because I'm not interested in it being a rule. I am okay with an absence of hard and fast rules. I am okay with oddities and abnormalities. I am okay with people having fire hair because of whatever fluff reasons the player comes up with, and without having to make up rules or mechanics for that (assuming the player isn't looking for mechanical effects, of course).


The fact of the matters is that the books do tell us the basics of the race, but you think that differing wildly from the norm somehow isn't different because the numbers don't change.

To you, it's "wildly different." To me, it's still perfectly normal in a world of dragons, mages, mind flayers and deity avatars.


As for your comments about strict, narrow, blah blah blah, it reminded me of something kind of funny - in a recent thread someone told me, "It's OK that we disagree - everyone that's open minded agrees with me, and everyone whose not agrees with you".

If you want to agree to have a different opinion, then do so, but if you can do so without statements about me being strict or narrow I'd be a lot more likely to think you mean it.

But I'm not saying that with prejudice. I don't think that being strict and narrow is necessarily bad. You and your players have fun, right? If you guys have fun, then obviously being strict and narrow is not bad at all. I apologise if you thought I was insulting or demeaning you, that was most certainly not my intention. I was just saying what, to me, is the reason we disagree to emphatically, because you hold certain views, and you hold them firmly, while my views on class, race, setting, and D&D in general are held far more loosely. As mentioned previously, to me, a human with fire hair is still a human. To you, it's another race. I theorised that this discrepancy came from you having very strict views on what a human is.

Again, this is not a bad thing. Just different.


Hair is hair, fire is not hair. I personally wouldn't call blue hair on an elf (or any other race) home brew, but if someone told me they did I wouldn't bother to argue it. Since fire is not hair I don't really see how that's relevant though?

Because some creatures actually HAVE fire instead of hair and therefore, to them, fire IS hair? Why is it suddenly "not hair" for humans while still being hair for other creatures?


You're arguing the difference between a home brew world and a home brew character. As I see it, if arcane power can come from giggles in your world then it's a home brew world because no such power source exists in D&D. If you're allowing a single character to do so (either in your own world or some pre-constructed world) then it's basically a home brew character.

As for the rest of your argument about a monk - You're arguing that bringing something from an official book is the same as making something up and putting it in your game? Monk = Core. Giggle magic = home brew

But in D&D, arcane magic is never defined. It could be giggles. In Faerun, arcane magic comes from the Weave, but it can also come from the Shadow Weave. That's not exactly homebrew, since none of that contradicts what it's stated in the PHB, the DMG, Complete Mage, Complete Arcane and the like. There's a reason some things are left vague on purpose.

But where do you draw the line? Frankly, your views are utterly alien to me. What's the difference between a class that has never appeared in a game before (say, a monk) and someone coming up with a new way of doing the same mechanical thing they've always done? I mean, Complete Arcane introduced alternatives for spellbooks. What if I had a character who did the exact same thing before that book was published? Was that homebrew? And what happens after Complete Arcane is published? Does it suddenly become non-homebrew?

I frankly have no idea what separates a monk from giggle magic, really.


So now you're comparing introducing an official source book as opposed to a player/DM create source. You're now arguing my point for me - they are both implemented the same way, it's just that one of them is official, and the other is home brew.

But they're the same thing! That's exactly what I don't get, where do you see the difference? Sure, one of them has the WotC seal, but prior to their introduction to a campaign, they were both equally non-existent. They are both literally being introduced the exact same way.


Because for you numbers are the only form of interaction. You create a 'custom' power source, and people interact with it (gaining power is a form of interaction) but because the numbers don't change you don't consider it home brew. You consider it fluff. I disagree - putting something in the game that people can interact with (in this case gain power from, with fire hair the most basic example would be that people can *see* it) so it's home brew.

And we'll keep disagreeing. To me, if it doesn't have a mechanical effect (not necessarily numbers), it's not homebrew, it's merely refluffing. If this interaction has a mechanical effect: Homebrew. If it doesn't have a mechanical effect: Refluffing. It's really simple.


If something has no source, then how can you answer questions about it?

Keep in mind there is a major distinction between "what people see happening" and "what is happening". I'm not talking about "what people see happening", I'm talking about "what is happening". If the party has golden skin, and they don't know what's happening is fine. If the answer to the mystery is "Nothing" then it's not a mystery. It's just a big unknown that makes no sense. In order for it to make sense there would have to be some kind of a reason.

Because you come up with the answers as they are asked? And you choose as an answer what works best for the story? It might be the organic chemist in me speaking, but I prefer to use retrosynthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrosynthesis) as a way to solve some/most mysteries. Start with the effect, then work backwards towards the cause. Often, the cause does not exist until five seconds before it is revealed. It's Schrödinger's experiment, really.


Afraid I didn't see that, I've been using the SRD and I didn't catch it there. I would argue that magic tattoos that move around are slightly different from your average "Generic goods".

It's a fluff thing. SRD is as devoid of fluff as it can be, due to legal requirements. Anyway, depends on the setting, no? In some settings, magical ink might be as common as flour.


Creating a new race and refusing to acknowledge it is still creating a new race isn't it? If I'm playing the mechanics of a human, but I'm calling it a "Zaboo", I'm not playing a human am I? Mechanically I can write down human because that's where I got my stats, but that doesn't change the race that I'm playing from Zaboo to human does it?

And who are you to say it's a new race? If I create it, I say if it's a new race or subrace, or not. If I say it's not a new race, then it's not a new race. It may be a new race in your game, but it's not in mine. And that doesn't mean I'm "refusing to acknowledge" anything.

And yes, if your mechanics are human but you're calling yourself a "zaboo" you're mechanically a human. Fluffwise, you're a zaboo. That's exactly what refluffing is.


And my disagreement is basically that numbers are not the only things that are home brew. Custom races, classes, and settings are all as well - even if mechanically nothing is changing.

Again, I do not agree unless they have mechanical (not necessarily numerical) effects. If they don't, they're not homebrew, they're just refluff.


Anything that deviates from the pre-existing rules is home brew. Not just 'change'. Weather changes, day turns to night. Characters changing clothes is a change. Not every action that occurs is a change. Player actions are not changes in the game, there actions lead to mechanics being enacted to bring about change. If someone suddenly has their hair turn to fire then I assume there is some reason. Since there are no rules in D&D that allow for hair spontaneously becoming fire, any reason I give is home brew.

Difference in definitions here, again. I disagree. Just because there are no rules for it doesn't mean it can't happen.


How would they be right? Magic isn't what powers the flight? Said person might think they're right, but it doesn't make it so.

Because if you take wings of the appropriate size and you use mundane (nonmagical) surgical means to graft them upon a person that weighs and measures the same as an angel, and even if you work out all the anatomical quirks and do an excellent job at making the graft work (and I'm talking about a mundane definition of graft, not the actual Graft rules published in a splat), that person will still not be able to fly, because they are too heavy. You need magic or divine intervention (which is another form of magic) to make that happen. A 500 lbs. dwarf with wings grafted upon him (and we're assuming that he can flap those wings just like an angel's) cannot fly, because he is too heavy.

This is D&D we're talking about here, not the real world. In D&D, this needs magic. It cannot work without magic. Yet this is not, according to the mechanics that govern spellcasting, actually magic.


How is having something role playing? If you're character has black hair then you are role playing a character with black hair. If you somehow got fire instead of hair you are roleplaying a character with fire in place of hair. How is simply *having hair* in of itself roleplaying?

Because you can interact with the hair? Combing your hair is roleplaying, isn't it? Talking about your hair is roleplaying, etc.


But you're arguing numbers, not change. You agree with me that it's OK to add power sources, we just disagree on whether or not they're home brew.

You say that since the numbers don't change it's not home brew, and I say that since you're introducing a 'custom' power source it is home brew.

Exactly. That's precisely what I'm saying.


Difference between in character and out of character. In character no one may know the reason. They're the ones observing the box. The group (players + DM) are the ones who decide whether or not there is actually some source. If there is no reason, then you have an event occuring for no reason, and that would make me, as a player, very upset. You, as the DM, may not know exactly what the reason is when you introduce it to the game, but you still know whether or not there is a reason.

And if I don't? What happens then? If I introduce a mystery to the players and they never solve it, the reason does not exist. You may say "Oh, but you know the reason, regardless of whether it was revealed or not!" and I say "No, because I don't know the reasons behind some things until five seconds before revealing them." If the players never discovered the reason, I never had to come up with one, therefore it is functionally the same as not having a reason.


Not really sure how that's a fallacy. Just pointing out that you made ice a special material when you allowed a player to make a weapon out of a special material(ice).

Is it a standard material? No.
Is it a custom material? Yes.

So it's custom, or home brew as I refer to it, and you're using it as a material other than what is normal. So special. How is that being a special material a fallacy?

You keep assuming that ice is a special material. That's the fallacy I'm pointing out. Ice can be as mundane as steel in some settings, so it wouldn't be a special material. If it's not a special material, it doesn't belong in the special materials section, so it needs no special mechanics for it (since we already have the mechanics we need for ice, they're in the DMG and Frostburn). And this goes double if he uses the exact same mechanics as steel (which is also not a special material) and just makes it look like ice. In neither case I needed to create new mechanics, so neither case is homebrewing.


It's a mechanic because it's something that people can interact with that changes the game? People see him differently, he feels differently. The numbers may not have changed, but you've still implemented a mechanic for people to become cold to the touch. Where does it say that numbers are the only things that are mechanics? That's a decision you made, that I disagree with.

I'm not saying that all mechanics have to do with numbers. Some things, like "this impedes breathing" are mechanics with no numbers attached to them. But they still affect stuff in your character sheet, they still impose conditions on your character (in that case, Dead) and so on. If you don't separate mechanics from fluff, you end up with a convoluted mess of trying to figure out if something that happens should involve dice-rolling or if it should affect a stat like HP and so on. It gets messy and complicated. It's easier to say "if it doesn't have a mechanical effect, it's not a mechanic" and stop sweating the details. If a player wants to have fire hair and they understand that it will never give them a mechanical benefit (it will shed no light, it will not light things on fire, so on and so forth), then I'm cool with it. I've no problem with that.


As for the second part of your post - what?

Nothing, it was quite silly.


Because you just gave an explanation as to how someone could get firey hair, and it required them to fill certain criteria? It may only come up once, but saying "X happens because of Y" means that "X happens because of Y".

Near as I can tell your argument is that "X happened because of Y, but if I don't write it down it doesn't count".

Why must they fit a criteria? Why can't they have fire for hair simply because of whatever explanation they come up with? If they say "It's because he was born on a zone tainted by fire magic!" that doesn't mean that he MUST have done that in order to get his fire hair. I can have an NPC say "You thought that, but you were wrong! You were actually blessed by Loki and that is his mark!" and presto, I just violated whatever criteria I had set. Or if they change their minds later on? If they say "I think it's cooler if he was descended from red dragons instead" and in-game he 'discovers' that what he thought true was false and that his fire hair comes from another source. Presto, another criteria violated.

Also, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is "X happened because of Y, that gives me no mechanical benefits or disadvantages, so it's not worth writing it down as though it was a mechanic. It's just a refluff."


"My character has fire instead of hair because he's a sorcerer"
"Sorcerors can have fire for hair"

In D&D - what is the difference? Your phrasing it as a justification, but it doesn't change the fact that you are setting up a rule and then fulfilling it.

As for 4... there's a difference between "hasn't been explained" and "has no explanation". Hasn't been explained means there is an explanation, and that explanation is going to be home brew if there is no in game reason. If there is no reason (not there is no known reason), then you have stuff happening for no reason, which makes no sense to me.

We have different definitions of rule, it seems. To me "can" is not a rule. Rules are things that impose limits. "Can't," "must," "mustn't," "may not," "has to." "Can," "may," "might" and "doesn't have to" are by their very nature not rules because they do not impose limits. They WOULD be rules, however, if they gave character options that didn't exist before, such as a spell that allows a land-bound character to fly. But if the character could already do that, saying that he "can" do what he could already do is not a rule. "You can breathe" is not a rule for those character who already can.


Everything you say above is only true if you introduce physics into D&D. Since D&D has no physics then there is nothing wrong with said dwarf or angel flying solely because they have wings.

Um. Physics in D&D may not be respected, may be trumped by mechanics and magic and all that, but they DO exist. See the DMG quote that came up above. Gravity exists. Friction exists. Pressure, force, mass, all those things exist. They are not as immutable as they are in the real world, surely, but they exist. If you graft a pair of wings unto a character (assuming you make the proper muscle/nerve/bone connections), you are actually not going to have a flying creature. The reason angels fly is magic. It's not magic according to the rules, but it's actually magic. When you give a dwarf the half-celestial, half-fiend or winged template, you're giving them wings plus the magic necessary for those wings to hold them aloft and giving them the ability to actually fly. It's the only in-game explanation for why such flight is possible, since characters are not aware of the mechanics behind their world.


But a character is physically capable of blinking, even if the rules don't require him to do so. How is a character capable of having fire for hair without some home brew reason?

You do realise you've just answered your own question, right? "Is capable of doing X, even though the rules don't require him to do so." Exactly. He can blink without the rules requiring him to do so, and he can have fire hair for the exact same reason.


Except there are no rules for making someone stop blinking, so whatever you come up with is a rule you made up. Am I missing something?

Stone to Flesh (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stoneToFlesh.htm) will make you stop blinking. So will Hold Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/holdPerson.htm).


And again - that is why we disagree. We simply use the terms differently. They have different meanings for each of us. Truth be told I have nothing against the way you play, I would just word things slightly differently than you if we ever met in real life. To be perfectly honest it doesn't even sound like we have that different of a play style, just a different usage of terms.

Yeah, I believe that's the case.


In conclusion, it would be more proper to say that, without magical intervention vis-a-vis a human gaining fire resistance or immunity (a mechanical phenomenon), a human cannot naturally have fire for hair and have Hit Dice.

Not all fire burns or deals damage. There are plenty of examples. Like a Fire Elemental (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elemental.htm#fireElemental). He only deals fire damage when attacking. You can pet him and be fine. He can also lie down on a bed of fallen leaves and not set them on fire. He also doesn't shed light, not even like a torch.

[mootoall]

t seems to me that if it sheds no light, gives off no heat, and cannot be intereacted with by a spell [I]designed to interact with any kind of fire, magical or mundane...then it's not fire.

You're right. It's not mundane fire. Nor any type of precidented, recorded magical fire. But if it looks like a fire and walks like a fire, why not just call it fire?

Edit: Okay, you want to know how it interacts with an Anti-Magic Field? It doesn't. Because it's self-sustaining like a golem's or zombie's animation. Bam. Your question can be answered with the rules, or with new rules, but again, why the hell should it?

[Rogue Shadows]

Half-fire elemental.

There's a template for that somewhere.

There's also the Fire Genasi from Forgotten Realms, which are descended from fire elemental beings like Efreeti. They're describes as having wavey red or orange hair that is like fire but is not, in fact, fire. They also have fire resistance...

[ImperatorK]

There's a template for that somewhere.

There's also the Fire Genasi from Forgotten Realms, which are descended from fire elemental beings like Efreeti. They're describes as having wavey red or orange hair that is like fire but is not, in fact, fire. They also have fire resistance...
And now imagine the fire genasi, but without fire resistance and with the stats of a human. It's a human, crunch-wise and fluff-wise. But it has fire hair.
The human with fire hair gains NO mechanical benefits for the fire hair or for being descendant from fire-elementals. The fire genasi does.

[mootoall]

And now imagine the fire genasi, but without fire resistance and with the stats of a human.

This too, by the by. But wait, how does the Fire Genasi's hair work when exposed to water? A Pyrotechnics spell? If it's magical, an AMF?

You see, your questions already existed within the current rules.

[Hecuba]

My grand grand grand grandfather was a fire elemental. Or a Efreeti.

That's great. So it's a manifestation of an inherited connection to the elemental plane of fire?
How would being planar locked affect it?
How does it react with opposing elemental energies?
Does it become more pronounced on planes/demi-planes adjacent to the Elemental plane of fire (or the plane of fire itself)?
Would someone with Knowledge: The Planes be able to identify the effect?

Ultimately, the fundamental purpose of both fluff and crunch is to describe the characters and the world in which they live. Fluff describes the exposition, and crunch describes the interaction. When you decide you have fire for hair, you are positing an element that exists within the game world. It is there, it can be interacted with.

It heavily strains verisimilitude (at least for me) if that element you added interacts with the rest of the world in a way that is heavily dissimilar to other expositionaly related elements.


As for "why it isn't homebrew," I've said it many times. It's not homebrew because it doesn't have a mechanical effect. To me, homebrewing only covers mechanics. "Homebrewed" fluff is not homebrew, that's just refluffing.

So you wouldn't consider the expositional setting elements of world building to be home brew?

[ImperatorK]

This too, by the by. But wait, how does the Fire Genasi's hair work when exposed to water? A Pyrotechnics spell? If it's magical, an AMF?

You see, your questions already existed within the current rules.
I bet he will point us to the fire resistance.

[Typewriter]

This. To talk about how something regularly interacts with the game world, you have to have something that regularly happens in the game world. This is clearly a "special snowflake" case, hence requiring no mechanical change, but a fluff explanation. If you're saying that you're then homebrewing, then fine, you're homebrewing. I, on the other hand, am not.

While I'm fine with disagreeing on terms I would kind of like clarification on one point:

You are a human with fire on their hair - When people look at you do they see the fire? I mean:

Do they realize you're a human even though you look distinctly not like any human they've ever seen?

Would people find it alarming that your head is on fire?

If I can see that your head is on fire, and I believe your head is on fire, why do you have to roll a bluff check to tell me it's on fire if I choose rather to sense motive rather than believe, not only you but, my own eyes?

I mean, the argument may be that you're not changing mechanics, but that's only the direct numbers portion. No you don't have a +2 to your bluff check when claiming that your hair is on fire, but you are making it highly unlikely that anyone is going to use sense motive on you because it takes a minute and they can clearly see that your head is on fire.

I don't think I'll ever agree with the arguments you're using, but the above question(s) is what causes me to not understand your argument.

A better example than the fiery hair would be: I'm playing a human with pointed ears, he's slender, and looks like an elf in every way. Since the rules don't say I can't look like an elf, what's keeping me from appearing to be an elf? I'm not going to get any kind of bonus to disguise myself as an elf, but either people are going to look at me and say "There is an elf" or they are going to look at me and say "There is a human". If they see me as a human, how do I look like an elf?

[Rogue Shadows]

You like to ignore peoples posts, don't you? What part of "It doesn't" you don't understand?

There's a difference between "ignoring a post" and "missing something that was edited in while I was responding," sir or madame

(your gender isn't on display so I thought it better to not guess)


You're right. It's not mundane fire. Nor any type of precidented, recorded magical fire. But if it looks like a fire and walks like a fire, why not just call it fire?

Because it is not behaving, in any way, like fire? It can be described as fire-like or fiery, but not as actual fire, because there are rules for fire in D&D.


[snip]

S, while I admire your determination to respond to respond to every point made against you and every point that caught your eye in a single post, that wall of text is big enough to provide total cover.

/spoiler is your friend.


I bet he will point us to the fire resistance.

Actually I'll just point out that a fire genasi's hair is specifically mentioned to not actually be fire. In fact it is specifically described as hair that simply resembles fire in hue and shape. But it is still hair.

[ImperatorK]

That's great. So it's a manifestation of an inherited connection to the elemental plane of fire?
How would being planar locked affect it?
How does it react with opposing elemental energies?
Does it become more pronounced on planes/demi-planes adjacent to the Elemental plane of fire (or the plane of fire itself)?
Would someone with Knowledge: The Planes be able to identify the effect?

Ultimately, the fundamental purpose of both fluff and crunch is to describe the characters and the world in which they live. Fluff describes the exposition, and crunch describes the interaction. When you decide you have fire for hair, you are positing an element that exists within the game world. It is there, it can be interacted with.

It heavily strains verisimilitude (at least for me) if that element you added interacts with the rest of the world in a way that is heavily dissimilar to other expositionaly related elements.
Do you ask this questions when your player wants to play a fire genasi?


There's a difference between "ignoring a post" and "missing something that was edited in while I was responding," sir or madame
Cool, but I'm not talking about what I edited in later, but in general.


Actually I'll just point out that a fire genasi's hair is specifically mentioned to not actually be fire. In fact it is specifically described as hair that simply resembles fire in hue and shape. But it is still hair.
And what says that a human cant have "fire hair" that isn't fire, but just hair that looks like fire? If you want an explanation, we already gave it to you. His grand grand grand grandfather was a fire elemental. Or Efreeti.

[Shadowknight12]

Because it is not behaving, in any way, like fire? It can be described as fire-like or fiery, but not as actual fire, because there are rules for fire in D&D.

Yes. And then you have other things called "fire" that do not follow those rules. I point out the fire elemental to you. He's cuddly. He only burns if he backhands you like a pimp.


S, while I admire your determination to respond to respond to every point made against you and every point that caught your eye in a single post, that wall of text is big enough to provide total cover.

/spoiler is your friend.

Ffffffffixed.

[mootoall]

While I'm fine with disagreeing on terms I would kind of like clarification on one point:

You are a human with fire on their hair - When people look at you do they see the fire? I mean:

Do they realize you're a human even though you look distinctly not like any human they've ever seen?

Would people find it alarming that your head is on fire?

If I can see that your head is on fire, and I believe your head is on fire, why do you have to roll a bluff check to tell me it's on fire if I choose rather to sense motive rather than believe, not only you but, my own eyes?

I mean, the argument may be that you're not changing mechanics, but that's only the direct numbers portion. No you don't have a +2 to your bluff check when claiming that your hair is on fire, but you are making it highly unlikely that anyone is going to use sense motive on you because it takes a minute and they can clearly see that your head is on fire.

I don't think I'll ever agree with the arguments you're using, but the above question(s) is what causes me to not understand your argument.

A better example than the fiery hair would be: I'm playing a human with pointed ears, he's slender, and looks like an elf in every way. Since the rules don't say I can't look like an elf, what's keeping me from appearing to be an elf? I'm not going to get any kind of bonus to disguise myself as an elf, but either people are going to look at me and say "There is an elf" or they are going to look at me and say "There is a human". If they see me as a human, how do I look like an elf?

1) An excellent, completely non-mechanical question. Ask your game world.

2) See 1.

3) Why on earth am I bluffing about my hair being fire when it's actually fire? Again, it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and smells like a duck, why isn't it a duck?

4) If you're playing a human who looks like an elf, and your stats are that of a human, but you say that your character is an elf, then you're an elf. With human stats. And in game, you're an elf, who's slightly less dextrous, slightly tougher, and slightly more skilled and versatile.

Edit: Sorry, missed a very important part. Fixed.

[Hecuba]

Do you ask this questions when your player wants to play a fire genasi?
Yes. white text to meet the minimum post length

[Shadowknight12]

So you wouldn't consider the expositional setting elements of world building to be home brew?

If they don't have mechanical effects, no, that's just refluffing.

[ImperatorK]

Yes. white text to meet the minimum post length
And what does he say?

[Rogue Shadows]

Yes. And then you have other things called "fire" that do not follow those rules. I point out the fire elemental to you. He's cuddly. He only burns if he backhands you like a pimp.

Actually he also burns you if hit with a melee or unarmed attack.

Suggesting that the fire elemental does not shed light or burn at the tough, though, is just...

...well, to be blunt?

It's stupid.

It is, at worst, an oversight on Wizards of the Coast's part brought about by the idea that they never even considered that a discussion this inane would be brought up.

[mootoall]

Yes.

Then those are excellent questions, and the answer to all of the above is "They don't react." Except for the Know (the planes) part. I'd allow that. It's fluff, it doesn't have in-game mechanical consequences.

[mootoall]

Actually he also burns you if hit with a melee or unarmed attack.

Suggesting that the fire elemental does not shed light or burn at the tough, though, is just...

...well, to be blunt?

It's stupid.

It is, at worst, an oversight on Wizards of the Coast's part brought about by the idea that they never even considered that a discussion this inane would be brought up.

You can have Air Elementals that are completely solid. It makes perfect sense that a Fire elemental can control its temperature. That's what it's all about, after all. Y'know, 'cause it's MADE OF FIRE.

[Rogue Shadows]

Then those are excellent questions, and the answer to all of the above is "They don't react." Except for the Know (the planes) part. I'd allow that. It's fluff, it doesn't have in-game mechanical consequences.

...I'm sorry, did you just suggest that seeing someone who's hair was (apparently) made of fire would have no in-game mechanical consequences on social interaction?

At the very least I would expect a +2 favorable circumstance bonus to Intimidate checks...

[Shadowknight12]

Actually he also burns you if hit with a melee or unarmed attack.

Suggesting that the fire elemental does not shed light or burn at the tough, though, is just...

...well, to be blunt?

It's stupid.

It is, at worst, an oversight on Wizards of the Coast's part brought about by the idea that they never even considered that a discussion this inane would be brought up.

Yes, it burns you if you hit it. Maybe because he's angry or because you hurt him. Doesn't say that if you gently caress its flamy arm, it'll burn you. Or shed light. Or burn down a wooden shack if he steps inside it.

Like it or not, your entire defence hinges on the fact that there are rules for things called fire, and I'm proving you that this is not the case.

EDIT:



...I'm sorry, did you just suggest that seeing someone who's hair was (apparently) made of fire would have no in-game mechanical consequences on social interaction?

At the very least I would expect a +2 favorable circumstance bonus to Intimidate checks...

Actually, I support the stance that things only have a mechanical effect if you want them to. If something is made of fire but does not shed light or set things on fire, it doesn't. I'd expect a reason why, of course, but it's not necessary. I can live with it. It's not the strangest thing I've seen in D&D.

[Rogue Shadows]

You can have Air Elementals that are completely solid. It makes perfect sense that a Fire elemental can control its temperature. That's what it's all about, after all. Y'know, 'cause it's MADE OF FIRE.

And said fire still interacts with the game mechanically. Again: pyrotechnics.

[mootoall]

...I'm sorry, did you just suggest that seeing someone who's hair was (apparently) made of fire would have no in-game mechanical consequences on social interaction?

At the very least I would expect a +2 favorable circumstance bonus to Intimidate checks...

If you wanted to homebrew, then you could do that. However, we're not homebrewing, we're refluffing. You see the difference? In my version, that circumstance bonus might come from the outside world. If the person you're intimidating was particularly afraid of fires, as opposed to bloodthirsty high leveled adventurers. In yours, it's inherent that everyone's afraid of fire-haired people.

[Typewriter]

ShadowKnight: If you would like a response to your post, let me know via PM and I will gladly respond via PM. I have not read your post yet, and am currently assuming we're basically agreeing to disagree on specific terminology. I'll gladly respond to your post, but I'm done with this thread thanks to:


Every logical argument that there could be was brought up, yet Typewriter still doesn't get it. I say we just leave it at that, because this is going nowhere. Hor him it's homebrewing/houseruling and nothing will change his mind. Lets drop it guys. :smallannoyed:

I'm so right because I know I'm right and because I can't convince someone I'm right my opponent just doesn't get it.

There is a huge difference between 'not getting it' and 'disagreeing'. I have nothing with someone agreeing to disagree with me, but please do so in a way that doesn't try to imply that the other side is wrong.

Maybe you didn't mean it the way I'm interpreting it, but I've run into a rash of threads recently in which people have been making statements ranging from those similar to yours to "It's ok that we disagree, it's just that open minded people agree with me", and it's gotten on my nerves a lot lately.

[mootoall]

And said fire still interacts with the game mechanically. Again: pyrotechnics.

Huh. What does happen when you cast pyrotechnics on a Fire elemental? It's an excellent question.

On the other hand, it doesn't interact at all with my fire haired character, because the flames aren't normal.

[Rogue Shadows]

If you wanted to homebrew, then you could do that.

+2 favorable circumstance bonuses aren't homebrew; they're specifically listed out on page 64 of the Player's Handbook. When to use them is the perview of the DM, but they are still an integrated part of the actual game's mechanics, as is the DM's decision on when to use them.

[Hecuba]

And what does he say?

I was hoping you would ask. That list was questions I asked the last time someone did play it.

The effect is inborn-- a portion of primal elemental, primal fire that is part of the character's soul.

That manifestation, however, it still rooted in elemental fire, and reacts as such: his hair-fire was larger and less contained the closer he got to the elemental plane of fire (where fire effects are enhanced).

In the most extreme case, on the elemental plane of fire itself, it is wild, uncontrolled, and appears to merge somewhat with the flames of the environment.

On the opposite extreme, on the elemental plane of water, the manifestation is fully suppressed: local conditions cannot destroy that part of his soul, but they do prevent the way in which it normally interacts with the environment.

On a planar locked, otherwise neutral plane, it acts normally because the elemental fire that causes it is part of him rather than directly reliant on an extra-planar source.

I think we set the DC for recognizing the specific nature of how his hair worked and what it indicated at 30, but I would honestly have to dig up game notes.

None of these elements, save perhaps Knowledge: The Planes, are inherently mechanical, but they are rooted in the mechanical rules dealing with planes and elemental energy.

Because, however, the Knowledge: The Planes allowed recognition, these effects can provide an mechanical cue about unknown local planar traits.


Edit:

If they don't have mechanical effects, no, that's just refluffing.
Re-fluffing? Where does the "re" come in when you are making something from scratch? Are you just fluffing? And are you implying that, say, the geopolitics of Eberon aren't going interact mechanically with the players? That they're never going to, for example, have their Dragonmark effect how they interact with the Houses?

[Rogue Shadows]

Huh. What does happen when you cast pyrotechnics on a Fire elemental? It's an excellent question.

One with an answer:

"Magical fires are not extinguished, although a fire-based creature (such as a fire elemental) used as a surce takes 1 point of damage per caster level."
- Page 267, Player's Handbook.


On the other hand, it doesn't interact at all with my fire haired character, because the flames aren't normal.

But its also not magical? Then what is it? Becuase both mundane and magical fire have actual, quantifiable mechanical effects, so I do not see any good reason why some other kind (special fireflake?) wouldn't as well.

[mootoall]

+2 favorable circumstance bonuses aren't homebrew; they're specifically listed out on page 64 of the Player's Handbook. When to use them is the perview of the DM, but they are still an integrated part of the actual game's mechanics, as is the DM's decision on when to use them.

True. Absolutely true. Granting it as an always-on racial circumstance bonus, however, would be adding a mechanical benefit to the fluff change. I would call that homebrew. Giving it all the time, however, is certainly up to you.


One with an answer:

"Magical fires are not extinguished, although a fire-based creature (such as a fire elemental) used as a surce takes 1 point of damage per caster level."
- Page 267, Player's Handbook.

Coolio. Didn't know that. Still doesn't effect a Fire Genasi, and therefore not my human, whose fluff is basically derived from that.

Edit: Responding to your edit, I'd say that you're needlessly adding a mechanical outcome to a fluff change. If you want to, that's fine, but you've then crossed the realm of fluffing to homebrewing.

[ImperatorK]

But its also not magical? Then what is it?
A mystery? One of miliards that can be observed in a default D&D world.

[Rogue Shadows]

Coolio. Didn't know that. Still doesn't effect a Fire Genasi, and therefore not my human, whose fluff is basically derived from that.

Again, fire genasi explicity do not have fire for hair.

"They appear mostly human, with one or two unusual traits reflecting their quasi-elemental nature, such as skin the color of burnt coal, red hair that waves like flames, or eyes that glow when the genasi is angry."
- page 20, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.

Emphasis mine. The genasi's hair is explicitly said to be like flames but is not, in fact, flame.

[ImperatorK]

Again, fire genasi explicity do not have fire for hair.
And again: what says that a human can't have fire for hair?


I'm so right because I know I'm right and because I can't convince someone I'm right my opponent just doesn't get it.

There is a huge difference between 'not getting it' and 'disagreeing'. I have nothing with someone agreeing to disagree with me, but please do so in a way that doesn't try to imply that the other side is wrong.

Maybe you didn't mean it the way I'm interpreting it, but I've run into a rash of threads recently in which people have been making statements ranging from those similar to yours to "It's ok that we disagree, it's just that open minded people agree with me", and it's gotten on my nerves a lot lately.
No. You don't get it. If you did, you could still disagree, but it is clear to me that you don't get it. Your arguments are telling me this.

[mootoall]

Again, fire genasi explicity do not have fire for hair.

Imperator's got it again! It's a mystery then. No clue why it doesn't work. But just like I'm not getting a mechanical benefit, I'm not getting a mechanical penalty.

[Shadowknight12]

ShadowKnight: If you would like a response to your post, let me know via PM and I will gladly respond via PM. I have not read your post yet, and am currently assuming we're basically agreeing to disagree on specific terminology. I'll gladly respond to your post, but I'm done with this thread thanks to:

Well, I do agree that we're using vastly different terminology, so don't feel obliged to respond. The only thing that I think we're still not seeing eye to eye in was the angel flight thing. I keep saying that it's magical, but I suppose it's not really a big deal. :smallsmile:

[Rogue Shadows]

And again: what says that a human can't have fire for hair?

SEE my point about Hit Dice.

[ImperatorK]

Well, I do agree that we're using vastly different terminology, so don't feel obliged to respond. The only thing that I think we're still not seeing eye to eye in was the angel flight thing. I keep saying that it's magical, but I suppose it's not really a big deal. :smallsmile:
Talking about flying. Dragons? They're extremely heavy and yet their wings support them. What's up with that? :smalltongue:

[Rogue Shadows]

Talking about flying. Dragons? They're extremely heavy and yet their wings support them. What's up with that? :smalltongue:

Draconomicon went into this a lot, actually...

[ImperatorK]

SEE my point about Hit Dice.
Summarize it for me, please.


Draconomicon went into this a lot, actually...
And what does it say?

[Shadowknight12]

SEE my point about Hit Dice.

Which is actually false, since I've proven that there is no need for the fire in the person's head to actually deal fire damage, shed light, or set things on fire. If it doesn't do any of those things, HD and fire resistance don't enter the picture.


Talking about flying. Dragons? They're extremely heavy and yet their wings support them. What's up with that? :smalltongue:

Exactly. Some things in D&D are not possible unless we're talking about magic, and they're still not actually magic according to the rules. Proof that rules!magic =/= fluff!magic.

[mootoall]

Okay, to preemptively respond to Rogue Shadow's following post:

"Well what about-"

"No mechanical effect"

"But how does it react to-"

"It doesn't."

"How about-"

"No."

Seriously, no means no. That's one of the most important rules to learn in life. There is no mechanical effect whatsoever between my character's fire hair and anything else. Just like my character's regular hair doesn't effect anything else. It just. Doesn't. If you have versimilitude problems with it, then go ahead and make a homebrewed agreement with me. If it's acceptable, a-ok. If it's not, then I'll scrap the concept. There's nothing to prevent me from doing it though.

[Rogue Shadows]

Summarize it for me, please.

I've recieved a warning about reposting, so instead I'll just link you to my post:

EDIT
Oops, wrong post. hang on.

This is the right post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11412346&postcount=252)


Seriously, no means no. That's one of the most important rules to learn in life. There is no mechanical effect whatsoever between my character's fire hair and anything else. Just like my character's regular hair doesn't effect anything else.

Except, regular hair is explicity excluded from the rules - fire is explicitly mechanically detailed. A lot, actually.

So...yeah, "no" in this case means something more like "waaah."

[ImperatorK]

That's why I'm saying "Lets drop this issue". It goes NOWHERE. :smallmad:


Except, regular hair is explicity excluded from the rules - fire is explicitly detailed. A lot, actually.
But... it's not fire. :smallfrown: how many times do we have to say that?


This is the right post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11412346&postcount=252)
The human with "fire hair" doesn't have fire resistance. his "fire hair" don't hurt him, because they're not fire. They just look like fire.

Lets say we have a fire genasi that has flaming hair. It has fire resistance, per the statblock, but it doesn't deal fire damage when touched. I could lick his scalp and the hair would do NOTHING to me. Weird, huh?

[Lord_Gareth]

Wow. If your opinion is beyond a shadow of a doubt I guess I'm convined. Sure, the reason my group (myself included) left our last DM is because he played the way you do and it was ruining our fun, but if you're having more fun doing it this way I'm obviously wrong.

Thank you for your insight.

There's all manner of variables left out of your anecdote here that make it hard for me to take your sarcasm seriously (and, indeed, mostly lead me to conclude that your DM was an incompetent). Essentially, none of your arguments have been, in the slightest shadow of something resembling a sense, anywhere close to suggesting that the way we play the game is in any fashion wrong, less fun, or lacking in sense. I DM for dozens of players and never run into the kind of verisimilitude problems that you're talking about, and I've done the sparkly power attack and the fire-for-hair things (see also: glowing auras, houses made of solidified light, and one angry-ass ghost chicken). If the DM can't make his world make sense, it's a failing on his part, not the style's part, hey?

[mootoall]

Except, regular hair is explicity excluded from the rules - fire is explicitly mechanically detailed. A lot, actually.

So...yeah, "no" in this case means something more like "waaah."

This isn't mundane fire. It's not fire as described in the rules. It looks, superficially, like fire. But it's not. See the "walks like a duck, talks like a duck" argument for why we're calling it fire.

[ImperatorK]

As per my earlier advice, I'm dropping out of this discussion. My annoy-o-meter is warning me that it's time to stop, else I'm gonna do something regrettable. Peace out home dogs. :smallwink:

[Tvtyrant]

The real question is how immutable is the crunch to people. I modify mine when I DM all over the board, but it seems that is an unpopular approach.

[mootoall]

The real question is how immutable is the crunch to people. I modify mine when I DM all over the board, but it seems that is an unpopular approach.

Meh, so long as you tell your players about it and they don't mind, it should be fine. I mean, on the fly "Oh, but my sorcerer can cast in full plate and quicken spells and has unlimited spells known even though yours can't and will never be able to, and he can do it without any investment" is something that might irk me as a player, understandably. If he had a reasonable amount of opportunity investment to do it and the players could as well, then I'd think it was fine.

[Lord_Gareth]

Honestly, the real questions go like this:

Player/DM X wants to do Y as a refluff.

Do they want a new mechanic or an alteration to an old mechanic to do this? Yes/No.

Yes: Homebrew, research, or deny as appropriate.

No: Do they have a good explanation? Yes/No.

Yes: Awesome! Rubberstamp it and jot down a few notes about it, then move on.

No: Tell them to get a better explanation.

[Shadowknight12]

As per my earlier advice, I'm dropping out of this discussion. My annoy-o-meter is warning me that it's time to stop, else I'm gonna do something regrettable. Peace out home dogs. :smallwink:

Yeah, it's impossible to argue with someone who doesn't listen. :smalltongue:


The real question is how immutable is the crunch to people. I modify mine when I DM all over the board, but it seems that is an unpopular approach.

Same here. I modify it without much thought, since I trust my players not to take advantage of it, and instead help me out if I miss something. It's worked well thus far.

[mootoall]

Honestly, the real questions go like this:

Player/DM X wants to do Y as a refluff.

Do they want a new mechanic or an alteration to an old mechanic to do this? Yes/No.

Yes: Homebrew, research, or deny as appropriate.

No: Do they have a good explanation? Yes/No.

Yes: Awesome! Rubberstamp it and jot down a few notes about it, then move on.

No: Tell them to get a better explanation.

This flow chart looks fine to me.

[Rukia]

Sorry but isn't the real issue with the fire hair is that it is far too anime for D&D? :smalltongue:


Sorry had to throw that out there. About the fire hair, my simple question is if you were in a dark dungeon and trying to be sneaky, would the fire hair give off light? If not then why not just go the Fire Gensai way and say it looks a lot like fire, but in reality it's just really bright orange and wavy normal hair? Then the person gets their "hair that looks like fire" but rules and fluff wise it's simply just cool looking anime hair?

Also I'd have to say that however you fluff it, if that character went into a town where he'd never have been seen before wouldn't the first thing everyone would say to him be. "Uh dude.. you're hair is on fire." Or maybe they dunk a bucket of water on his head trying to save him from burning to death.

[Lord_Gareth]

Sorry but isn't the real issue with the fire hair is that it is far too anime for D&D? :smalltongue:


Sorry had to throw that out there. About the fire hair, my simple question is if you were in a dark dungeon and trying to be sneaky, would the fire hair give off light? If not then why not just go the Fire Gensai way and say it looks a lot like fire, but in reality it's just really bright orange and wavy normal hair? Then the person gets their "hair that looks like fire" but rules and fluff wise it's simply just cool looking anime hair?

Also I'd have to say that however you fluff it, if that character went into a town where he'd never have been seen before wouldn't the first thing everyone would say to him be. "Uh dude.. you're hair is on fire." Or maybe they dunk a bucket of water on his head trying to save him from burning to death.

I want you to, just for a brief moment, take a look at all the published races for 3.5. Find a list with some pictures or something, no rush - this is the internet, we can wait. Now I want you to realize that almost 90% of these races are assumed to integrate into your average society as long as it's in their native environment.

Trust me, a dude with his head on fire is going to set off zero alarm bells unless he starts lighting things on fire with it or he's screaming in horrible pain.

[Rogue Shadows]

Sorry had to throw that out there. About the fire hair, my simple question is if you were in a dark dungeon and trying to be sneaky, would the fire hair give off light? If not then why not just go the Fire Gensai way and say it looks a lot like fire, but in reality it's just really bright orange and wavy normal hair? Then the person gets their "hair that looks like fire" but rules and fluff wise it's simply just cool looking anime hair?

I'd have no problem with this, but the problem is that certain amongst the posters are insisting that that's not what this is - that is, it's not hair. It's not fire, but it's not hair, either. It's some kind of magical fire that's not actually magical, or fire...or...hair...

Frankly at this point I'm wondering if it's actually best described as a permanent extraordinary silent image.

[mootoall]

Sorry but isn't the real issue with the fire hair is that it is far too anime for D&D? :smalltongue:

No! Stop crossing the streams threads!


I'd have no problem with this, but the problem is that certain amongt the posters are insisting that that's not what this is - that is, it's not hair. It's not fire, but it's not hair, either. It's some kind of magical fire that's not actually magical, or fire...or...hair...

Frankly at this point I'm wondering if it's actually best described as a permanent locked supernatural silent image.

Yes. That is what we're saying. It's a completely fluffy thing that has neither the properties of fire nor hair, and has no mechanical impact on the game world. At all. Ever.

If you want to describe it in a mechanical fashion, I suppose that might be a fine way of doing it.

[Shadowknight12]

I'd have no problem with this, but the problem is that certain amongst the posters are insisting that that's not what this is - that is, it's not hair. It's not fire, but it's not hair, either. It's some kind of magical fire that's not actually magical, or fire...or...hair...

Frankly at this point I'm wondering if it's actually best described as a permanent extraordinary silent image.

Ask the fire elemental. :smalltongue:

Whatever that dude has in his hair, my guy has it too.

[Lord_Gareth]

I'd have no problem with this, but the problem is that certain amongt the posters are insisting that that's not what this is - that is, it's not hair. It's not fire, but it's not hair, either. It's some kind of magical fire that's not actually magical, or fire...or...hair...

Frankly at this point I'm wondering if it's actually best described as a permanent locked supernatural silent image.

Okay, if you really, truly, deeply want to get into this about what was, frankly, a rather silly example, then fine:

Gemma Hearthstone, Apprentice Sorceress
"Heya! Take your boots off, I've got a giant snake roastin'!"

Gemma was always an odd one - seventh daughter of a seventh son, born under a new moon, the works. Even as a child she had little tricks of luck that followed her around everywhere, but no one thought much of it because, frankly, she's adorable - big green eyes, winsome smile, and a smattering of freckles that make her seem like she's always cheerful. Her parents, diligent wizards, weren't too surprised when she manifested sorcery at age twelve, though the sudden (and, as it turns out, irreversible) change of her burnt auburn hair into long braids of shimmering flame did put them off of their tea for a few days. Unprepared to teach a sorceress, they gave Gemma their blessing and sent her off to the city to learn.

These days Gemma considers herself a house-witch, and is employed at a tavern her master owns ("The Fool's Mate") as a pot girl and secret bouncer, using nonlethal fire spells to subdue the rowdier fights and her charms to defuse the other ones. As near as anyone can tell, Gemma's hair, a subject of some small celebrity when she first arrived in the city, is the result of descent from an ancient efreeti prince who was, sadly, not available for comment. Though some talk was had of harvesting the substance for use in various planar spells and rituals, severing it from her head turns it into ordinary hair once more, depriving it of the raw elemental power of her bloodline. Gemma just laughs most of the time and lets folks try in exchange for the free haircut and the chance to flirt.

Gemma is quick to laugh, friendly, and genuinely caring. She wouldn't hesitate to help a stranger in need just for the asking and enjoys the company of others simply for the pleasure of getting to know them. She is neutral good.

There, that a plausible enough example for you?

[Rogue Shadows]

Gemma Hearthstone, Apprentice Sorceress
"Heya! Take your boots off, I've got a giant snake roastin'!"

Gemma was always an odd one - seventh daughter of a seventh son, born under a new moon, the works. Even as a child she had little tricks of luck that followed her around everywhere, but no one thought much of it because, frankly, she's adorable - big green eyes, winsome smile, and a smattering of freckles that make her seem like she's always cheerful. Her parents, diligent wizards, weren't too surprised when she manifested sorcery at age twelve, though the sudden (and, as it turns out, irreversible) change of her burnt auburn hair into long braids of shimmering flame did put them off of their tea for a few days. Unprepared to teach a sorceress, they gave Gemma their blessing and sent her off to the city to learn.

These days Gemma considers herself a house-witch, and is employed at a tavern her master owns ("The Fool's Mate") as a pot girl and secret bouncer, using nonlethal fire spells to subdue the rowdier fights and her charms to defuse the other ones. As near as anyone can tell, Gemma's hair, a subject of some small celebrity when she first arrived in the city, is the result of descent from an ancient efreeti prince who was, sadly, not available for comment. Though some talk was had of harvesting the substance for use in various planar spells and rituals, severing it from her head turns it into ordinary hair once more, depriving it of the raw elemental power of her bloodline. Gemma just laughs most of the time and lets folks try in exchange for the free haircut and the chance to flirt.

Gemma is quick to laugh, friendly, and genuinely caring. She wouldn't hesitate to help a stranger in need just for the asking and enjoys the company of others simply for the pleasure of getting to know them. She is neutral good.

There, that a plausible enough example for you?

Not...really. That just raises more mechanics questions...like why is a blatantly magical effect not quantifiable by the magic rules?

Even under that nice backstory (which I do like) - her hair should turn back to normal hair when in an antimagic field, for example.

If the fluff can be expressed in mechanical terms then it should be.

[Lord_Gareth]

Not...really. That just raises more mechanics questions...like why is a blatantly magical effect not quantifiable by the magic rules?

Because of the same reason the Efreet doesn't lose the [Fire] subtype in an AMF; she's just got a really, really, really small version of the subtype - one so weak, in fact, that it cannot last beyond actual physical connection to her form. That same tenuous connection is the reason she herself can't really be used as a focus for extra-planar rituals or to invoke the Plane of Fire or whatever weird thing you want to do with her, because while she's fiery - her spell selection and general warm personality should be evidence of that - she's not that fiery.

Honestly man, you're building mountains of molehills here. I'm rattling this off with less than a minute's worth of thought and it makes a fair amount of coherent sense. It's "magic" in the sense that it's not biology, but much like the [Fire] subtype itself, it's (Ex). Verisimilitude problems solved.

[Shadowknight12]

Not...really. That just raises more mechanics questions...like why is a blatantly magical effect not quantifiable by the magic rules?

Because rules!magic is different from fluff!magic. See: why heavy creatures fly, why aboleths alter physiology with slime, why incorporeal undead wink out of AMF but not other types of incorporeal creatures, why creatures made of fire don't set things on fire, so on and so forth. Fluff!magic is more inclusive than rules!magic.

From here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities):


Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, though they may break the laws of physics.

If it breaks the laws of physics it is, by definition, magic. The rules don't consider it magic, but it may well be magic in-game. Magic sparks and all.

[Rogue Shadows]

Because of the same reason the Efreet doesn't lose the [Fire] subtype in an AMF; she's just got a really, really, really small version of the subtype

No, she doesn't have the (fire) subtype at all. (Fire) subtype is something that can be expressed mechanically. (Ex) abilities are still mechanically defined, even if they break the laws of Earth physics.

[Divide by Zero]

Can someone explain to me why whether we call it homebrew or not is at all relevant to its use in a game? It seems like this entire thread is about semantics now.

[Rogue Shadows]

Can someone explain to me why whether we call it homebrew or not is at all relevant to its use in a game? It seems like this entire thread is about semantics now.

I'm not even sure what definition of homebrew is being used. I was under the impression that anything not from an officially published source was homebrew and never really thought to define it further than that...

[mootoall]

Can someone explain to me why whether we call it homebrew or not is at all relevant to its use in a game? It seems like this entire thread is about semantics now.

Agreed.

But back to the example of lovely Gemma, it goes back to my previous example: The magic is intrinsically part of her, just like it is to a Construct or Zombie. It's self-sustaining, and thus doesn't wink out in an anti-magic field. There are plenty of exceptions to the anti-magic field rules that make this more than reasonable.

[Lord_Gareth]

No, she doesn't have the (fire) subtype at all. (Fire) subtype is something that can be expressed mechanically. (Ex) abilities are still mechanically defined, even if they break the laws of Earth physics.

*Sigh* Okay, I'm going to run with my Benefit of the Doubt (Ex) class feature and assume that you're genuinely not getting what I'm saying. Allow me to break it down:

- The [Fire] subtype has two parts, the mechanics, and the fluff. That is, beings with the [Fire] subtype are assumed to have some manner of deep, intrinsic connection with fire.

- Gemma's hair (an expression of her connection with fire) has no mechanics; thus, it is only fluff.

- Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume, fluff-wise, that her hair is very similar to having an incredibly diluted [Fire] subtype - after all, that's also where her spells are coming from. As such, the unique effect - her hair being shimmering braids of flame - is an intrinsic part of Gemma that doesn't show up as being magical because, by both mechanical definition (lack of effect) and fluff definition (lack of Vancian connection) it isn't. After all, Detect Magic doesn't pick up on (Su) abilities any more than (Ex) ones.

[Lord_Gareth]

I'm not even sure what definition of homebrew is being used. I was under the impression that anything not from an officially published source was homebrew and never really thought to define it further than that...

Homebrew: Alterations or additions to the mechanical chassis of a game system.

Fluffing/Refluffing/Setting Design: Alterations or additions to the non-mechanical aspects of a game, such as character beliefs, geography, or new organizations.

[Rogue Shadows]

Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume, fluff-wise, that her hair is very similar to having an incredibly diluted [Fire] subtype - after all, that's also where her spells are coming from. As such, the unique effect - her hair being shimmering braids of flame - is an intrinsic part of Gemma that doesn't show up as being magical because, by both mechanical definition (lack of effect) and fluff definition (lack of Vancian connection) it isn't. After all, Detect Magic doesn't pick up on (Su) abilities any more than (Ex) ones.

*throwing up hands* Fine. Whatever. But if Gemma ever wanders into an antimagic field in one of my campaigns, her hair is going out as part of my interpretations of how it should work.

Not that I consider this to be a particularly likely possibility...

All the mechanics of D&D exist to try and express actions, events, and effects in more than just fluff. Like I said, if something can be expressed mechanically, it should be. Not necessary with complete accuracy, but the attempt should still be made.


Fluffing/Refluffing/Setting Design: Alterations or additions to the non-mechanical aspects of a game, such as character beliefs, geography, or new organizations.

See, each of those things can and are expressed mechanically...beliefs with alignment, geography with terrain rules, and oranizations with...well, organizations.

Homebrew was also something I previously thought of as purely mechanical...

[Lord_Gareth]

*throwing up hands* Fine. Whatever. But if Gemma ever wanders into an antimagic field in one of my campaigns, her hair is going out as part of my interpretations of how it should work.

So...efreeti, red dragons, and elementals lose their subtypes in Antimagic field effects in your campaigns?

[mootoall]

I indicated in my post how her hair would interact with an AMF. It wouldn't. Because it is an intrinsic, "Self-sustaining" bit of magic, just like a zombie's or construct's animation is. Hey, how do Warforged interact with AMFs in your setting? Do they stop functioning?

[ImperatorK]

*throwing up hands* Fine. Whatever. But if Gemma ever wanders into an antimagic field in one of my campaigns, her hair is going out as part of my interpretations of how it should work.
You racist. It's because she's human, isn't it? :smalltongue::smalltongue::smalltongue:
Would you make a fire genasis fiery hair fade away in an AMF?

[Thiyr]

I would like to note yet another thing on this whole fire-hair bit.

quote for reference. I'm going to assume you meant meteor swarm, as well, 'cause I'm too lazy to look around and find if there is or is not a spell meteor storm.

Actually there are pretty extensive rules for magical fire too. Again, proof by example: fireball, flame arrow, meteor storm, fire trap...

Those are, actually, not rules for magical fire at all. Those are rules for spells which do fire damage. Big difference there. Looking at just the text of flame arrow and no other text, how much damage does fireball do, is it affected by spell resistance, and can it ignite flammable objects? What about lesser orb of fire? flame sword? continual flame? Produce flame?

The correct answer here is that you can't extrapolate the behavior of one of those spells from the text of another. This means that there is a large, varied amount of rules for magical fire, but there is no consistency between them. Magic is, conveniently, extremely varied and lacking in consistency. Meaning it is quite feasible that having your hair be made of fire, have it produce no heat or no light, and have it explained (why it doesn't leave has been repeated so many times, I'm not gonna bother repeating the whole "look at the golem's fluff" bit. Except that I just did anyway.) Why is it not quantifiable under the magic system? Because it's not a spell, it has no mechanical effects, and it's pretty easy to just say "It does nothing special, it just looks cool and is a distinctive character trait".

edit: alignment plays a role in beliefs, but is descriptive rather than proscriptive. Further, two people with the same beliefs can have different alignments quite easily. Geography here isn't intended as immediate surroundings, but more in the sense of "where is this town located in relation to this forest in relation to...". The difference here is that terrain rules tell you it's hard to move in overgrowth, but geography tells you that there's a river five miles down next to large tracts of farmland. organizations, while some may have mechanical benefits, do not all have this attached to them, and their benefits may not be tied to all the details they have.

These things can have mechanics tied to them, but so can saying that your lucky polished spoon can. It's mechanics that are being added to assist in the representation of fluff/setting/whatever you want to call it, rather than the mechanics being the representation of these things in the first place.

[Rogue Shadows]

So...efreeti, red dragons, and elementals lose their subtypes in Antimagic field effects in your campaigns?

No, because subtypes are (ex) abilities, which are specifically excluded from the effects of antimagic field. But I'd still flavorfully describe the effects of an antimagic field on the more magical aspects on them even if I didn't affect them mechanically: the fire elemental would burn less brightly, the red dragon would grimace noticeably at field's pressure on his very being, and an efreeti with literal fire in the place of hair would have that fire go out.


You racist. It's because she's human, isn't it? :smalltongue::smalltongue::smalltongue:
Would you make a fire genasis fiery hair fade away in an AMF?

The genasi's hair is explicitly described as just being hair, however flame-like and wavey it may be (lots of things are flame-like. Take some red strips of paper and put a fan underneath them. Instant flame-like!).

That's it. There is no hint of it being magical in any way, shape, or form.

[ImperatorK]

No, because subtypes are (ex) abilities, which are specifically excluded from the effects of antimagic field. But I'd still flavorfully describe the effects of an antimagic field on the more magical aspects on them even if I didn't affect them mechanically: the fire elemental would burn less brightly, the red dragon would grimace noticeably at field's pressure on his very being, and an efreeti with literal fire in the place of hair would have that fire go out.
That is houseruling. You're talking about houseruling, right?

[mootoall]

RogueShadow, there is more than one person giving you good points as to why you would be wrong in this case. If you are going to respond to only one, may I ask that m'Lord Gareth please post our arguments as well?

[Rogue Shadows]

RogueShadow, there is more than one person giving you good points as to why you would be wrong in this case. If you are going to respond to only one, may I ask that m'Lord Gareth please post our arguments as well?

There's also more than one person giving me good points and just one of me responding, sir or madame*. I'm going to miss things if for no other reason than I might be posting while you make points. I'm trying to edit in further responces, but in the meantime, I'm going to tell you the same thing that I told the vehement "Wizards failed at making planeswalkers matter" crowd back when Lorwyn came out for M:tG:

Patience.


That is houseruling. You're talking about houseruling, right?

I don't consider it houseruling if it doesn't have an effect that can be expressed in mechanical terms. It's flavor text, nothing more.

----------------------------------------------
*again, gender is not listed so I'm not guessing.

[Rukia]

More fuel for the fire.. er fiery hair. Would it be detected by a detect magic spell? If it is indeed magical and looks like fire, would it not have to actually emit light and give off a glow? For something to actually emulate fire anything remotely close to real fire and make someone say "hey your hair looks like it is on fire!", would it not therefore HAVE to be emitting light? If it did it would therefore show up in darkness and have mechanical ramifications...

Fire at it's core emits energy in the form of heat and light... if it didn't then it would look just like a painted picture of fire and I don't think anyone would look at that and not realize it wasn't real. Hey your hair looks like a crayon drawing of fire!

[Rogue Shadows]

Fire at it's core emits energy in the form of heat and light... if it didn't then it would look just like a painted picture of fire and I don't think anyone would look at that and not realize it wasn't real. Hey your hair looks like a crayon drawing of fire!

To be fair, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they mean the fire still moves. So in that case, it'd be more like a crayon animation of fire.

Otherwise...yeah. Fluff and crunch should intersect at every possible opportunity.

[mootoall]

Correct, but that's what the multi-quote tool is for. You have yet to answer what I see as the most convincing argument for why it wouldn't wink out, which is that it's an (not really) ability that is intrinsic to her being, just as constructs' and zombies' animations are intrinsic to their beings, or Fire Elementals' being made of fire is intrinsic to their being. No matter how magical it is, an AMF doesn't effect it.

[Shadowknight12]

More fuel for the fire.. er fiery hair. Would it be detected by a detect magic spell? If it is indeed magical and looks like fire, would it not have to actually emit light and give off a glow? For something to actually emulate fire anything remotely close to real fire and make someone say "hey your hair looks like it is on fire!", would it not therefore HAVE to be emitting light? If it did it would therefore show up in darkness and have mechanical ramifications...

Fire at it's core emits energy in the form of heat and light... if it didn't then it would look just like a painted picture of fire and I don't think anyone would look at that and not realize it wasn't real. Hey your hair looks like a crayon drawing of fire!

Ask the Fire Elemental (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elemental.htm#fireElemental). :smalltongue:

Seriously, I'm still stunned this debate keeps going even though there's solid evidence of at least one creature being made of fire that doesn't give off light and doesn't actually deal fire damage unless it's attacking or being attacked.

[Thiyr]

More fuel for the fire.. er fiery hair. Would it be detected by a detect magic spell? If it is indeed magical and looks like fire, would it not have to actually emit light and give off a glow? For something to actually emulate fire anything remotely close to real fire and make someone say "hey your hair looks like it is on fire!", would it not therefore HAVE to be emitting light? If it did it would therefore show up in darkness and have mechanical ramifications...

Fire at it's core emits energy in the form of heat and light... if it didn't then it would look just like a painted picture of fire and I don't think anyone would look at that and not realize it wasn't real. Hey your hair looks like a crayon drawing of fire!

detect magic: good question. Also, do golems ping on detect magic? If yes, then yes. If no, then no.

on emitting light: I was gonna avoid this random nitpick, but i'll do it anyway because it actually works: Technically, we're all emitting light right now, it's just not on the visible spectrum. This hair reflects light rather than emitting it, but given normal lighting conditions, it reflects it in such a way that it looks like fire. As for the heat, already covered that one in my last post, as well as giving another decent addition to the "here's why it doesn't change anything" argument.

[Lord_Gareth]

There's also more than one person giving me good points and just one of me responding, sir or madame*. I'm going to miss things if for no other reason than I might be posting while you make points. I'm trying to edit in further responces, but in the meantime, I'm going to tell you the same thing that I told the vehement "Wizards failed at making planeswalkers matter" crowd back when Lorwyn came out for M:tG:

Patience.

----------------------------------------------
*again, gender is not listed so I'm not guessing.

This is a perfectly fair point.

As are these:

- Tieflings have several supernatural-seeming effects, such as glowing red eyes, two (or more!) shadows, a whiff of brimstone about them, a disturbing aura or occasional snatches of fiendish conversation heard just out of sight when you're near one. These are not described as being magical - indeed, the tiefling writeup strongly implies that they're just an expression of the Planetouched's (weak) connection to the planes of evil. They don't turn off in an AMF either.

- Fire Genasi hair might not be made of fire, but I want you to find me one being on Earth that can make their hair wave around like it's fire; does their "magic" hairdo fall flat in an AMF in your world?

[Rogue Shadows]

Correct, but that's what the multi-quote tool is for.

I can't quote something that hasn't been posted by the time I hit the "reply" button, can I? And if several posts have been made in the time it took me to respond to one, and I therefore miss a responce, deal with it.

Like you did here.

Only with somewhat less snark.


You have yet to answer what I see as the most convincing argument for why it wouldn't wink out, which is that it's an (not really) ability that is intrinsic to her being, just as constructs' and zombies' animations are intrinsic to their beings, or Fire Elementals' being made of fire is intrinsic to their being. No matter how magical it is, an AMF doesn't effect it.

Zombies animations are intrinsic to their beings: they're unnaturally animated by negative energy. No, that doesn't wink out in an antimagic field, but it can still be interacted with by the mechanics rules for magic as-written. Turn/rebuke undead, cure spells, and inflict spells are the most prominant examples.

Fire elemental's being made of fire is indeed intrinsic to their beings, but they are still interactable with by the mechanics rules for magic as-written. No, they don't wink out in an antimagic field, but they can be turned/rebuked by clerics with the Fire or Water domain (respectively), are immune to some magics and especially vulnerable to others, and are subject to the spell-that-specifically-interacts-with-all-kinds-of-fire, pyrotechnics

(nota bene that fire genasis are not)

[Ravens_cry]

Homebrew was also something I previously thought of as purely mechanical...

It is making a mechanical skeleton which makes the fluff you want to add to the game work. For example, I home-brewed a new race because my paladin married a harpy, and human fecundity is legendary in these matters. I gave abilities score modifications and racial traits, mechanical things, that I felt reflected both ancestries, the fluff. It was both a pile of statistics and a fluffing, neither of which would have meant much on their own.
In short, no, homebrew is not purely mechanical.

[Kojiro]

Unrelated to the current discussion, I'm just noting that before reading some of the more recent posts in this thread I believed that the anti-magic field simply, well, shut off all magic within; an earlier post of mine in this thread was based upon this. So, at the least, I learned something from this thread. Which has gotten amazingly silly at times.

[ImperatorK]

I can't quote something that hasn't been posted by the time I hit the "reply" button, can I? And if several posts have been made in the time it took me to respond to one, and I therefore miss a responce, deal with it.

Like you did here.

Only with somewhat less snark.



Zombies animations are intrinsic to their beings: they're unnaturally animated by negative energy. No, that doesn't wink out in an antimagic field, but it can still be interacted with by the mechanics rules for magic as-written. Turn/rebuke undead, cure spells, and inflict spells are the most prominant examples.

Fire elemental's being made of fire is indeed intrinsic to their beings, but they are still interactable with by the mechanics rules for magic as-written. No, they don't wink out in an antimagic field, but they can be turned/rebuked by clerics with the Fire or Water domain (respectively), are immune to some magics and especially vulnerable to others, and are subject to the spell-that-specifically-interacts-with-all-kinds-of-fire, pyrotechnics

(nota bene that fire genasis are not)
You're bringing up arguments that have NO correlation to our points. They are irrelevant.

[Rogue Shadows]

detect magic: good question. Also, do golems ping on detect magic? If yes, then yes. If no, then no.

That one's really vague. D&D never really bothered to define what qualifies as a "magic aura."

The spell detect magic does note that outsiders and elementals are not magical in and of themselves, though they register as such if summoned.

It doesn't say with golems.


- Fire Genasi hair might not be made of fire, but I want you to find me one being on Earth that can make their hair wave around like it's fire; does their "magic" hairdo fall flat in an AMF in your world?

Redhead with long hair + fan pointed up. Hey, you didn't say it had to be a non-mechanical example...

Also, yes.


You're bringing up arguments that have NO correlation to our points. They are irrelevant.

I disagree. You're arguing that undead and elementals magical natures are only "fluffy" with no actual interaction with the actual magic rules, when in fact each have definite interactions with normal magic rules.

Also, on a sidenote to whoever said it (can't remember who), "Vancian magic" refers specifically to the setup of spells and levels in D&D, and most especially to the preparation of spells. Spells and spell-like effects are not in and of themselves Vancian, however.

[Lord_Gareth]

Fire elemental's being made of fire is indeed intrinsic to their beings, but they are still interactable with by the mechanics rules for magic as-written. No, they don't wink out in an antimagic field, but they can be turned/rebuked by clerics with the Fire or Water domain (respectively), are immune to some magics and especially vulnerable to others, and are subject to the spell-that-specifically-interacts-with-all-kinds-of-fire, pyrotechnics

(nota bene that fire genasis are not)

This actually has nothing at all to do with magic. Allow me to explain:

Primus - Read the descriptions on planar cosmology and the elemental type. No, go on, I'll be right here waiting. The four elements aren't magical forces in D&D, they're the fundamental building blocks of the cosmos (see also: screw you, atomic theory!). This will be important later in this post.

Secundus - Clerics with those domains are not channeling magic when they turn/rebuke; they are calling upon the direct authority of their deity to either influence an allied sphere (rebuke) or destroy a hated one (turn); in essence, their god has authority and direct power over a fundamental aspect of reality, and has given the cleric leave to affect this aspect in their name.

Tertius - They are not "immune to some magics and especially vulnerable to others". They're immune to some forms of harm and especially vulnerable to others. A torch is just as non-damaging to a fire elemental as a fireball is, just as an arctic gale deals just as much bonus damage by percentage as a cone of cold would.

And, finally, Quartus - Pyrotechics influences all manner of fire, and it does so based on the strength of that fire and, more importantly, how much control something else has over that fire. Fire elementals have lots of control over their fire, so while it does something, it barely does anything in the final equation. If someone casts the spell on, say, Gemma's hair, all the DM has to say is that the fire is so weak that all you can really do is screw with her 'do, and that's if it ever has to come up at all.

Again, mountains of molehills, friend. Mountains of molehills.

[Thiyr]

That one's really vague. D&D never really bothered to define what qualifies as a "magic aura."

The spell detect magic does note that outsiders and elementals are not magical in and of themselves, though they register as such if summoned.

It doesn't say with golems.

That's my point. It doesn't say for golems. If this works the same way it does for a golem, then it doesn't say and you're gonna have to make it up on the spot.



I disagree. You're arguing that undead and elementals magical natures are only "fluffy" with no actual interaction with the actual magic rules, when in fact each have definite interactions with normal magic rules.


That's not what's being argued at all. What's being argued is that these creatures are magical in their nature, are sustained by magic (like this hair example), but aren't affected by an AMF. It's bringing up precedence for the hair not being affected. That's it. We're not saying it doesn't interact with magic, just pointing out a specific precedent for how it explicitly doesn't interact, and just that. If someone cast Animate Hair on her hair, then the fire would be animated, because at its core it is still hair, despite its fiery appearance.

[Shadowknight12]

Again, mountains of molehills, friend. Mountains of molehills.

You heard the man, everyone. Thread's over. The truth quotient in that post has reached critical levels. None of you can possibly hope to out-truth Lord_Gareth right now.

[LaughingRogue]

Camp 1 all the way really --- As for why? I have my reasons but I suppose I am not in the mood today for the tl;dr post that will follow telling me all about why I'm so wrong and a bad player/dm.

[ImperatorK]

Camp 1 all the way really --- As for why? I have my reasons but I suppose I am not in the mood today for the tl;dr post that will follow telling me all about why I'm so wrong and a bad player/dm.
No one will say that you're wrong. don't mistake our debate for bashing camp 1, please.

[Lord_Gareth]

You heard the man, everyone. Thread's over. The truth quotient in that post has reached critical levels. None of you can possibly hope to out-truth Lord_Gareth right now.

Aww, stop, you're making me blush.

[Rogue Shadows]

Primus - Read the descriptions on planar cosmology and the elemental type. No, go on, I'll be right here waiting. The four elements aren't magical forces in D&D, they're the fundamental building blocks of the cosmos (see also: screw you, atomic theory!). This will be important later in this post.

I am familiar.


Secundus - Clerics with those domains are not channeling magic when they turn/rebuke; they are calling upon the direct authority of their deity to either influence an allied sphere (rebuke) or destroy a hated one (turn); in essence, their god has authority and direct power over a fundamental aspect of reality, and has given the cleric leave to affect this aspect in their name.

And yet...these interact with the magical rules normally. For example, turning/rebuking anything, specifically described as a Supernatural ability, doesn't work in an antimagic field.


Tertius - They are not "immune to some magics and especially vulnerable to others". They're immune to some forms of harm and especially vulnerable to others. A torch is just as non-damaging to a fire elemental as a fireball is, just as an arctic gale deals just as much bonus damage by percentage as a cone of cold would.

This is true.


And, finally, Quartus - Pyrotechics influences all manner of fire, and it does so based on the strength of that fire and, more importantly, how much control something else has over that fire. Fire elementals have lots of control over their fire, so while it does something, it barely does anything in the final equation. If someone casts the spell on, say, Gemma's hair, all the DM has to say is that the fire is so weak that all you can really do is screw with her 'do, and that's if it ever has to come up at all.

Actually pyrotechnics doesn't have a minimum. A tiny candle, a raging inferno - both allow the spell to function, as all it requires is "one fire source, which is immediately extinguished." Quod erat demonstrandum, por favor*.

So you could mess with her 'do plus get the normal pyrotechnics effect, whether her hair is mundane or magical fire. Though, without being physically composed of fire overal, I as a DM would rule that she doesn't qualify for the damage-taking part of pyrotechnics. Though she'd now be bald until her "hair" "grew" back.

The problems begin to arise if her hair doesn't work with pyrotechnics at all.


Again, mountains of molehills, friend. Mountains of molehills.

The smallest details are the most important.

---------------------------------
*Now I just have a game going.

[LaughingRogue]

No one will say that you're wrong. don't mistake our debate for bashing camp 1, please.

Fair enough, I'm a bit pessimistic today I think.

[Thiyr]

An easy enough mistake to make, we've been arguing quite fervently. But I'll speak for myself when I say that you've got every right to do that and enjoy it. I honestly don't even know why this argument is going on anymore, I'm just enjoying a good opportunity to find what i perceive to be flaws in arguments and point them out. I enjoy that for some reason. Your request has, in fact, earned you immunity from this hole-poking from me though. I'd be interested to hear why you prefer it that way :P

[Rogue Shadows]

That's my point. It doesn't say for golems. If this works the same way it does for a golem, then it doesn't say and you're gonna have to make it up on the spot.

For golems I choose "yes," for Gemma I choose "no, except with a really high check result."


That's not what's being argued at all. What's being argued is that these creatures are magical in their nature, are sustained by magic (like this hair example), but aren't affected by an AMF. It's bringing up precedence for the hair not being affected. That's it. We're not saying it doesn't interact with magic, just pointing out a specific precedent for how it explicitly doesn't interact, and just that. If someone cast Animate Hair on her hair, then the fire would be animated, because at its core it is still hair, despite its fiery appearance.

Antimagic field was just one example in a larger point, however. Certain amongst the posters don't want Gemma's hair to interact with magic at all, except presumably insofar as normal hair can be affected (disguise self).

I find this...wrong. Just wrong, based on everything I know about humans and fire and magic.

[ImperatorK]

I find this...wrong. Just wrong, based on everything I know about humans and fire and magic.
Well, if you don't like something then you don't like it and no amount of arguments will change your mind.

[Shadowknight12]

Camp 1 all the way really --- As for why? I have my reasons but I suppose I am not in the mood today for the tl;dr post that will follow telling me all about why I'm so wrong and a bad player/dm.

What he said:


No one will say that you're wrong. don't mistake our debate for bashing camp 1, please.

is true.


Aww, stop, you're making me blush.

'Twas but the truth!

A shame it didn't stick...

[LaughingRogue]

An easy enough mistake to make, we've been arguing quite fervently. But I'll speak for myself when I say that you've got every right to do that and enjoy it. I honestly don't even know why this argument is going on anymore, I'm just enjoying a good opportunity to find what i perceive to be flaws in arguments and point them out. I enjoy that for some reason. Your request has, in fact, earned you immunity from this hole-poking from me though. I'd be interested to hear why you prefer it that way :P

For me it comes down to this , Imagine you've been playing baseball or some other sport for a fair amount of time --- for this analogy 6 years would be about correct and then all of a sudden someone said to you "were going to do it some way different". Well I don't want to play baseball a different way, it's my favorite sport i've been playing it this way for a long long time and well as the saying goes "if it's not broke don't fix it" --- I'm not telling group 2 that they are wrong, that is not my intention and if I had been playing the way group 2 had been for 6 years I would feel the same way I do now just in reverse --- I greatly enjoy the game the way me and my group i've been a part of for the last 6 years have played and I don't intend on shaking things up.

[Thiyr]

Antimagic field was just one example in a larger point, however. Certain amongst the posters don't want Gemma's hair to interact with magic at all, except presumably insofar as normal hair can be affected (disguise self).

I find this...wrong. Just wrong, based on everything I know about humans and fire and magic.

If it's still at it's core hair, though (which looks like fire due to an inherent magical quality of the individual which is not unlike that of an elemental, undead, or golem), then it shouldn't be affected by things that affect fire, because it is hair, not fire. It seems (and correct me if i'm wrong) that you're a bit hung up on this. It is not normal fire at all. It doesn't act like mundane fire. It doesn't work like fire as seen in most other spells. It only really acts like itself. In that case, what we know about other kinds of fire doesn't matter (becuase it's different), what we know about humans is as relevant as before (having fire for hair is about as strange as being able to use magic, so it's a stretch from reality, but one plausible given the circumstances), and what we know about magic has no real conflicts given these assumptions (which are, as far as I've seen, what has been posed throughout).

Edit: Yea, I can very much respect that kind of reasoning. To use your analogy, if you see it as changing the game itself, yea, that's a perfectly good reason not to do it. I personally see it more like changing the uniform of the players while leaving the game the same, but that's just me. Thanks for the good analogy though :P

[Rogue Shadows]

Well, if you don't like something then you don't like it and no amount of arguments will change your mind.

Possibly, but I'm not here to change my mind, am I?

Actually in truth soon I won't be here at all, as I am determined to go to sleep before 3:00 AM tonight.

[Lord_Gareth]

I find this...wrong. Just wrong, based on everything I know about humans and fire and magic.

Dude, this is 3.5. Vasharans exist. Illumians exist. Tieflings exist. Genasi exist. Planetouched in general exist. There's so many different kinds of magic (many of which fail to ping on detect magic whatsoever) as to make a player determined to know them all from scratch literally weep with raw terror. Trust me, if you force me, I can make the hair work.

But why go through all the work? Why all the effort and the bending over backwards and opening a half-dozen sourcebooks when you can just go, "Mechanically, it's hair. Fluff-wise, it's hair that looks like it's fire." Simple. Easy. Clean. Effective. There's even ample precedent for all the things you're worried about - which we've been giving you, even! - so there's no real reason to not just wave Gemma's hair on through and get to the important considerations of running the game. You know, like having fun.

[ImperatorK]

For me it comes down to this , Imagine you've been playing baseball or some other sport for a fair amount of time --- for this analogy 6 years would be about correct and then all of a sudden someone said to you "were going to do it some way different". Well I don't want to play baseball a different way, it's my favorite sport i've been playing it this way for a long long time and well as the saying goes "if it's not broke don't fix it" --- I'm not telling group 2 that they are wrong, that is not my intention and if I had been playing the way group 2 had been for 6 years I would feel the same way I do now just in reverse --- I greatly enjoy the game the way me and my group i've been a part of for the last 6 years have played and I don't intend on shaking things up.
When you play basketball you wear a gym suit, or something like that, right? And you throw the ball into a basket. Now imagine that you just change yyour playing suit and the color of the ball. That's refluffing. No rules are changed. It doesn't matter if you play in a shirt and pants or just in your undearwear, it doesn't have any impact on the game.


Possibly, but I'm not here to change my mind, am I?
You're not being rational. You act (and argue) based on your preferences.

[LaughingRogue]

When you play basketball you wear a gym suit, or something like that, right? And you throw the ball into a basket. Now imagine that you just change yyour playing suit and the color of the ball. That's refluffing. No rules are changed. It doesn't matter if you play in a shirt and pants or just in your undearwear, it doesn't have any impact on the game.

Sure and that is how it seems to you, but how it seems to me would be like playing a different game all together --- Because for me the fluff is as important as the mechanics and changing the way we use fluff would be on par with changing the mechanics of the game all together. Not saying you're wrong, this is just how I see it.


Lolz -- did you just accuse someone of being irrational because he acts and argues based on how he likes to play the game :D

[ImperatorK]

Sure and that is how it seems to you, but how it seems to me would be like playing a different game all together --- Because for me the fluff is as important as the mechanics and changing the way we use fluff would be on par with changing the mechanics of the game all together. Not saying you're wrong, this is just how I see it.
So if you would have to throw a white ball, instead of an orange one (or whatever color it is) it would just feel too weird to you. That's acceptable. Everyone has his comfort zone. I personally wouldn't be bothered by a different color of the ball.
But what Rogue_Shadows is saying, and what we're not agreeing with, is that if you change the color of the ball, it means that you change the rules. With is absurd. The color of the ball has zero effect on the rules, don't you agree?

[Lord_Gareth]

Lolz -- did you just accuse someone of being irrational because he acts and argues based on how he likes to play the game :D

He's using the term 'rational' utterly correctly in this context.

[LaughingRogue]

So if you would have to throw a white ball, instead of an orange one (or whatever color it is) it would just feel too weird to you. That's acceptable. Everyone has his comfort zone. I personally wouldn't be bothered by a different color of the ball.
But what Rogue_Shadows is saying, and what we're not agreeing with, is that if you change the color of the ball, it means that you change the rules. With is absurd. The color of the ball has zero effect on the rules, don't you agree?

Yeah I agree, unless the rules are based on fluff (alignments and stuff to that nature) --- I won't agree that a Paladin can be without his code but in any case yeah for the most part I agree with you there.

For me it would be like "You chance the fluff and It has a direct result on how I perceive the d&d "world"" , if you can understand what I mean by that

[ImperatorK]

Lolz -- did you just accuse someone of being irrational because he acts and argues based on how he likes to play the game :D
Indeed, I did. If I say that a human can fly and he says that he can't and shows me the rules, then his argument is rational. If he says "No because I don't like it", then his being irrational. Simple.


Yeah I agree, unless the rules are based on fluff (alignments and stuff to that nature) --- I won't agree that a Paladin can be without his code but in any case yeah for the most part I agree with you there.
Paladins code is part of the rules. Changing it would be changing the rules, homebrewing.

[LaughingRogue]

Indeed, I did.


Paladins code is part of the rules. Changing it would be changing the rules, homebrewing.

Right but it's also a part of the fluff of what a paladin is --- these two things appear to be intertwined and that's what i'm getting at --- unless that's not the case and then i disagree with myself :smallsigh: ( I think i've covered all the bases here)

[ImperatorK]

Right but it's also a part of the fluff of what a paladin is --- these two things appear to be intertwined and that's what i'm getting at --- unless that's not the case and then i disagree with myself :smallsigh: ( I think i've covered all the bases here)
Yes. That's an example of fluff that is strongly tied to crunch (or the other way around, whatever, you get the picture).

[LaughingRogue]

Yes. That's an example of fluff that is strongly tied to crunch (or the other way around, whatever, you get the picture).

perhaps i'm more towards the middle of this than I originally perceived, I think i'm too tired to think more about this at the moment (3:07 am).

[Rogue Shadows]

So if you would have to throw a white ball, instead of an orange one (or whatever color it is) it would just feel too weird to you. That's acceptable. Everyone has his comfort zone. I personally wouldn't be bothered by a different color of the ball.

Mmn...basketball (in fact any sport) is a bad example because it's not really as modular as D&D. No matter what you've got one goal - beat the other team - and one way of doing it - scoring more points by getting the ball through the hoop.

Refluffing a setting, though, can change the entire style of play in D&D. Dark Sun, Spelljammer, and Forgotten Realms can all be played with nothing more than the Core rulebooks, but each have a very different feel that leads to very different game.

Or for a more extreme example, Harry Potter is Star Wars (http://images.teamsugar.com/files/users/1/13254/19_2007/61074_harrypotterstarwars.jpg).


Lolz -- did you just accuse someone of being irrational because he acts and argues based on how he likes to play the game :D

Actually he accused me of being irrational because he doesn't think I'm interested in ever changing my view on how the game should be played based on his Infallible Arguments, while handily ignoring the fact that he's arguing in exactly the same way and just has more people on his side. But an irrational argument is an irrational argument regardless.

At least that's how I saw the remark.

This marks the second time someone has said that I espouse some kind of One True Way of D&D when in fact I'm perfectly cognizent of the fact that D&D can be palyed a billion and twelve ways.


You know, like having fun.

I would personally find it immensely fun if Gemma went bald after being subject to a pyrotechnics spell.

Conversely I'm also thinking of in-universe issues here. A pyromancer is fighting Gemma, and so tries to use her hair for pyrotechnics because, hell - looks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck.

Then he finds out it's not a duck. Pyrotechnics fails, and the pyromancer has wasted a turn. So now a purely fluff effect has had an actual in-game effect.

Yeah...see what I mean when I harp on about how fluff and crunch are intrinsically connected?

[Shadowknight12]

For me it comes down to this , Imagine you've been playing baseball or some other sport for a fair amount of time --- for this analogy 6 years would be about correct and then all of a sudden someone said to you "were going to do it some way different". Well I don't want to play baseball a different way, it's my favorite sport i've been playing it this way for a long long time and well as the saying goes "if it's not broke don't fix it" --- I'm not telling group 2 that they are wrong, that is not my intention and if I had been playing the way group 2 had been for 6 years I would feel the same way I do now just in reverse --- I greatly enjoy the game the way me and my group i've been a part of for the last 6 years have played and I don't intend on shaking things up.

That is actually the most convincing explanation for supporting group 1 I've ever read. Seriously, I mean it. This, to me, makes perfect sense and I can't find a single debatable fact. I completely sympathise with the sentiment.

[ImperatorK]

Mmn...basketball (in fact any sport) is a bad example because it's not really as modular as D&D. No matter what you've got one goal - beat the other team - and one way of doing it - scoring more points by getting the ball through the hoop.
It's as good as an analogy as any other thing.


Actually he accused me of being irrational because he doesn't think I'm interested in ever changing my view on how the game should be played based on his Infallible Arguments, while handily ignoring the fact that he's arguing in exactly the same way and just has more people on his side. But an irrational argument is an irrational argument regardless.

At least that's how I saw the remark.
Sure I am, good sir, sure I am. :smallsigh:


Conversely I'm also thinking of in-universe issues here. A pyromancer is fighting Gemma, and so tries to use her hair for pyrotechnics because, hell - looks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck.
What kind of pyromancer is that if he's mistaking fake fire hair for actual fire? :smallconfused:

[Lord_Gareth]

Or the pyromancer could have rolled a Knowledge (the Planes) or even (Arcana) check as a free part of his turn. Or he had his detect magic up and realized the hair (that looks magical) isn't coming up as magical, or he realized he was also fighting a pyromancer and swapped to another tactic. Or, frankly, done any number of things aside from waste a spell casting pyrotechics, which isn't all that impressive to begin with.

See what I mean when I harp on about how this is much, much less relevant than you think it is?

[LaughingRogue]

And I will be here all night folks, your bookie in the main event fight ImperatorK vs. Rogue Shadows. PM me and i'll send you my PayPal details.

[Rogue Shadows]

It's as good as an analogy as any other thing.

Not really...a sport has a "win" condition, D&D usually doesn't. A sport is usually competative, D&D is usually cooperative. Sports have neutral referees, D&D usually has a DM who is on your side.

And the fact that I had to appent "usually" to each of those and that "usually" might not even be entirely accurate, should demonstrate how different a sport is from D&D. About the only real similarity is that they're both games...

Better example:

Take The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Lock the main character's name in as "Guy." Change him from a green-clad long-eared elfin being to a short, stout dwarfish creature. Change the sword he swings into a club. Chance the shield from wood or metal into hide.

Take Ganondorf and do a skin swap on him so that instead of being a tall, green-skinned, red-haired guy, he's a female planetar (classic D&D apperance).

Take Zelda and change her into a, I dunno, lich. Change sheik into "Reckless" Rick, the host of The Crystal Maze.

Do a complete re-texturing of the entire game. Change the text of all dialogue to imply that Link is evil and Ganondorf is good.

But keep all the mechanics the same - club swings the same way and does as much damage as the sword. It looks different, but the Forest Temple is still there and all the puzzles are still in the same place and solved in the same way.

That's closer to what happens whenever you change the fluff in D&D.

[LaughingRogue]

Not really...a sport has a "win" condition, D&D usually doesn't. A sport is usually competative, D&D is usually cooperative. Sports have neutral referees, D&D usually has a DM who is on your side.

And the fact that I had to appent "usually" to each of those and that "usually" might not even be entirely accurate, should demonstrate how different a sport is from D&D. About the only real similarity is that they're both games...

Better example:

Take The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Lock the main character's name in as "Guy." Change him from a green-clad long-eared elfin being to a short, stout dwarfish creature. Change the sword he swings into a club. Chance the shield from wood or metal into hide.

Take Ganondorf and do a skin swap on him so that instead of being a tall, green-skinned, red-haired guy, he's a female planetar (classic D&D apperance).

Take Zelda and change her into a, I dunno, lich. Change sheik into "Reckless" Rick, the host of The Crystal Maze.

Do a complete re-texturing of the entire game. Change the text of all dialogue to imply that Link is evil and Ganondorf is good.

But keep all the mechanics the same - club swings the same way and does as much damage as the sword. It looks different, but the Forest Temple is still there and all the puzzles are still in the same place and solved in the same way.

That's closer to what happens whenever you change the fluff in D&D.

I stopped reading once you said d&d isn't cooperative --- we do play the same game right, DAMN YOU PLAYGROUND...this is why we can't have nice things

[Lord_Gareth]

I stopped reading once you said d&d isn't cooperative --- we do play the same game right, DAMN YOU PLAYGROUND...this is why we can't have nice things

There are many definitions of "cooperative", though. Players can all "cooperate" to make a shared story even if their characters spend the whole time trying to murder each other, for example.

[MeeposFire]

This is a 4e story but the situation would work regardless. So I decided to play a lazy warlord and I was trying to find a race. I decided to play a shardmind, a psionic crystaline construct, except I think they look dumb. Then I saw the plungent crystal and since I was playing in LFR it worked as fluff. So I played a character from the nation that uses that crystal and instead of just a limb it covered most of his body. I used the stats of the shardmind (and in all ways mechanically was a shardmind) but in game people treated him as a human covered in crystal. It was a perfect marriage of fluff and flavor.

[LaughingRogue]

There are many definitions of "cooperative", though. Players can all "cooperate" to make a shared story even if their characters spend the whole time trying to murder each other, for example.


Sure but we do all need to show up to the table right? --- I personally have only phoned my part in once

[ImperatorK]

When I played basketball (or any other sport game) I wasn't doing it to "win". It was a good thing if I did, but I was doing it primarily to hang out with friends and, you know, have fun.

[Rogue Shadows]

Or the pyromancer could have rolled a Knowledge (the Planes) or even (Arcana) check as a free part of his turn. Or he had his detect magic up and realized the hair (that looks magical) isn't coming up as magical, or he realized he was also fighting a pyromancer and swapped to another tactic. Or, frankly, done any number of things aside from waste a spell casting pyrotechics, which isn't all that impressive to begin with.

See what I mean when I harp on about how this is much, much less relevant than you think it is?

Perhaps he's a Sorcerer with a low Wisdom and so didn't think to check. Regardless, the fact that he has to use actual in-game, mechanical effects to detect something that's "pure" fluff argues strongly that it is not "pure" fluff. Indeed its lack of game effects has just translated into an actual game effect.

[Lord_Gareth]

This is a 4e story but the situation would work regardless. So I decided to play a lazy warlord and I was trying to find a race. I decided to play a shardmind, a psionic crystaline construct, except I think they look dumb. Then I saw the plungent crystal and since I was playing in LFR it worked as fluff. So I played a character from the nation that uses that crystal and instead of just a limb it covered most of his body. I used the stats of the shardmind (and in all ways mechanically was a shardmind) but in game people treated him as a human covered in crystal. It was a perfect marriage of fluff and flavor.

This right here is the beautiful thing that fire-hair should be. You don't have to worry about what the crystal actually DOES, you don't have to worry about sunder checks or whatever else - you just go for the clean, elegant solution that fits your concept. Perfect.

[ImperatorK]

Perhaps he's a Sorcerer with a low Wisdom and so didn't think to check. Regardless, the fact that he has to use actual in-game, mechanical effects to detect something that's "pure" fluff argues strongly that it is not "pure" fluff. Indeed its lack of game effects has just translated into an actual game effect.
An aasimar can be almost indistinguishable from a human. When you cast a Charm Person spell on him, it won't work. Should it work, because he looks like a human and some caster was deceived?

[Rogue Shadows]

I stopped reading once you said d&d isn't cooperative --- we do play the same game right, DAMN YOU PLAYGROUND...this is why we can't have nice things

Every game of D&D I have ever played has been cooperative. But I can easily imagine that a DM faced with a large group might split the group in two and make it competative by having the actions of the two groups work against each other.

The easiest thing to imagine here is one group gets to be Good and one Evil, but there are numerous other options.

So it's "cooperative" only insofar as there are two groups at the same table, but in that case you might as well call chess a "cooperative" game.


When I played basketball (or any other sport game) I wasn't doing it to "win". It was a good thing if I did, but I was doing it primarily to hang out with friends and, you know, have fun.

That's nice. I was thinking specifically of the NBA when I made my example.

But, sure, okay, let me qualify that "a" goal in a game of basketball is "usually" for one team to beat the other. Certainly it is much less cooperative than D&D usually is.


An aasimar can be almost indistinguishable from a human. When you cast a Charm Person spell on him, it won't work. Should it work, because he looks like a human and some caster was deceived?

Ah, but the aasimar is mechanically defined as being not human. It's an expressed trait right in their statblock.

[Lord_Gareth]

Ah, but the aasimar is mechanically defined as being not human. It's an expressed trait right in their statblock.

And the hair is mechanically defined as being just hair. This is not an altered part of its stat block. The pyromancer can make the exact same knowledge checks that he makes on the aasimar to figure out that this upstart little mageling in front of him is a bog-standard human - that hasn't changed whatsoever.

Honest advice man, from our end of things it's starting to look like you're parroting the same argument over and over again - your posts are beginning to look increasingly like denial rather than debate. Snag a good night's sleep, like I'm about to, and we can keep clawing at each other's throats in the morning.

[ImperatorK]

Ah, but the aasimar is mechanically defined as being not human. It's an expressed trait right in their statblock.
But he looks as a human, yet he doesn't have any bonuses on disguising himself as one.



Honestly, I don't even know where I was going with this argument. :smallredface: Lack of sleep probably. You can disregard it.


That's nice. I was thinking specifically of the NBA when I made my example.
Sorry, but I can't read minds.

[MeeposFire]

This right here is the beautiful thing that fire-hair should be. You don't have to worry about what the crystal actually DOES, you don't have to worry about sunder checks or whatever else - you just go for the clean, elegant solution that fits your concept. Perfect.

Thanks he is still my favorite 4e character both for his fluff and that a 4e warlord is so much fun to play.

[Rogue Shadows]

And the hair is mechanically defined as being just hair.

If it was just hair, then it wouldn't look like fire.

At no point in a fire genasi's description is its hair described as being capable of being confused with fire (it is "flame-like." That is very different from "looks like fire"), but Gemma's desciption all but specifically stats that it is indestinguishable from fire. More to the point it's described as being magical fire that's...not magical. Or fire. Or hair.

So the aasimar subject to charm person at least has a valid go-to on his racial description as to why the charm didnt work. Gemma has no such excuse for why nothing affects her hair.

So Gemma has magic (that doesn't work like magic) fire (that isn't fire but is indestinguishable) instead of hair (and is not burned) while still remaining a mechanical human (which she clearly isn't).

...

...see, once (actually, often - Iliira is my "default character"), I decided I wanted to run a drow, Iliira, that was born on the surface of the world and raised by a human inkeeper. Do you know what I did? I changed the racial stats of the drow so that she could mechanically match her fluff. Because I didn't want a situation to come up where poorly defining some salient feature of Iliira made things difficult for either me or the GM, as Gemma's hair might.

And now because I'm bored.

HUMAN-RAISED DROW.
- +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution, +2 Charisma. Iliira was as agile, and as frail, as other drow, and retained their strong force of personality. However, she would be considered intellectually stunted by their standards.
- Medium-sized. Iliira was 5' 5'', slightly taller than a drow is capable of reaching, due to having a different, more hearty diet while growing up.
- Base speed 30 feet.
- Darkvision 60 feet. Iliira grew up in the sunlight, which damaged her ability to see in the dark. Unlike normal drow, however, she does not suffer any penalties due to operating in bright light.
- +2 racial bonus on Will saves against spells: Iliira's spell resistance has atrophied down to essentially nothing, leaving her only slightly more resistant to magical effects than a normal human or elf.
- 1 extra skill point at each level (x4 at 1st level): Iliira's only remaining vestige of her inborn keen drow intellect, helped along by the fact that humans value a variety of talents.
- Automatic Languages: Common, home region. Bonus Languages: Any. Raised amongst humans, Iliira had ample opportunity to learn a variety of languages.
- Favored Class: Any. Raised by humans, Iliira grew up knowing that she could become whatever she wanted to, provided she tried.
- Level Adjusmtnet: +0.

Iliira lost her spell-like abilities because several books with drow in them show drow children having to practice to pick up their spell-likes. She might have some inborn potential to regain them over time, per GM discretion

[Zaq]

So the aasimar subject to charm person at least has a valid go-to on his racial description as to why the charm didnt work. Gemma has no such excuse for why nothing affects her hair.

Taken out of context, this is hilarious.

[Rogue Shadows]

Taken out of context, this is hilarious.

Taken out of context, most of what we've been saying here is hilarious.

[ImperatorK]

If it was just hair, then it wouldn't look like fire.
A toupee. It looks like hair, it feels like hair, it substitutes hair for many people, but it isn't hair.
A fire-y hair. It looks like fire, it can (slightly) feel like fire, but it isn't fire.

The toupee again. It can't grow like hair. But it looks like hair.
The fire-y hair again. It can't burn like fire. But it looks like fire.

[Shadowknight12]

Because I didn't want a situation to come up where poorly defining some salient feature of Iliira made things difficult for either me or the GM, as Gemma's hair might.

I just want to point out that this is a completely invalid reason for what you're arguing for, since anything that comes up in a game does so because those at the table want it to come up. If the fact that Gemma's hair is made of fire is ignored by those at the table (along with "how can skeletons see with no eyes" or "why is an air elemental solid"), it doesn't actually make things difficult at all. That's the definition of a cosmetic change, the fact that it doesn't actually bring up new situations to the table.

If you insist on Gemma's hair being relevant, you as a DM are turning a cosmetic change into a mechanical change. That's your decision and definitely not what is being proposed here.

[Rogue Shadows]

A toupee. It looks like hair, it feels like hair, it substitutes hair for many people, but it isn't hair.

A toupee also isn't typically described as being magical, but not magical.


A fire-y hair. It looks like fire, it can (slightly) feel like fire, but it isn't fire.

SEE toupees.

[ImperatorK]

A toupee also isn't typically described as being magical, but not magical.
Well, duh. There is no magic in real world.
Also, doesn't matter. There is nonmagical "magic" in D&D. That's a fact.

[Rogue Shadows]

A toupee. It looks like hair, it feels like hair, it substitutes hair for many people, but it isn't hair.

A toupee also isn't typically described as being magical, but not magical.


A fire-y hair. It looks like fire, it can (slightly) feel like fire, but it isn't fire.

SEE toupees.


"how can skeletons see with no eyes"

Magic. Magic that be be turned off with the right counter, for that matter. Skeletons might not have eyes but they're still subject to blindness effects and can be hidden from. A character who doesn't think to hide ("has no eyes! Surely it can't see me!") suffers the consequences, but at least once you understand how it can see with no eyes (magic), it works normally.


or "why is an air elemental solid"),

To be completely honest this bothers me. I'd of incorporated a miss chance into them at least.

Even still - even if you don't realize it at first, once you do realize it, it behaves normally within the rules as presented. It is solid, ergo it can be hit.

Gemma's hair?

It's magic, but it can't be affected by any kind of magic. Gemma's magic hair is literally the most powerful force in Creation by some definitions of the term.

It's fire, but it doesn't work at all like fire despite being visually indestinguishable from it.

What?


If you insist on Gemma's hair being relevant, you as a DM are turning a cosmetic change into a mechanical change. That's your decision and definitely not what is being proposed here.

To be completely honest I actually was ready to back out several pages ago based on this (the post that began with me *throwing up my hands*). Other people continued talking to me, though, so I kept talking to them.

Still...Gemma's hair is one of those little things that would bother me immensely.

[ImperatorK]

Still...Gemma's hair is one of those little things that would bother me immensely.
You ever considered that maybe we're right and it's you who has a problem with accepting/realizing it? Just saying.


Magic. Magic that be be turned off with the right counter, for that matter. Skeletons might not have eyes but they're still subject to blindness effects and can be hidden from. A character who doesn't think to hide ("has no eyes! Surely it can't see me!") suffers the consequences, but at least once you understand how it can see with no eyes (magic), it works normally.
Nah, it doesn't vanish in an AMF. Now you're contradicting yourself.

[Rogue Shadows]

You ever considered that maybe we're right and it's you who has a problem with accepting/realizing it? Just saying.

I buy heavily into the idea that an individual can be right and a society can be wrong, as I've mentioned before.

I am I, Don Quixote, the Lord of La Mancha!
My destiny calls and I go!
And the wild winds of fortune shall carry me onwards
Oh withersoever they blow...
Withersoever they blow...
Onwards to glory I go!


Nah, it doesn't vanish in an AMF. Now you're contradicting yourself.

Not really...I don't think I ever stated that all magic should wink out in an antimagic field, just that Gemma's hair should.

Whatever - I retract that statement. It should still be interactable with magic, however, in a way that normal hair is not.

EDIT:
And I mean, interactable with magic in a way that goes beyond its own self-containedness.

[ImperatorK]

I buy heavily into the idea that an individual can be right and a society can be wrong, as I've mentioned before.

I am I, Don Quixote, the Lord of La Mancha!
My destiny calls and I go!
And the wild winds of fortune shall carry me onwards
Oh withersoever they blow...
Withersoever they blow...
Onwards to glory I go!



Not really...I don't think I ever stated that all magic should wink out in an antimagic field, just that Gemma's hair should.

Whatever - I retract that statement. It should still be interactable with magic, however, in a way that normal hair is not.
That's the second time it happens. Maybe you just don't get the hint.

[Rogue Shadows]

That's the second time it happens. Maybe you just don't get the hint.

I have: I'm right a lot.

:smalltongue:

EDIT
Because I imagine that not a lot of people can pick up on lighthearted sarcasm at this hour (damnit, I thought my laptop would have run out of battery power by now - whatever, I don't work today), that was lighthearted sarcasm there.

Let me make clear that everyone here is perfectly allowed to have Gemma's hair make no God-damned sense in their own campaigns as much as they like.

But as long as this is a public forum I am going to voice my many and varied opinions on why her hair makes no God-damned sense.

[ImperatorK]

I have: I'm right a lot.

:smalltongue:

EDIT
Because I imagine that not a lot of people can pick up on lighthearted sarcasm at this hour (damnit, I thought my laptop would have run out of battery power by now - whatever, I don't work today), that was lighthearted sarcasm there.

Let me make clear that everyone here is perfectly allowed to have Gemma's hair make no God-damned sense in their own campaigns as much as they like.

But as long as this is a public forum I am going to voice my many and varied opinions on why her hair makes no God-damned sense.
It doesn't make sense, to YOU.

(sarcasm or not, I reported you, because your posts give of that particular vibe)

[Rogue Shadows]

It doesn't make sense, to YOU.

I'd like to repeat that I am immensely surprised that a bunny is so vehemently opposed to a minority opinion.

...wait, reported me for what? Having a minority opinion and defending it?

[Shadowknight12]

Magic. Magic that be be turned off with the right counter, for that matter. Skeletons might not have eyes but they're still subject to blindness effects and can be hidden from. A character who doesn't think to hide ("has no eyes! Surely it can't see me!") suffers the consequences, but at least once you understand how it can see with no eyes (magic), it works normally.

If you mean "fluff!magic" then you're right. If you mean "rules!magic" then you're actually wrong, since a skeleton doesn't ping as magical under Detect Magic and doesn't go blind on an AMF (or fall into a pile of bones, for that matter). If you mean that some things can be magical in the realm of fluff without being magical in the realm of rules, then welcome to what we've been saying all along. Now apply that reasoning to Gemma's hair and see how it's perfectly fine for it not to be affected by Pyrotechnics, shed light, burn or deal damage.


To be completely honest this bothers me. I'd of incorporated a miss chance into them at least.

Even still - even if you don't realize it at first, once you do realize it, it behaves normally within the rules as presented. It is solid, ergo it can be hit.

And Gemma's hair is also solid. It's also hair. It's also fire. It just doesn't act like fire. Or it's a different kind of fire than the one the rules talk about. Take your pick, the result is the same.


Gemma's hair?

It's magic, but it can't be affected by any kind of magic. Gemma's magic hair is literally the most powerful force in Creation by some definitions of the term.

It's fire, but it doesn't work at all like fire despite being visually indestinguishable from it.

What?

Yes, so? You do realise that Gemma's hair is no different than things like the fire elemental and so on, right? That this is a perfectly normal part of the rules and therefore fire that doesn't work like fire is a normal part of D&D, right?


To be completely honest I actually was ready to back out several pages ago based on this (the post that began with me *throwing up my hands*). Other people continued talking to me, though, so I kept talking to them.

Still...Gemma's hair is one of those little things that would bother me immensely.

And that, I understand. It's what I was telling Typewriter earlier. You have a very strict view of how things should be and we don't share that. To you, if it looks like fire, it must behave according to the rules that you know for fire. It's important to you that this works like that, and I respect that. I just want you to understand that the rules do not support this, and that to get what you want, you'll have to come up with houserules (such as what you're suggesting for the air and fire elementals).

To us, cosmetic things can remain being cosmetic. They will not be problems at our table because we won't bring them up. Pyromancers won't try to cast Pyrotechnics at Gemma's hair or any of the sort.

[MeeposFire]

Bunny? I was thinking duck with horns.

[Rogue Shadows]

Bunny? I was thinking duck with horns.

The duck with horns is a character from a webcomic called El Goonish Shive. Fans of the comics are called bunnies by the comic's creator for...reasons that I can't recall.

===============

Incidentally if I was specifically reported for having a minority opinion and defending it with sarcasm, I'd like to point out that sarcasm and snarkiness are in no short supply on any thread on this board.

[MeeposFire]

The duck with horns is a character from a webcomic called El Goonish Shive. Fans of the comics are called bunnies by the comic's creator for...reasons that I can't recall.

Ah learn something new everyday.

[ImperatorK]

Bunny? I was thinking duck with horns.
I'm not surprised. He sees only what he wants to see.

[Rogue Shadows]

I'm not surprised. He sees only what he wants to see.

Yes, and I saw a character from El Goonish Shive, and so thought, "bunny," because that's what fans of the comic are called.

It's not even an insulting term. I'm a bunny. EGS is my favorite webcomic.

There was a logical, completely reasonable train of thought there.

Hey, if I can be reported for being sarcastic, can I report you, Imperator, for having a +20 to Jump checks when jumping to conclusions?

Probably not. I won't, in any event. After hanging out on 4Chan for a day, I have a whole new perspective on what should be report-able on forums.

[Laniius]

I fall smack dab in the middle of the 2nd camp, but the majority of my group falls in the 1st *sigh.*

[ImperatorK]

Yes, and I saw a character from El Goonish Shive, and so thought, "bunny," because that's what fans of the comic are called.

It's not even an insulting term. I'm a bunny. EGS is my favorite webcomic.

There was a logical, completely reasonable train of thought there.
I wonder what "bunnies" and EGS has to do with the discussion at hand or D&D in general... :smallsigh:


Hey, if I can be reported for being sarcastic, can I report you, Imperator, for having a +20 to Jump checks when jumping to conclusions?
Be my guest. But note that being sarcastic isn't why I reported you.

[Rogue Shadows]

I fall smack dab in the middle of the 2nd camp, but the majority of my group falls in the 1st *sigh.*

These things happen. This is one of those situations wherein if you asked two people one question you'd get two wildly different answers.


I wonder what "bunnies" and EGS has to do with the discussion at hand or D&D in general... :smallsigh:

Well, I made a TF-Gun for D&D before.

But specifically I was saying I was surprised that a fan of EGS could harp so hard against someone in the minority and individualism. It's kind of a major feature of the comic.


Be my guest. But note that being sarcastic isn't why I reported you.

Well now I'm just confused.

[mootoall]

Oye. I take one night to fall asleep before 2:00 AM and now I have three pages to read. At any rate, let's compare Gemma's hair to, say, a Mineral Warrior. Remember kids, real, existing situation here. If someone were to cast Stone Shape on the Mineral Warrior, what would happen? The answer? By RAW, nothing. Just like Pyrotechnics would do nothing to Gemma's hair. You're making rules quandries where they DON'T EXIST. And D&D *already* has enough rules quandries as it is ...

[Rogue Shadows]

Oye. I take one night to fall asleep before 2:00 AM and now I have three pages to read. At any rate, let's compare Gemma's hair to, say, a Mineral Warrior. Remember kids, real, existing situation here. If someone were to cast Stone Shape on the Mineral Warrior, what would happen? The answer? By RAW, nothing. Just like Pyrotechnics would do nothing to Gemma's hair. You're making rules quandries where they DON'T EXIST. And D&D *already* has enough rules quandries as it is ...

I don't know what a mineral warrior is.

Please, stick to Core, if for no other reason than it's easier than having to dig through a thousand and one splatbooks. Not everyone has acces to Races of the Obscure Third Party Race That Three People Play, and of those that do not all of them have that book memorized.

[mootoall]

I don't know what a mineral warrior is.

Please, stick to Core, if for no other reason than it's easier than having to dig through a thousand and one splatbooks. Not everyone has acces to Races of the Obscure Third Party Race That Three People Play, and of those that do not all of them have that book memorized.

It's online, if you want to use Google to find it. Here's a link, scroll down. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031003e

Incidentally, it's one of the most-used templates, next to Feral, because of its low LA and good bonuses.

[Rogue Shadows]

It's online, if you want to use Google to find it. Here's a link, scroll down. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20031003e

Incidentally, it's one of the most-used templates, next to Feral, because of its low LA and good bonuses.

And I've never even heard of it before. So...yeah. Assumptions, etc.

EDIT
Okay, looking over the mineral warrior...

Why is it immune to stone shape?

"A mineral warrior is a creature that has undergone a transformation into a creature of living stone."

"You can form an existing piece of stone into any shape that suits your purpose."

Emphasis mine.

Looks pretty straightforward to me.

[mootoall]

Meh. Not my fault. Before now you've never heard of flaming haired PCs either. Doesn't change the fact that the question still stands.

[Rogue Shadows]

Meh. Not my fault. Before now you've never heard of flaming haired PCs either.

No, I have. They're called "azers." Or "humans with magical fire in the place of hair." Both of these are cool.

What's not cool?

Magic (that's not magic) fire (that's not fire) hair (that's not hair).

What is cool?

Stone shape on a mineral warrior. It's like Vicissitude, only with stone instead of flesh, and in d20 rather than Vampire: the Masquerade.

Vicissitude was cool. Tzimisce was essentially the final boss of Gehenna.

[mootoall]

Or, alternatively, since there are no rules for Stone Shape on a Mineral Warrior, there is no effect, because they are not a valid target. Just like "A person's hair" is not a valid target for Pyrotechnics.

[Rogue Shadows]

Or, alternatively, since there are no rules for Stone Shape on a Mineral Warrior, there is no effect, because they are not a valid target. Just like "A person's hair" is not a valid target for Pyrotechnics.

A person's hair is not typically made of fire.

And there are rules for stone shape on a mineral warrior. They're right there: you can shape any stone you want to shape; a mineral warrior is made of stone, ergo you can shape the stone.

What happens when you do? Eh, GM fiat, and player choice. But you explicitly can stone shape a mineral warrior, and it does have an effect, as defined by the limits of the stone shape spell.

So this statement:

"If someone were to cast Stone Shape on the Mineral Warrior, what would happen? The answer? By RAW, nothing."

Is quantifiably false.

[mootoall]

Sorry, you're wrong. Please read the target for Stone Shape. It is stone or stone object. A Mineral Warrior is made of stone, yes, but they are still a creature, and thus not a valid target. Just like hair isn't a valid target for Pyrotechnics, even though it looks like fire.

Edit: noticed a mistake, fixed it.

[Rogue Shadows]

Sorry, you're wrong. Please read the target for Stone Shape. It is stone or stone object. A Mineral Warrior is not made of stone,

...no, no...that's not what the template says:

"A mineral warrior is a creature that has undergone a transformation into a creature of living stone."

So if you can shape stone or stone objects...and a mineral warrior is made of living stone...then you can stone shape a mineral warrior.

Stone shape does not at any point exclude creatures in its descriptive text.

Seriously, right now I'm saying 8 + 8 = 16 in base 10 and you're trying to argue that point using...pie.

Not Pi...pie.

[mootoall]

Yes, I made a mistake and fixed it. But Stone Shape still cannot target a creature, because spells that target creatures specifically say "Creature touched."

[Lord_Gareth]

The spell's target listing explicitly calls for an object; the Mineral Warrior is still rather explicitly a creature.

[Rogue Shadows]

Yes, I made a mistake and fixed it. But Stone Shape still cannot target a creature, because spells that target creatures specifically say "Creature touched."

"Stone or stone object touched"

A mineral warrior is made of stone.

This doesn't seem hard...


The spell's target listing explicitly calls for an object; the Mineral Warrior is still rather explicitly a creature.

Actually the spell says "stone or stone object touched."

It does not explicitly call for an object, and actually the wording allows for significant leeway.

[mootoall]

But it doesn't say it can target a creature. Spells that can target creatures specifically say they can.

[Reverent-One]

But it doesn't say it can target a creature. Spells that can target creatures specifically say they can.

Where are you getting that from? Pyrotechnics, for example, doesn't say it targets a creature, merely a fire source, yet it goes on to talk about it being used on fire based creatures.

[Rogue Shadows]

But it doesn't say it can target a creature. Spells that can target creatures specifically say they can.

The spell doesn't say you can't, and the wording allows for significant leeway on the subject.


Where are you getting that from? Pyrotechnics, for example, doesn't say it targets a creature, merely a fire source, yet it goes on to talk about it being used on fire based creatures.

Also, this.

Reverent, you get cookies.

http://delicious-cook.com/wp-images/posts_images/cookie-cake-recipe.jpg

[mootoall]

And because it gives rules for it, there are rules for it. Since there are no rules for how Stone Shape interacts with Earth elementals, per se, it simply does not interact.

[Lord_Gareth]

But it doesn't say it can target a creature. Spells that can target creatures specifically say they can.

This is also deep metaphysical truth. The reason it says "Stone" is because the stone floor of, say, a dungeon or a cliffside isn't actually an object; thus the spell needed special text to describe it. Additionally, if you read the spell itself:



Stone Shape

Transmutation [Earth]
Level: Clr 3, Drd 3, Earth 3, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Stone or stone object touched, up to 10 cu. ft. + 1 cu. ft./level Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

You can form an existing piece of stone into any shape that suits your purpose. While it’s possible to make crude coffers, doors, and so forth with stone shape, fine detail isn’t possible. There is a 30% chance that any shape including moving parts simply doesn’t work.

Arcane Material Component: Soft clay, which must be worked into roughly the desired shape of the stone object and then touched to the stone while the verbal component is uttered.

You will note that it is, in no way, designed to interact with creatures whatsoever. There's no text involving the many and varied things you might do to stone or earth creatures with it - indeed, imagine what you could do to an Earth Elemental or a Genius Loci! With the clause on Pyrotechnics existing, it's hardly reasonable to assume WotC missed out on this particular spell. Your position is indefensible, sir.

[Rogue Shadows]

And because it gives rules for it, there are rules for it. Since there are no rules for how Stone Shape interacts with Earth elementals, per se, it simply does not interact.

Your...racial? Class? Whatever...bonus to Jump checks is impressive.

...

...Damnit. I could have sword there used to be an "ask Wizards" advice column that once specifically dealt with this...


You will note that it is, in no way, designed to interact with creatures whatsoever. There's no text involving the many and varied things you might do to stone or earth creatures with it - indeed, imagine what you could do to an Earth Elemental or a Genius Loci! With the clause on Pyrotechnics existing, it's hardly reasonable to assume WotC missed out on this particular spell. Your position is indefensible, sir.

SEE Pyrotechnics. It's target is "one fire source." It does not specify creature, but it indeed works on creatures.

Also even if that were true it wouldn't be metaphysical.

So, nyah.

[mootoall]

Ooh, another fun idiosyncrocy with your argument: Pyrotechnics actually targets a fire source, not the flame itself. Making your argument ... even more invalid, as not only is she not a fire based creature, making the clause about it effecting them ineffective, but the spell would not put out the magical hair, nor would it target the hair, as it would target her!

[Rogue Shadows]

Ooh, another fun idiosyncrocy with your argument: Pyrotechnics actually targets a fire source, not the flame itself. Making your argument ... even more invalid, as not only is she not a fire based creature, making the clause about it effecting them ineffective, but the spell would not put out the magical hair, nor would it target the hair, as it would target her!

Except you can't "extinguish" a fire source, whereas the spell says that the fire source is explicity extinguished.

I.e., if wood is burning you don't extinguish the wood...you extinguish the fire.

So I'm reasonably certain that the "source" the spell is talking about is the fire itself, as in, you need fire as the source of the spell's effects.

Although I'm beginning to suspect -

- actually I knew this from the beginning but whatever -

- I'm beginning to suspect that 3.5 simply cannot handle this amount of scrutiny. It's like trying to find what causes gravity at this point.

[mootoall]

Doesn't extinguish magical fires, woudln't extinguish her hair, even if it were a valid target. Which it isn't, because it's hair.

[Reverent-One]

The reason it says "Stone" is because the stone floor of, say, a dungeon or a cliffside isn't actually an object; thus the spell needed special text to describe it.

Hmm, I don't see that anywhere in the RAW. It's likely what was intended, but intentions don't mean much in a RAW discussion.


You will note that it is, in no way, designed to interact with creatures whatsoever.

I note nothing of the sort. There's nothing that precludes it being used on a creature made of stone.


There's no text involving the many and varied things you might do to stone or earth creatures with it - indeed, imagine what you could do to an Earth Elemental or a Genius Loci!

Sure there is, you form it into whatever crude shape suits your purpose.


With the clause on Pyrotechnics existing, it's hardly reasonable to assume WotC missed out on this particular spell. Your position is indefensible, sir.

The clause on Pyrotechnics creates an exception, without it the spell would simply kill fire creatures.


Doesn't extinguish magical fires, woudln't extinguish her hair, even if it were a valid target. Which it isn't, because it's hair.

So it's not fire then.

[Rogue Shadows]

Doesn't extinguish magical fires, woudln't extinguish her hair, even if it were a valid target. Which it isn't, because it's hair.

Actually it does work on fire-hair. "Fire source"

It'd work on an azer's "hair," since that is explicitly called fire. I don't know if it would extinguish it since the azer presumably has a magical way of keeping it going; however, it easily meets the spell's prerequisites.

It wouldn't work on, say, a fire gian't hair, because that's just hair, not fire. Same with a fire genasi.

But it does explicitly work on a fire elemental, even though a fire elemental can be "cuddly," to go with what ShadowKnight said.

[MeeposFire]

If having hair made of "fire" causes a mechanical problem you need to go one more step. Simply put the hair looks like fire. Everybody looking at it thinks it is fire (it is very convincing). It does not create heat, will not light things on fire, etc. Mechanically it is not fire but to everybody in game looking at it calls it "fire hair" for lack of a better term (unless you can come up with a cool name for the condition). People simplify things all the time. Just because people call it "fire hair" does not mean it is made with what is mechanically known as fire.

[Frozen_Feet]

*groan*

This circular discussion has really become self-demonstrating of what I said here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11406916&postcount=207)

There's no deep truth about nature of fluff and crunch to be found here. The only thing that's happening is that an added element has broken the suspension of belief of a player, and now he won't shut up about it.

Imagine if this argument would've taken place in a game table. All the other players would be rolling their eyes as the GM and one player argue whether pyrotechnics should work on his hair. (etc.)

This is why I prefer to spend a moment thinking of how any added element works in a game, even if it's supposed to be just cosmetic. A magical mane of fire would work like it'd be logical for it to work (set things in fire, wink out in antimagic field etc.) The opposite choice, handwaving any issue by stating it "runs on nonsensoleum" or "rule of the cool" isn't half bad either, but it doesn't really work for serious games.

[Rogue Shadows]

If having hair made of "fire" causes a mechanical problem you need to go one more step. Simply put the hair looks like fire. Everybody looking at it thinks it is fire (it is very convincing). It does not create heat, will not light things on fire, etc. Mechanically it is not fire but to everybody in game looking at it calls it "fire hair" for lack of a better term (unless you can come up with a cool name for the condition). People simplify things all the time. Just because people call it "fire hair" does not mean it is made with what is mechanically known as fire.

I really don't care what it's made out of. What bothers me is the fact that it lies completely outside any method of quantifying it in the d20 system for, as near as I can tell, stuffs n' giggles.

Very, very few things work like that, and most of those seem more like oversights than anything else. This kind of thing should be avoided, not encouraged.

[Lord_Gareth]

This is why I prefer to spend a moment thinking of how any added element works in a game, even if it's supposed to be just cosmetic. A magical mane of fire would work like it'd be logical for it to work (set things in fire, wink out in antimagic field etc.) The opposite choice, handwaving any issue by stating it "runs on nonsensoleum" or "rule of the cool" isn't half bad either, but it doesn't really work for serious games.

This is not, however, the only option; I've said earlier (repeatedly) that the hair might be similar, metaphysically, to having the [Fire] subtype. On a chat where I was discussing this very subject I also brought up the idea of the hair being symbolic of Gemma's connection to fire, Thiyr's idea about it just being reflective in a highly specific fashion, and finally it working kinda like a golem or a skeleton might. There's perfectly valid in-setting reasonings for fire-hair, but the other side of this argument wants to add rules in and vastly complicate a matter that does not need complication.

Incidentally, if I were the GM for an argument like this, it wouldn't take all that long: I'd make a ruling, stick to it, and talk to the player about it after the game to keep things moving. This is where GM competency comes into play, which has nothing to do with gaming style whatsoever.

[Thiyr]

I really don't care what it's made out of. What bothers me is the fact that it lies completely outside any method of quantifying it in the d20 system for, as near as I can tell, stuffs n' giggles.

Very, very few things work like that, and most of those seem more like oversights than anything else. This kind of thing should be avoided, not encouraged.

It's quantified just as well as any other kind of hair is quantified, and I think that's been the general point that's being attempted to be made. Like if we had hair that just always came to a nice sharp point straight up without the use of magic or gel. Why? 'cause that's how we describe the character. It's intended not to be quantified, because it's intended to not -need- that quantification, as it is intended to be purely descriptive, rather than something which affects the world directly (it still may interact indirectly, though influencing people's reactions for instance, but that's not what i'm talking about).

[mootoall]

It's quantified just as well as any other kind of hair is quantified, and I think that's been the general point that's being attempted to be made. Like if we had hair that just always came to a nice sharp point straight up without the use of magic or gel. Why? 'cause that's how we describe the character. It's intended not to be quantified, because it's intended to not -need- that quantification, as it is intended to be purely descriptive, rather than something which affects the world directly (it still may interact indirectly, though influencing people's reactions for instance, but that's not what i'm talking about).

This. So much this. It's hair, just like regular hair. Except it looks different.

[MeeposFire]

I really don't care what it's made out of. What bothers me is the fact that it lies completely outside any method of quantifying it in the d20 system for, as near as I can tell, stuffs n' giggles.

Very, very few things work like that, and most of those seem more like oversights than anything else. This kind of thing should be avoided, not encouraged.

I am finding it hard to believe that a player wanting to have flame like hair is such a problem in a game designed for player fun. If it really is such a problem then I feel a little sorry for you as a lot of things must be bothering you in this game. For me a game of fantasy is already ridiculous enough that something simple like flame hair is not going to bother me especially if it enhances that players fun. Getting upset about it is just not worth it to me.

[Rogue Shadows]

I am finding it hard to believe that a player wanting to have flame like hair is such a problem in a game designed for player fun.

It's not a problem. I just want to make it make sense in the rules.

It's fire that doesn't behave like fire? Then it's a permanent faerie fire supernatural effect. I can easily accept this.


If it really is such a problem then I feel a little sorry for you as a lot of things must be bothering you in this game. For me a game of fantasy is already ridiculous enough that something simple like flame hair is not going to bother me especially if it enhances that players fun. Getting upset about it is just not worth it to me.

Again, flaming hair doesn't bother me. Unquantifiable flaming hair does.

[Mystic Muse]

I thought the discussion was about hair that looked like flames as opposed to actually being made of flames?

[Frozen_Feet]

This is where GM competency comes into play, which has nothing to do with gaming style whatsoever.

GM and player competency. You need two people for it to be an issue to begin with. It has things to do with gaming style insofar as the conflict is caused by difference in gaming preferences.

In this particular case, the argument has been prolonged beyond all reason simply because the player wants the added phenomenom to interact and make sense within the game mechanics.

[mootoall]

Right. Whereas we're saying that if it *did* interact with the world, you'd be departing from a fluff change to a crunch change. Refluffing =/= Mechanical changes, which is what we're saying.

[Frozen_Feet]

The division is largely semantic and arbitrary. I'm not convinced it even matters.

In the end, it boils down to what you consider to be meaningful. Rogue Shadows wants crunch to mirror the fluff element, for sake of consistency. You want to avoid making it so, for sake of convenience. Both are valid viewpoints, but which one is more so depends on invidual priorities.

[Shadowknight12]

I am finding it hard to believe that a player wanting to have flame like hair is such a problem in a game designed for player fun. If it really is such a problem then I feel a little sorry for you as a lot of things must be bothering you in this game. For me a game of fantasy is already ridiculous enough that something simple like flame hair is not going to bother me especially if it enhances that players fun. Getting upset about it is just not worth it to me.

This is pretty much my opinion in a nutshell. Or two.

[Lord_Gareth]

The division is largely semantic and arbitrary. I'm not convinced it even matters.

In the end, it boils down to what you consider to be meaningful. Rogue Shadows wants crunch to mirror the fluff element, for sake of consistency. You want to avoid making it so, for sake of convenience. Both are valid viewpoints, but which one is more so depends on invidual priorities.

On our (my?) end of things, this is mostly because mechanics are, again, a metagame construct. When a barbarian rages, people don't know he's getting a bonus to this and a penalty to that - they know he's not focusing on self-defense, but ye gods is he hitting hard. In a similar vein, the hair doesn't need a mechanical effect, as it's just a novelty, a curiosity - whether or not it has actual mechanics doesn't mean anything to the verisimilitude because no one actually knows the mechanics in-character.

[Rogue Shadows]

On our (my?) end of things, this is mostly because mechanics are, again, a metagame construct. When a barbarian rages, people don't know he's getting a bonus to this and a penalty to that - they know he's not focusing on self-defense, but ye gods is he hitting hard. In a similar vein, the hair doesn't need a mechanical effect, as it's just a novelty, a curiosity - whether or not it has actual mechanics doesn't mean anything to the verisimilitude because no one actually knows the mechanics in-character.

Even if they don't know the mechanics, they can still see an effect that makes no sense by every in-universe rule they know about.

Again, this (not) magical (not) fire (not) hair is completely immune to forces that by all rights should affect it. By some people's definitions that would make her hair the most powerful force in Creation.

Not to mention - Gemma supposedly has a trait that even fire genasi, who have a much more explicit and direct connection to elemental fire, don't display.

So in-universe it doesn't make any sense either...

[The Glyphstone]

Personally, I'd find it funny if someone went bald in an AMF because it shut off their flaming hair.

[mootoall]

Firstly it is hair. If there were a Detect Hair spell, it would ping as hair.

And I fail to see how something that doesn't interact with the world in any way except as hair is the most powerful force in the universe whatsoever.

[MeeposFire]

Personally, I'd find it funny if someone went bald in an AMF because it shut off their flaming hair.

You mean like this

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l22easKGXc1qao53oo1_500.jpg

[The Glyphstone]

You mean like this

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l22easKGXc1qao53oo1_500.jpg

Sure, why not?

[MeeposFire]

Sure, why not?

Pegasus and his anitmagic breath.

[Hecuba]

whether or not it has actual mechanics doesn't mean anything to the verisimilitude because no one actually knows the mechanics in-character.

They don't need to know the mechanics in character. For me at least, such things can break verisimilitude on two important grounds:

1) Freedom of interaction: if you simply insist that it has no discernible interaction with the rest of the world, they you're essentially insisting that there's a part of the world that cannot be interacted with.

I generally prefer role-playing as cooperative improv: there may be quasi-plot setting consequences for character actions, but in general characters should be free to interact with any element of the world they want. It highlights the fiction for me, thus breaking immersion.

2) Fantasy A should equal Fantasy A. If the hair is rooted in an inborn connection to elemental fire, it should to some extent behave in a manner thematically consistent with our nebulously defined information on elemental fire.
If it is rooted in an inborn connection to elemental fire but behaves like New Shimmer (It's a desert topping you cow!), that's a problem for me.

[Rogue Shadows]

Firstly it is hair. If there were a Detect Hair spell, it would ping as hair.

But it is not normal hair: it is behaving in all ways like fire, except for the fact that it is not behaving at all like fire, magical or otherwise. It is behaving in all ways like an illusory effect, except that you insist that it's not an illusory effect. It is most certainly not behaving like normal human hair; we know this because we know many normal humans. And it's not even behaving like fire genasi hair, despite us having an existing example of what hair influenced by a firey outsider such as an efreeti would act like.

Magic A should be Magic A.

[sonofzeal]

But it is not normal hair: it is behaving in all ways like fire, except for the fact that it is not behaving at all like fire, magical or otherwise. It is behaving in all ways like an illusory effect, except that you insist that it's not an illusory effect. It is most certainly not behaving like normal human hair; we know this because we know many normal humans. And it's not even behaving like fire genasi hair, despite us having an existing example of what hair influenced by a firey outsider such as an efreeti would act like.

Magic A should be Magic A.
Magic A should be Magic A, yes. This happens to be Magic QF17alpha. Your point?

[Shadowknight12]

Again, this (not) magical (not) fire (not) hair is completely immune to forces that by all rights should affect it.

Why? Because you say so? The rules of magic are not consistent or even all that logical. This "should" you're insisting on is purely your personal desire, because the rules do not work like that and never claimed to do so in the first place.


They don't need to know the mechanics in character. For me at least, such things can break verisimilitude on two important grounds:

1) Freedom of interaction: if you simply insist that it has no discernible interaction with the rest of the world, they you're essentially insisting that there's a part of the world that cannot be interacted with.

I generally prefer role-playing as cooperative improv: there may be quasi-plot setting consequences for character actions, but in general characters should be free to interact with any element of the world they want. It highlights the fiction for me, thus breaking immersion.

It's odd how I share the exact same preferences you do, yet I believe the exact opposite. If you insist that ALL parts of the world must be interacted with, you are curtailing the player (and the DM's) freedom to have cosmetic changes or additions. You are essentially saying that ALL things must have a mechanic behind it and restricting options and choices.

Nobody says you can't interact with flaming hair, what we're saying is that it will have no mechanical effect because it is an aspect of reality that is not affected by mechanics. There are many aspects of reality in the game that are not affected by mechanics and you tolerate them just fine every single game you play. You're just noticing this one because it's magic fire hair.


2) Fantasy A should equal Fantasy A. If the hair is rooted in an inborn connection to elemental fire, it should to some extent behave in a manner thematically consistent with our nebulously defined information on elemental fire.
If it is rooted in an inborn connection to elemental fire but behaves like New Shimmer (It's a desert topping you cow!), that's a problem for me.

All well and good, but D&D never claimed to function under the "Fantasy A equals Fantasy A" rules. It works under its own set of rules and has never claimed to be coherent, consistent or cohesive.

See, that's something I don't understand about your side of the debate. Where are you all getting the information that ALL things must ascribe to known rules? Is it actually written somewhere and I've been missing it for years? Is it actually impossible for me to one day introduce blue fire in my campaign, a type of fire that does not follow any of the established rules for either natural or magical fire?

Because I was under the impression that mechanics were supposed to aid and enhance the game, not shackle everyone down and curtail freedom.


Magic A should be Magic A.

Magic A is not Magic A in D&D. It never was and odds are it never will be. You are asking something that the system has never claimed to offer, and insisting that this MUST be the case. You are, in essence, discontent with reality and trying to force it to conform to your wants. This does not make you right nor it makes you look reasonable.

Evidence has been provided to you on how such a cosmetic change works. You dislike it, that's fine. That's a problem between you and the rules.

[Lord_Gareth]

2) Fantasy A should equal Fantasy A. If the hair is rooted in an inborn connection to elemental fire, it should to some extent behave in a manner thematically consistent with our nebulously defined information on elemental fire.
If it is rooted in an inborn connection to elemental fire but behaves like New Shimmer (It's a desert topping you cow!), that's a problem for me.

There isn't any consistent information on how elemental fire behaves, though! Fire elementals burn things selectively, but magma guards do so indiscriminately; lava spiders can shoot webs of magma that are called forth from elemental fire, but efreeti, who are on fire (and not a little on fire, a lot on fire) don't actually DO anything with said fire - it's just a cool cosmetic effect. Azer shed light, but magma golems don't, and neither do half-fire elementals.

Do you see where I'm going? Weird stuff crops up in 3.5 all the time and your average citizen, at best, bats a single eyelash before going on with their day. The world isn't going to end because someone has flaming hair. It probably won't even notice.

[Rogue Shadows]

There isn't any consistent information on how elemental fire behaves, though! Fire elementals burn things selectively, but magma guards do so indiscriminately; lava spiders can shoot webs of magma that are called forth from elemental fire, but efreeti, who are on fire (and not a little on fire, a lot on fire) don't actually DO anything with said fire - it's just a cool cosmetic effect. Azer shed light, but magma golems don't, and neither do half-fire elementals.

And yet, all are subject to turn/rebuke (fire) effects.

Except maybe magma golems, I don't know if those have the (fire) subtype or not.

But otherwise...there's internal consistancy between all of them. Also all of them that are described as actually being on fire (azer, etc) can be used as the source of pyrotechnics by all indications of the spell.

So...Magic A is Magic A.

[Lord_Gareth]

As far as I'm aware, Efreeti, while on fire, are not actually subject to Pyrotechnics as their fire does not actually do anything.

But are you really, truly getting hung up on the bit where those beings possess the complete [Fire] subtype when we're talking about a character that has maybe a sliver of relationship to one of these beings? I mean, what, would you be satisfied if Turn/Rebuke Fire blew her 'do out into normal hair until the turning effect ceased? I'm having increasing difficulty seeing what, exactly, your problem is with this conceit.

[Rogue Shadows]

As far as I'm aware, Efreeti, while on fire, are not actually subject to Pyrotechnics as their fire does not actually do anything.

Neither does a fire elemental's fire unless it's attacking, but pyrotechnics is actually explicitly said to work on it in the spell's description


But are you really, truly getting hung up on the bit where those beings possess the complete [Fire] subtype when we're talking about a character that has maybe a sliver of relationship to one of these beings? I mean, what, would you be satisfied if Turn/Rebuke Fire blew her 'do out into normal hair until the turning effect ceased? I'm having increasing difficulty seeing what, exactly, your problem is with this conceit.

It'd be a start. I actually suggested something like this earlier back with the antimagic field debacle.

Again, I think fluff and crunch should intersect as often as possible. They're not independent of each other.

And in a world populated with all manner of creatures who have fire instead of hair...then her "fire hair," if magical, should behave like theirs.

And in a world populated with all manner of creatures (fire genasi) who have efreeti ancestry...then her hair, if it is indeed just normal hair, should behave like theirs.

[olentu]

As far as I'm aware, Efreeti, while on fire, are not actually subject to Pyrotechnics as their fire does not actually do anything.

But are you really, truly getting hung up on the bit where those beings possess the complete [Fire] subtype when we're talking about a character that has maybe a sliver of relationship to one of these beings? I mean, what, would you be satisfied if Turn/Rebuke Fire blew her 'do out into normal hair until the turning effect ceased? I'm having increasing difficulty seeing what, exactly, your problem is with this conceit.

Oh I would assume that he is just of the opinion that all fluff should have mechanical consequences.

[Shadowknight12]

Again, I think fluff and crunch should intersect as often as possible. They're not independent of each other.

Prove it? Because all of this hinges on that specific assertion, and it's founded nowhere in the books.

[Rogue Shadows]

Oh I would assume that he is just of the opinion that all fluff should have mechanical consequences.

It should when there are examples of it having mechanical consequences already.

There is no shown mechanical consequence for having brunette, curly hair - and there is no shown mechanical effect that would give you brunette, curly hair - so I don't want to go all FATAL on that.

But there's presedence of (1) having fire instead of hair, there's presedence for (2) having hair that appears to be fire, and there is presedence for (3) having hair that is flame-like.

In cases (1) and (2) (azer and illusion, respectively), there are actual mechanical ways they interact with the game universe. In case (3), there's none, but that is also vehemently what Gemma doesn't have.


Prove it? Because all of this hinges on that specific assertion, and it's founded nowhere in the books.

Paladin Code of Conduct. Fluff rules with crunch effects.

[Lord_Gareth]

And in a world populated with all manner of creatures who have fire instead of hair...then her "fire hair," if magical, should behave like theirs.

Amusingly enough, none of these beings lose their hair in an antimagic field either. Their hair doesn't go out when you turn them, and you cannot exert god-like power over their 'do if you rebuke them - and these are just the beings that have the full, complete, legitimate [Fire] subtype. Poor, maligned Gemma here has enough fire to make her cast spells and give her cool hair; why does this need any mechanical definition beyond her Sorcerer levels?

[Shadowknight12]

Paladin Code of Conduct. Fluff rules with crunch effects.

Those rules are not fluff at all. They are a series of conditions that delineate which actions cause the paladin to lose his mechanical abilities. The actual fluff is another layer on top of it, just like fluff is a layer on top of everything else.

[Rogue Shadows]

Those rules are not fluff at all. They are a series of conditions that delineate which actions cause the paladin to lose his mechanical abilities. The actual fluff is another layer on top of it, just like fluff is a layer on top of everything else.

Really? Where's the Legitimate Authority class feature? The table in the DMG that outlines the bonuses for cheating at something? Does helping those in need provide a morale bonus to skill checks? What page of what book describes the template added to someone so that a paladin knows if that person has hurt or threatened innocents?

Actually that last sounds like an Intimidate check more than anything, so you get a pass on that one. And I deliberately skipped the requirement that a paladin be Lawful Good because, yes, that's actual mechanics.

But the rest?

[Lord_Gareth]

Amusingly enough, none of these beings lose their hair in an antimagic field either. Their hair doesn't go out when you turn them, and you cannot exert god-like power over their 'do if you rebuke them - and these are just the beings that have the full, complete, legitimate [Fire] subtype. Poor, maligned Gemma here has enough fire to make her cast spells and give her cool hair; why does this need any mechanical definition beyond her Sorcerer levels?

Reposting for relevance; you have yet to demonstrate why you NEED to establish a mechanical effect or correlation for this or any other cosmetic change (like sparkling power attacks or zen-like Rage or whatever).

[olentu]

Reposting for relevance; you have yet to demonstrate why you NEED to establish a mechanical effect or correlation for this or any other cosmetic change (like sparkling power attacks or zen-like Rage or whatever).

I still assume that it is just a preference and well preferences are a matter of taste.

[Lord_Gareth]

I still assume that it is just a preference and well preferences are a matter of taste.

I'm fairly certain it's a preference as well, but Mr. Shadow has been preaching it as gospel (including his previous "If other people want her hair to make no sense." post), which implies at some level that he thinks we're Doing It Wrong (patent pending). This irks me, so I'm trying to flay through the argument to find the reasoning underneath, as my end of things has not only been nothing but reasonable, but rather copious with our gifts of published examples, plausible scenarios and metaphysical explanations (though why I had to even use those second two escapes me).

[olentu]

I'm fairly certain it's a preference as well, but Mr. Shadow has been preaching it as gospel (including his previous "If other people want her hair to make no sense." post), which implies at some level that he thinks we're Doing It Wrong (patent pending). This irks me, so I'm trying to flay through the argument to find the reasoning underneath, as my end of things has not only been nothing but reasonable, but rather copious with our gifts of published examples, plausible scenarios and metaphysical explanations (though why I had to even use those second two escapes me).

Ah well then I shall leave the attempt to dig out what led to the personal preference to you.

[Rogue Shadows]

Reposting for relevance; you have yet to demonstrate why you NEED to establish a mechanical effect or correlation for this or any other cosmetic change (like sparkling power attacks or zen-like Rage or whatever).

That's funny, I could have sworn I did respond to this...meh, I think I know what happened.

On a related note, does anyone else here notice that the server seems to be...

...iffy?

Ugh, I hate reposting something I've already written...anyway:


Amusingly enough, none of these beings lose their hair in an antimagic field either. Their hair doesn't go out when you turn them, and you cannot exert god-like power over their 'do if you rebuke them - and these are just the beings that have the full, complete, legitimate [Fire] subtype.

Meh. It's late, I'm tired, and I just listened to nyan cat for 2.5 hours or so because I hate myself, apparently. So I'm just going to point out that they might not lose their hair based on GM fiat, but if their hair is in fact fire and not hair, than it makes for a valid target of pyrotechnics using the spell-as-written as well as given any reasonable interpretation of it.

If Gemma's "hair" is not in fact fire, and thus some other kind of affect, then it's not really a manifestation of her fiery heritage, now is it?

As I stated, there's already prescedence for having fire instead of hair, and that interacts with pyrotechnics. There's already presedence for having hair that appears to be fire but is not actually fire; we call those illusions, usually faerie fire. And there is presedence for hair that is wavey and flame-like but is still fundamentally hair, as per the fire genasi.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110613162325/coa/images/1/1c/78831.jpg
http://images.wikia.com/nwn2/images/0/00/Fire_genasi.jpg
http://images.wikia.com/nwn2/images/6/64/Allgenasi.jpg

But, none of these are what is being described with Gemma. Her hair is visually indestinguishable from fire, but it can't be the target of pyrotechnics. Her hair turns back into normal hair if cut, but the "fire" isn't illusory because it's not behaving like an illusion. And, her hair is visually indestinguishable from fire, meaning that she's somehow manifesting more of her efreeti heritage than beings who are significantly closer to that heritage.

That makes no God-damned sense in or out of universe.

[Shadowknight12]

Really? Where's the Legitimate Authority class feature? The table in the DMG that outlines the bonuses for cheating at something? Does helping those in need provide a morale bonus to skill checks? What page of what book describes the template added to someone so that a paladin knows if that person has hurt or threatened innocents?

Actually that last sounds like an Intimidate check more than anything, so you get a pass on that one. And I deliberately skipped the requirement that a paladin be Lawful Good because, yes, that's actual mechanics.

But the rest?

There is no Legitimate Authority class feature, just as there isn't a class feature that specifies that a creature is alive, yet many spells and effects only affect living creatures, or affect living creatures differently. There is no table for cheating, just like there is no table for breathing. Yet there are rules that specify what happens when you stop breathing. Here it tells you what happens if you cheat.

There are no rules for what happens when you help those in need, yet there are effect that target actions, such as Alarm ("a creature that speaks the password") even though those actions have no innate benefits of themselves. Just like an Alarm spell doesn't trigger when a specific action is performed ("speak the password correctly"), a paladin suffers a mechanical penalty for performing an action.

No template whatsoever, but BoVD has rituals that discriminate between "pure" and "virginal" people and those who aren't. That has a mechanical effect. It happens somehow. There is a quality in reality that the rules check before applying an effect. This is an ordinary part of D&D that doesn't make sense and never intended to.

These sort of thing are exactly what I'm talking about when I tell you that D&D does not function under "Magic A is Magic A." It does not have a coherent, reliable and commonsensical collection of rules. Embrace the Dark Chaos.

[Rogue Shadows]

snip

So we're arguing by implication now? Funny, you hate it when other people do that...

...anyway, how are you not supporting "fluff and crunch are interconnected" by everything you typed there? Because I'm not seeing it.

Let's take this another way. Book of Vile Darkness has a race...I think they were the Vashar?...that has the exact same stats as a human, but they have a narrower feat selection, limited to vile feats or profane feats or whatever the nasty feats from the Book were called. The only other difference is "fluff" - the vile race wants to kill the gods.

Since the only actual change is nothing but a limiter on humans, why would Wizards create this race, and not to make a distinction between them based solely off of fluff?

To me this suggests that since the fluff changed, the mechanics had to change. Because fluff and mechanics are connected.

Either that or Wizards does not put even half as much thought into these situations as we all do, and everyone involved in circular discussions such as these are the butt of many a joke in Washington state.

I think Wizards is based out of Washington.

Can't remember.

Whatever.

EDIT
Right, I have actual things that need doing tomorrow. Later today. Whatever. I am going to sleep. I am not staying up 'till 6 AM tonight...

[sonofzeal]

Meh. It's late, I'm tired, and I just listened to nyan cat for 2.5 hours or so because I hate myself, apparently. So I'm just going to point out that they might not lose their hair based on GM fiat, but if their hair is in fact fire and not hair, than it makes for a valid target of pyrotechnics using the spell-as-written as well as given any reasonable interpretation of it.

If Gemma's "hair" is not in fact fire, and thus some other kind of affect, then it's not really a manifestation of her fiery heritage, now is it?

As I stated, there's already prescedence for having fire instead of hair, and that interacts with pyrotechnics. There's already presedence for having hair that appears to be fire but is not actually fire; we call those illusions, usually faerie fire. And there is presedence for hair that is wavey and flame-like but is still fundamentally hair, as per the fire genasi.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110613162325/coa/images/1/1c/78831.jpg
http://images.wikia.com/nwn2/images/0/00/Fire_genasi.jpg
http://images.wikia.com/nwn2/images/6/64/Allgenasi.jpg

But, none of these are what is being described with Gemma. Her hair is visually indestinguishable from fire, but it can't be the target of pyrotechnics. Her hair turns back into normal hair if cut, but the "fire" isn't illusory because it's not behaving like an illusion. And, her hair is visually indestinguishable from fire, meaning that she's somehow manifesting more of her efreeti heritage than beings who are significantly closer to that heritage.

That makes no God-damned sense in or out of universe.
Eh... what if Gensai have the potential to have hair like that and only 0.1% manifest that way, but through the magic of random chance Gemma managed to pick it up? Efreeti (http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs44/f/2009/058/f/2/Efreet_by_moai666.jpg)certainly seem capable (http://heroes.ag.ru/heroes-online/jpg/h3ol-efreet-sultan.jpg)of having fire-hair (http://images.wikia.com/forgottenrealms/images/9/9b/4e_efreeti.jpg). So maybe Gemma lucked out for whatever reason. Or maybe there's a more specific reason, that the DM will make use of in the course of the campaign. Or not.

But Gemma's fire-hair makes just as much "god-damned" sense as an Efreeti's.

[Shadowknight12]

So we're arguing by implication now? Funny, you hate it when other people do that...

No. You imply that some things do not happen in the rules, and I'm providing you examples that they do.


...anyway, how are you not supporting "fluff and crunch are interconnected" by everything you typed there? Because I'm not seeing it.

Fluff and crunch are only as interconnected as you want them to be. That's the entire point beyond refluffing, making a disconnection between Fluff A and Mechanic 8 and establishing a connection between Mechanic 8 and Fluff B. Or not making that connection at all. Or connecting Fluff A to another mechanic. You get my point.

What I was trying to explain to you in that point is that D&D does not behave the way you think it behaves. You seem to think that D&D is a logical, coherent system where the rules adjust to one another naturally and with no contradictions, where mechanics are coherent and can be relied upon to be predictable and intuitive. This is false. D&D does not function under the rules of Magic A is Magic A except, perhaps, by sheer random chance (and in specific circumstances).

The more you try to argue that D&D works like this, the more you're going to end up discovering things that annoy you, like the elementals, or Gemma's hair.


Let's take this another way. Book of Vile Darkness has a race...I think they were the Vashar?...that has the exact same stats as a human, but they have a narrower feat selection, limited to vile feats or profane feats or whatever the nasty feats from the Book were called. The only other difference is "fluff" - the vile race wants to kill the gods.

Since the only actual change is nothing but a limiter on humans, why would Wizards create this race, and not to make a distinction between them based solely off of fluff?

Because of what I said above. D&D does not work under coherent rules. It is full of contradictions and nonsense. Look at the rules for negative energy, for example. Is it evil? Is it neutral? If it's evil, why are not ALL negative energy spells and effects evil? If it's not evil, why are some spells and effects evil? Same thing with positive, really. How can Cure Light Wounds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/cureLightWounds.htm) coexist with Bolt of Glory (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/spells/boltOfGlory.htm) when they're both the exact same thing, i.e., positive energy? It just happens. D&D doesn't care if it's inconsistent, so neither should you.


To me this suggests that since the fluff changed, the mechanics had to change. Because fluff and mechanics are connected.

Nope. They changed because whoever wanted them to change made it happen.


Either that or Wizards does not put even half as much thought into these situations as we all do, and everyone involved in circular discussions such as these are the butt of many a joke in Washington state.

I think Wizards is based out of Washington.

Can't remember.

Whatever.

You got that right. WotC doesn't put any thought whatsoever into what they sell. They just do whatever their studies tell them will get them more profit. They don't care about consistency or anything of the sort because it doesn't pay. The Vashar are merely there because the authors thought they'd sell. There's no deeper reason than that. There was no inspiration to marry crunch and fluff, no hopeful desire to publish something unique, nothing of the sort. Just an attempt to get more people to buy the book.

[lesser_minion]

If you're going to complain about flaming hair being nonsense, wouldn't it make more sense to complain about it not shedding any light rather than complaining about things which actually have precedent?

Heat isn't a problem, nor is pyrotechnics -- it's possible to create "illusory flames" that don't count as illusions but don't behave as flames in anything besides their appearance and the fact that they shed light. And we can create magical effects that don't go away in an antimagic field.

However, this particular example cannot be purely cosmetic without heading into territory where things become needlessly complicated because the writer is too scared to change the rules.

If the flame doesn't shed heat or light, it may as well not exist. If it sheds light, then that light has mechanical effects. You could have it shed light only when in light, but there's no point. You're actually making the effect more powerful for the sake of stopping it from doing anything.

If someone wants flaming hair, then let them have flaming hair. But having a permanent, pseudo-magical torch attached to your head is not going to break the game (as much as you gain from your permanent hands-free light, it's going to wreck a fair amount of what you do -- among other things, it will automatically betray your presence when you're invisible).

[Shadowknight12]

However, this particular example cannot be purely cosmetic.

If the flame doesn't shed heat or light, it may as well not exist. If it sheds light, then that light has mechanical effects. You could have it shed light only when in light, but now you're heading straight into needlessly complicated territory.

Hello, there's someone I want you to meet. His name is Fred. He's a fire elemental (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elemental.htm#fireElemental). Say hello, Fred. "Hello, Fred." Good boy.

You see, Fred here is made of fire. But he doesn't shed light. Or heat. Or set things on fire unless said thing is attacking him. And he doesn't deal fire damage unless he attacks something.

What you claim cannot be purely cosmetic, already is.

[jseah]

I'm fairly certain it's a preference as well, but Mr. Shadow has been preaching it as gospel (including his previous "If other people want her hair to make no sense." post#, which implies at some level that he thinks we're Doing It Wrong #patent pending#. This irks me, so I'm trying to flay through the argument to find the reasoning underneath, as my end of things has not only been nothing but reasonable, but rather copious with our gifts of published examples, plausible scenarios and metaphysical explanations #though why I had to even use those second two escapes me#.
I think he follows and demands a level of in-universe consistency that is more inclusive than yours. It is also a position that I share.

I am not sure what the details of this flame-hair argument is, but from his post below, he is saying that there is an acceptable, pre-established range of variation in characters.
eg. humans will be between X and Y height, of certain weight and have hair made of protein. And not fire.

Thus, any variation outside the norm MUST have an explanation. And that this variation, unless very carefully tailored, will have certain minor differences that have to be included in order to maintain consistency.

I mean, you certainly can't allow a player to have this flame-haired human when the setting has very clearly stated that no inter-breeding between species is possible.
ie. no half-elves, etc.

For example, in a campaign centering around a racially-motivated war between two countries, one with blue eyes and blonde hair, one with black eyes and hair, having blonde hair means that you can trace your ancestry back to blue-eyes-blonde country. Or you are a novel mutation. Either way, you can expect your character to identify more with the blonde side of the war instead of the black hair side.
And the elves could be a neutral party who don't understand all this human silliness about hair colour.


Then again, the kind of campaign I run tends to center around humans doing things rather than outlandish monsters with fire that don't light torches.

[lesser_minion]

Hello, there's someone I want you to meet. His name is Fred. He's a fire elemental (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elemental.htm#fireElemental). Say hello, Fred. "Hello, Fred." Good boy.

If fire elementals don't do those things, that's a reason to re-write fire elementals, not a precedent to be applied elsewhere.

The other things I mentioned all make sense -- continual flame's appearance is a purely cosmetic effect (and a pointless one). Nobody's actually worked out how antimagic fields work, but we know that they aren't perfectly effective -- again, that makes sense (I'd have been tempted to allow magic items had I been writing it, however -- although hindsight is 20-20).

[Shadowknight12]

If fire elementals don't do those things, that's a reason to re-write fire elementals. Taking precedent from broken rules while acknowledging them to be broken is not going to convince anyone.

The fact that you're missing here is that I'm not acknowledging them to be broken. For you, fire that doesn't burn or shed light is a broken thing. To me, it isn't. If it's not broken, there's no need to fix it. That's the entire point of the fire hair argument. It is not a mistake or an incoherence that it does not shed light or heat, it is not broken, it is not bad. The system supports this already (see: Fred), so the only problems here are those of your own creation.

[lesser_minion]

The fact that you're missing here is that I'm not acknowledging them to be broken. For you, fire that doesn't burn or shed light is a broken thing. To me, it isn't.

Then why isn't it broken?

The fact that you're missing here is that the crunch exists to depict the fluff. If the rules for a fire elemental don't actually support it being made of fire, that's not acceptable, it's a fundamental failure of the rules to carry out their purpose.

[Shadowknight12]

Then why isn't it broken?

The fact that you're missing here is that the crunch exists to depict the fluff. If the rules for a fire elemental don't actually support it being made of fire, that's not acceptable, it's a fundamental failure of the rules to carry out their purpose.

Nope, that's all you. Crunch, to me, exists for completely different reasons. Crunch, as I see it, exists as a metagame construct to provide challenges to the players, win-lose conditions, and conflict resolution. It only intersects with fluff if I want it to intersect.

As for the rest, you are providing no evidence that things actually have to be that way. That paragraph basically says "I don't like that the rules are contradicting my point, so they must be changed!"

I think this is another one of those cases where I'll always disagree with someone here because of ideological differences. If the rules' purpose is to portray what happens in a world... I feel so sorry for you. You will never, ever, find rules that will satisfy what you want out of them. Worlds are too complex for rules to be able to portray them with more than a vague, passing semblance. This gets even worse when we add magic into the mix.

In the end, you'll end up having to settle for what's "close enough" because no rules system is perfect. These inconsistencies, like the fire elemental? They will never go away. No rules system will ever be free of them. A rules system without inconsistencies has simply not faced the appropriate situation yet.

[jseah]

This gets even worse when we add magic into the mix.
Not necessarily. If you want consistent magic, you can start by defining exactly how magic works and how it interacts with basic physics. Neither your characters nor your players actually need to know this but it helps immensely when the GM does.

Of course, such a magic system, if you want it to be flexible enough to create custom spells, will be incredibly complex.
For example, I am trying to do something like this. Have been doing it for over three years now. Creating the rules, even if they contain extremely simplistic models and handwaves that are criminally negligent, requires me to do basic calculus. Using it does not require complex math, but knowledge of basic math and physics like pythagoras theorem and inertia is required to understand why stuff happens.
FYI, I do have a model for teleport that can be used to settle any conflicts like teleporting into walls.

The key is to standardize all your measurements. You don't have 1 point of heat damage. You have X amount of heat = 1 point of heat damage on a human. Then spells can create X amounts of heat and you can answer how much water/ice it will boil/melt (X = some amount of heat energy) and whether it will damage something made of fire (X heat = some damage for this creature due to resistance?)
Even strange things, like melting the metal lock on a door, can be answered in such a system.

As for consistency, a rules system can contain little to no inconsistencies. Since there comes a point where the rules simply cannot cover the fine detail (eg. using a telekinetic spell to rotate objects), thus you simply make a reference to what it is supposed to be like (force applies a moment on the object) and write a guide to resolving the action (big objects are harder to rotate, heavier objects are harder; and how each scales) with some examples (eg. 1mp telekinesis vs 1kg rod 1 meter across; explain how it is easier to spin along the length of the rod but hard to rotate across the width).
In a pinch, the closest example can be used as a model to resolve the action.


If you do all this, then you get a magic system with very few inconsistencies and you can pull answers out of thin air but still have some way to explain why stuff happens.
Of course, this sort of system requires the players to *design* their magic to get whatever effect they want. And sometimes, the result can be infeasible. Eg. making an "oracle" spell that answers questions is impossible under my magic system. Hence the classical fortune tellers with crystal balls are all frauds.

[Shadowknight12]

Not necessarily. If you want consistent magic, you can start by defining exactly how magic works and how it interacts with basic physics. Neither your characters nor your players actually need to know this but it helps immensely when the GM does.

Of course, such a magic system, if you want it to be flexible enough to create custom spells, will be incredibly complex.
For example, I am trying to do something like this. Have been doing it for over three years now. Creating the rules, even if they contain extremely simplistic models and handwaves that are criminally negligent, requires me to do basic calculus. Using it does not require complex math, but knowledge of basic math and physics like pythagoras theorem and inertia is required to understand why stuff happens.
FYI, I do have a model for teleport that can be used to settle any conflicts like teleporting into walls.

The key is to standardize all your measurements. You don't have 1 point of heat damage. You have X amount of heat = 1 point of heat damage on a human. Then spells can create X amounts of heat and you can answer how much water/ice it will boil/melt (X = some amount of heat energy) and whether it will damage something made of fire (X heat = some damage for this creature due to resistance?)
Even strange things, like melting the metal lock on a door, can be answered in such a system.

As for consistency, a rules system can contain little to no inconsistencies. Since there comes a point where the rules simply cannot cover the fine detail (eg. using a telekinetic spell to rotate objects), thus you simply make a reference to what it is supposed to be like (force applies a moment on the object) and write a guide to resolving the action (big objects are harder to rotate, heavier objects are harder; and how each scales) with some examples (eg. 1mp telekinesis vs 1kg rod 1 meter across; explain how it is easier to spin along the length of the rod but hard to rotate across the width).
In a pinch, the closest example can be used as a model to resolve the action.


If you do all this, then you get a magic system with very few inconsistencies and you can pull answers out of thin air but still have some way to explain why stuff happens.
Of course, this sort of system requires the players to *design* their magic to get whatever effect they want.

I have been doing something similar to this for over eight years. I tell you this with actual honesty and sympathy, because I really don't want you to get encouraged by success and then face crushing disappointment: you will never build a perfect system. You will never build a system without inconsistencies, headscratchers, vagueness and the like. You think such a system is possible and you're encouraged by your success at how it predicts things. You think that your system is robust, strong and it can take anything any group can dish at it.

I honestly wish you the best of luck, but you'll understand why what you say sounds like a younger, more optimist me, and why I'm completely unconvinced. :smallwink:

[lesser_minion]

Nope, that's all you. Crunch, to me, exists for completely different reasons. Crunch, as I see it, exists as a metagame construct to provide challenges to the players, win-lose conditions, and conflict resolution. It only intersects with fluff if I want it to intersect.

As for the rest, you are providing no evidence that things actually have to be that way. That paragraph basically says "I don't like that the rules are contradicting my point, so they must be changed!"

No, I don't like that the rules contradict themselves. If they didn't, I'd have conceded the point.

Either the fire elemental's rules are wrong, which means it doesn't counter my point, or the fire elemental's fluff is wrong, in which case it doesn't counter my point.


I think this is another one of those cases where I'll always disagree with someone here because of ideological differences. If the rules' purpose is to portray what happens in a world... I feel so sorry for you. You will never, ever, find rules that will satisfy what you want out of them.

I appreciate your concern, but I'd prefer it if refrained from expressing it further and directed it somewhere it might actually be useful. Maybe you could donate some money to MSF or something?


Worlds are too complex for rules to be able to portray them with more than a vague, passing semblance. This gets even worse when we add magic into the mix. In the end, you'll end up having to settle for what's "close enough" because no rules system is perfect.

I don't ask rules systems to be perfect, and I don't get upset when they aren't. On the other hand, I do not handwave aside every problem I see with "oh, it's not a problem because I wasn't expecting the system to be perfect anyway".


These inconsistencies, like the fire elemental? They will never go away. No rules system will ever be free of them. A rules system without inconsistencies has simply not faced the appropriate situation yet.

Bugs happen. That doesn't mean they somehow stop being bugs, or that they shouldn't be addressed. A system cannot be made perfect, but it can be made better.

[mootoall]

Hey guys, who's ready for a perfectly by the rules cosmetic change that has absolutely no in-game consequences? I am! Let's take a step back from Gemma, shall we, and look at her cousin, Paul. He, one day, got his hand on a Rod of Wonder. This fun little magic item got him through a whole bunch of situations with amazing luck, but one day, instead of killing the dragon he was fighting, it turned him purple. Now, does Purple Paul's colouring effect the game world whatsoever? No? Huh. Interesting.