Immutability of Class Fluff

[The Dark Fiddler]

So this is more out of curiosity than anything else, but I'm asking you all, my fellow members of Giant in the Playground, on your opinions of the fluff provided by WotC with the classes. As I see it, there's two extremes here:

1) Class fluff is immutable, unchangeable, and final because classes are real, in-game things. For example, warblades all get their complicated maneuvers from study of the Sublime Way and plenty of practice. Your warlock's powers come from the fiends, and nothing else. This view probably includes your character needing to take time to train to level up, and needing to study under masters to learn new maneuvers, feats, and spells; this goes doubly so if you want to take an entirely new class.

2) Class fluff is unimportant, because classes are merely out-of-game abstractions. If you want to use it, there's nothing wrong with it, but classes are really just collections of abilities you can describe however you want (as long as it makes sense). Maybe your warblade never studied battle at all and just has a knack for combat, maneuvers representing nothing more than swinging your sword a different way to press an advantage. Your warlock's powers can be from any source, or even just be like normal magic. This view probably doesn't require anything of your character to level up, and taking a new class just means you get new abilities.

Obviously, there's a lot of middle ground here. Of course, I could be flawed in my assumption of two extremes here, in which case do correct me. But anyway, where do you all fall?

Personally, I fall very heavily in the second end. Except for classes explicitly tied to organizations through their abilities (Mage of the Arcane Order, for example), why should abilities need to be described in a specific way simply because that's how WotC wrote it? What if I don't want my crusader to get maneuvers from divine inspiration, but through self-realized epiphanies? What if I don't want my sorcerer to be descended from dragons? Why can't my monk simply be a dude who fights well with his fists (ignoring the obvious problem there)?

[Rogue Shadows]

Generally I fall towards type 2, but some classes are just too tightly tied together mechanically to their fluff to be easily seperated from it. While it's certainly possible to imagine an inkyo (Rokugan CS) in a different setting, it might take more effort than it's worth.

I've been meaning to take the Monk class and re-flavor everything to make it more "western." Haven't gotten around to it, yet.

[Zale]

I favor two myself.

Fluff can be changed to fit whatever you want. As long as the mechanics remain the same, then I see no reason to object to something being renamed.

[hangedman1984]

Immutability of class fluff? No such thing. I'm definitely in the second camp

[Orannis]

I might be one of the rare ones but I lean more towards the first than the second option. I guess it's because I think of characters in fluff terms anyway so it makes sense that, for example, an Ur-Priest hates the gods and steals their powerz and instead of praying every day for spells mentally sneaks in and takes what spells they can. I also expect clerics who find out about this (good or evil) to be understandably irate and divine beings to be less than favorable towards them. To me that little bit of fluff can help players (especially new ones) find a focus for roleplaying a character that isn't so dependent on the world they are in.

[TheGeckoKing]

I couldn't care less either way, until either the fluff becomes too detached from the original fluff, the fluff makes no sense, or you decide my Willing Suspense of Disbelief is your bouncy castle.

[Yuki Akuma]

Classes don't 'exist' in the world of the game - they're purely meta-game constructs.

So yeah, immutability of class fluff? What? No.

[NineThePuma]

There are PEOPLE in the first camp? :smalleek:

I'm mostly kidding around. And yes, I fall under the second camp. Binders are wonderful when mixed into Incarnum.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I too lean more towards camp two; but I do believe that it is easier for new players to learn the ropes of the game if they have a more established base form where they can get ideas on how to roleplay and in this case I think camp one is a better option.

[erikun]

3) Changing either the fluff or the mechanics of a class depends entirely on how much the DM is willing to deviate from the printed material. Your request to have Warblades learn their techniques from self-training is just as valid as your request to have a lawful Barbarian.

From the DM's point of view, there is nothing forcing your to deviate from the printed (or homemade) material. However, it is probably in the best interest of the game and everyone at the table to make adjustments, through mechanics and fluff as necessary, to reasonably give the players the characters they are interested in playing.


Also: while talking about immutable mechanics may serve a purpose in general, vague terms, in the context of an actual played game the mechanics can be adjusted or revised just as much as any other material.

[Salanmander]

I might be one of the rare ones but I lean more towards the first than the second option. I guess it's because I think of characters in fluff terms anyway so it makes sense that, for example, an Ur-Priest hates the gods and steals their powerz and instead of praying every day for spells mentally sneaks in and takes what spells they can. I also expect clerics who find out about this (good or evil) to be understandably irate and divine beings to be less than favorable towards them. To me that little bit of fluff can help players (especially new ones) find a focus for roleplaying a character that isn't so dependent on the world they are in.

Yeah, there are definitely classes, as OP mentioned, that have very strong fluff attached, to the point where the fluff is a significant advantage or disadvantage. Ur-Priest, Blighter, Paladin, and (of course) Blackguard come to mind.

How would you react to someone warping the fluff of a Wu-Jen to be, for example, a faux native american feel, instead of a faux east asian feel?

[Frozen_Feet]

I lean more towards the first camp. Fluff is part of the classes, it's more often than not part of why even got the book detailing them - why would I not use their fluff? All that flavor is lost if it's not used.

More to the point, once you strip enough fluff from classes, majority of them become superfluous. The mechanical differences between, say, Wizard, Druid and Cleric are fairly small, it's the distinct fluff that separates them.

At some point, you only need Generic Classes, or might as well scrap ready-made classes totally and cherry-pick straight from their abilities.

[mootoall]

Firmly against the immutability of class fluff. I do, however, think that if there are powerful mechanical benefits to a class, it should come with some roleplaying restrictions. Take the Ur-Priest for example. That fast progression diving casting should require some sort of RP requirement, if you ask me. It doesn't have to be the stuff presented in the class, but it should be there. It's also why I think the Paladin's Code would be less of an issue if they actually got something worth it because of it. See Gorgondantess' fix for an example of what the Paladin should really be like.

[Aricandor]

I tend towards two, but really it's class by class basis. Most base classes I consider broad enough to be able to accommodate a wide enough range of archetypes that one can consider them "just a set of abilities", within certain reason. As long as, for example, wizards do book magic, sorcerers innate magic and warlocks magic granted by an outside source I'm happy with whatever on the players' behalf and am willing to fluff their abilities to mesh with their concept.

PrCs are a different beast, and with the exception of a few ones I consider generic (usually those combining two classes, such as Eldritch Knights, Eldritch Theurges, Arcane Tricksters...) they're very specifically fluffed.

[ImperatorK]

I've got nothing against camp two, but personally I lean towards camp one. If you want to play an optimized build you better RP it good or you won't be playing in my game. If anything can be fluffed however you like, then there are literally no restrictions to shenanigans. You can take what's best, just like that, without trying. In my games, if you want Ultimate Power(TM) you better work for it, RP-wise.

[Kojiro]

Middle-ish; which side I seem to lean toward probably depends on which side the person observing is on. On the one hand, Rogues, Barbarians, and the like are very general and such, and other things (like making a Warlock who gets powers from cosmic horror type creatures rather than fiends) are easily editable. Other things, though, like Paladins, are more fixed; you can't make a "solo Paladin" (not part of some order) unless he somehow made direct contact with some greater being to grant his powers, which would require some convincing your DM (although it could make for an interesting story, now that I think about it), and a Monk who wasn't part of a monastery or some school is almost as ridiculous. When it comes to setting-specific flavor, that stuff is either mutable enough to fit the new setting after alterations, or it's not getting used.

Prestige Classes, meanwhile... Actually, they vary too. Duelist, if I ever used it instead of just using Swashbuckler, could have many different sources and styles, while Dwarven Defender or Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, you're kind of stuck with those, beyond, again, altering the fluff to fit your setting better (or just scrapping it I guess, but that seems like a waste of time). And some, of course, are more in the middle; Alienists obviously made contact with something weird out there, but the exact manner it takes place in can vary a good bit.

[Shpadoinkle]

Fluff is by definition unnecessary to play a given class or race or whatever; that's precisely why it's called fluff and not crunch.

[Zaq]

Sometimes, classes do have good fluff. When I see it, I tend to latch on to it. Incarnum classes, for one . . . I love the concept of incarnum in general, and I love that the Incarnate gives me a reason to care about alignment. The Truenamer is another class that has, in my mind, fantastic fluff, say what you will about the rest of it (and I've said most of it).

That said, at the end of the day, all that matters are the mechanics. I'm totally willing to scrap every last vestige of a class's fluff if I don't like it (like the time I went through my DFA and carefully removed every last trace of anything remotely dragon-related, including coming up with new names for everything). I always follow the First Rule of Flavor: In all things, fluff as necessary, or as awesome.

[ImperatorK]

Fluff is by definition unnecessary to play a given class or race or whatever; that's precisely why it's called fluff and not crunch.
Then how do you play without fluff?

[Flickerdart]

The SRD has nearly all fluff expunged. The game is still playable. Ergo, fluff is dispensable, so modifying it is acceptable.

[ImperatorK]

The SRD has nearly all fluff expunged. The game is still playable. Ergo, fluff is dispensable, so modifying it is acceptable.
Well, yeah. But you do use fluff in the game, don't you? Or do you play only on SRD?
Either it's the original fluff from the book or something you came up with, it's still fluff. It is necessary to play the role-playing game.

[Xanmyral]

Immutable Fluff? In mah D&D? It's... not as likely as you think honestly.

I'm adamantly in camp two. I'm okay with both really, but if a camp tries to tell the other camp how to play then problems arise.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I lean more towards the first camp. Fluff is part of the classes, it's more often than not part of why even got the book detailing them - why would I not use their fluff? All that flavor is lost if it's not used.

More to the point, once you strip enough fluff from classes, majority of them become superfluous. The mechanical differences between, say, Wizard, Druid and Cleric are fairly small, it's the distinct fluff that separates them.

At some point, you only need Generic Classes, or might as well scrap ready-made classes totally and cherry-pick straight from their abilities.

Name one, one, person in all of history who carried a sword and was called a fighter or warblade. Or a single unarmed warrior not related at all to Asia that was called a monk or swordsage. Hell, find one person who was called a cleric and not a priest, Templar, Hospitaler, or something else.

[Dusk Eclipse]

ImperatorK: I believe Shpadoinkl tried to say he was a firm believer on camp two, that he can make the fluff you want for the class he wants. Not that you can play with only the mechanics (though I am pretty sure you could, only in that case the games becomes a wargame, not a RPG)

[Flickerdart]

Well, yeah. But you do use fluff in the game, don't you? Or do you play only on SRD?
Either it's the original fluff from the book or something you came up with, it's still fluff. It is necessary to play the role-playing game.
-You are facing three [opponents].
-I roll a 31 to [affect] it for [20 hit points].
-You have [neutralized] the [opponent].

Fluff is for chumps. :smallbiggrin:

[ImperatorK]

ImperatorK: I believe Shpadoinkl tried to say he was a firm believer on camp two, that he can make the fluff you want for the class he wants. Not that you can play with only the mechanics (though I am pretty sure you could, only in that case the games becomes a wargame, not a RPG)
It becomes a mathematical simulation. Not very fun, IMO.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I agree; but as I said (and Flickerdart exemplified) you can play "perfectly fine" without fluff.

[ImperatorK]

And I can swim perfectly fine without a boat. Doesn't mean that I can swim from Australia to the continent. :smalltongue:

[Dusk Eclipse]

And I can swim perfectly fine without a boat. Doesn't mean that I can swim from Australia to the continent. :smalltongue:

Hence the "Quotation marks" around "perfectly fine" :smalltongue:

[DeltaEmil]

Most "fluff" is based on a Faux-Greyhawk-kitchen-sink-bog-standard fantasy setting. You are not forced to play or to gm in the Faux-Greyhawk-kitchen-sink-bog-standard fantasy setting, therefore you don't have to base the class "fluff" in the given Faux-Greyhawk-kitchen-sink-bog-standard fantasy setting.

Or in other words, point 2 is the best.

"Fluff" is only here to give you inspiration and to provide you an image of how the class looks. "Fluff" is rule-system-independent.

Rules on the other hand are what makes D&D 1st/Advanced 2nd/3.0/3.5/4th/Vista/Ultimate/Armageddon-edition into a D&D-game.

[Cerlis]

For me its number one all the way. The problem is when people think i dont allow (minor) home brewing. I think it makes more sense to make a feat that gives the barbarian pounce feature, with a one feat an +6 base attack bonus requirement as a fighter feat, than to just take a level of barbarian and pretend its a fighter. (with incarnam it basically takes 2 feats to get pounce, and character lvl 6 i believe)

One reason i dont like the idea of dipping barbarian is cus it has an alignment restriction, higher hitpoints and more skill points. If you are pretending its a fighter then why did he get tougher this level, more skilled in acrobatics and survivability, and why cant he use his battletrance if he's lawful?

The problem is when you have Mechanics that are directly tied to fluff. And you can change the mechanics so they match the new fluff (for instance having Barbarian require non chaotic and call ita dragoon), but thats homebrewing (which is perfectly fine).

But bascially telling me to pretend a barbarian is a fighter islike telling me to pretend a duck is a rooster. Now i can do that, but everytime i see that rooster i'm going to think "duck" and i see nothing wrong with that.

[Coidzor]

^: Why do you like that Fighters get no skillpoints that much that this is a major sticking point? :smallconfused:


Well, yeah. But you do use fluff in the game, don't you? Or do you play only on SRD?
Either it's the original fluff from the book or something you came up with, it's still fluff. It is necessary to play the role-playing game.

I imagine they decide what they want to use out of books and what they want to go with out of their own minds/DM's setting rather than strictly adhering to the fluff as printed in the WOTC books.

And if you're using your own fluff, you're not using the fluff that's in the books verbatim, so that would still fall under option 2 ala the OP.


And I can swim perfectly fine without a boat. Doesn't mean that I can swim from Australia to the continent. :smalltongue:

I'm... I'm pretty sure you can swim from Australia to Australia quite easily. :smallconfused: Unless there's some island called Australia that's different from the continent of Australia that I'm unaware of...

[ImperatorK]

^: Why do you like that Fighters get no skillpoints that much that this is a major sticking point? :smallconfused:



I imagine they decide what they want to use out of books and what they want to go with out of their own minds/DM's setting rather than strictly adhering to the fluff as printed in the WOTC books.

And if you're using your own fluff, you're not using the fluff that's in the books verbatim, so that would still fall under option 2 ala the OP.
I know. I've said it, didn't I?

[Hiro Protagonest]

For me its number one all the way. The problem is when people think i dont allow (minor) home brewing. I think it makes more sense to make a feat that gives the barbarian pounce feature, with a one feat an +6 base attack bonus requirement as a fighter feat, than to just take a level of barbarian and pretend its a fighter. (with incarnam it basically takes 2 feats to get pounce, and character lvl 6 i believe)

One reason i dont like the idea of dipping barbarian is cus it has an alignment restriction, higher hitpoints and more skill points. If you are pretending its a fighter then why did he get tougher this level, more skilled in acrobatics and survivability, and why cant he use his battletrance if he's lawful?

Changing fluff goes hand-in-hand with changing alignment restrictions, which are arbitrary for things other than the paladin or such.

The avenger is the best example of this. Yes, it's a joke, but it's a great example of refluffing.

[ImperatorK]

Changing fluff goes hand-in-hand with changing alignment restrictions, which are arbitrary for things other than the paladin or such.

The avenger is the best example of this. Yes, it's a joke, but it's a great example of refluffing.
But then it's homebrewing/houseruling.

[lesser_minion]

Name one, one, person in all of history who carried a sword and was called a fighter or warblade. Or a single unarmed warrior not related at all to Asia that was called a Monk or Swordsage. Hell, find one person who was called a cleric and not a priest, templar, hospitaler, or something else.

Class names -- the vaguely-thematic labels attached to things for the sole purpose of making them easier to refer to in the metagame -- are not actually part of the class' fluff.

That aside, referring to someone as a priest doesn't stop them from being a cleric. Ten seconds with a dictionary would tell you that, as used in D&D, the word means "a priest or religious leader of any religion".

We use the more specific word because it gets our meaning across faster, not because the general word is incorrect.

[Shadowknight12]

Most "fluff" is based on a Faux-Greyhawk-kitchen-sink-bog-standard fantasy setting. You are not forced to play or to gm in the Faux-Greyhawk-kitchen-sink-bog-standard fantasy setting, therefore you don't have to base the class "fluff" in the given Faux-Greyhawk-kitchen-sink-bog-standard fantasy setting.

Or in other words, point 2 is the best.

"Fluff" is only here to give you inspiration and to provide you an image of how the class looks. "Fluff" is rule-system-independent.

Rules on the other hand are what makes D&D 1st/Advanced 2nd/3.0/3.5/4th/Vista/Ultimate/Armageddon-edition into a D&D-game.

This, basically. I recognise that the "fluff" suggested in the book is for when you're playing a specific campaign, and not all campaigns of D&D ever must be the same or abide by the same fluff. We need not always follow the same clichés. Innovation and change are okay.

Nothing is immutable. Everything is permitted.

[Coidzor]

But then it's homebrewing/houseruling.

A bit of a, a bit of b, really. Alignment is kinda squishy like that.

[Rogue Shadows]

Nothing is immutable. Everything is permitted.

...in campaigns you run, or just overall? Crunch-wise, or fluff-wise? 'Cause it might be worth the effort of finding and joining your campaign if I can find a DM silly enough to let me run Pun-pun.

[Flickerdart]

...in campaigns you run, or just overall? 'Cause it might be worth the effort of finding and joining your campaign if I can find a DM silly enough to let me run Pun-pun.
I think you may find that Manipulate Form has mutated to "you are now dead, no save".

[Rogue Shadows]

I think you may find that Manipulate Form has mutated to "you are now dead, no save".

An insta-kill? ShadowKnight wouldn't do that without my permission.

[Flickerdart]

An insta-kill? ShadowKnight wouldn't do that without my permission.
You gave your permission when you agreed to "everything is permitted".

[Shadowknight12]

...in campaigns you run, or just overall? Crunch-wise, or fluff-wise? 'Cause it might be worth the effort of finding and joining your campaign if I can find a DM silly enough to let me run Pun-pun.

In all things.

I would allow a player to run Pun-Pun, actually. The thing is, of course, whether I'd agree to run a game for the player in the first place. :smallwink:

[Rogue Shadows]

You gave your permission when you agreed to "everything is permitted".

Nope. No implications. ShadowKnight wouldn't do that. He'd spell it out in certain terms.


In all things.

I would allow a player to run Pun-Pun, actually. The thing is, of course, whether I'd agree to run a game for the player in the first place. :smallwink:

Wait, hang on...

Leaving aside Pun-pun for a moment, you'll allow basically anything? Any splatbook? At all? Are we limited to WotC, D&D brand, or is any d20 product allowed?

Either way you're a braver DM than me.

Also...you'll allow any flavor?

So if you were, for the sake of argument, running a Forgotten Realms campaign...and I rolled myself up a Dragonstar character...you'd allow it?

Like, fluff-wise as well as using the mechanics. So the character from another planet, and got to the Realms in a spaceship, but she still uses magic, but one of those magical items is a magic chaingun. And a lightsaber. At level 1 using normal WBL rules.

[Flickerdart]

Nope. No implications. ShadowKnight wouldn't do that. He'd spell it out in certain terms.
Everything is, in its nature, all-inclusive. It's not an implication if that's the only thing it means.

[NineThePuma]

...in campaigns you run, or just overall? Crunch-wise, or fluff-wise? 'Cause it might be worth the effort of finding and joining your campaign if I can find a DM silly enough to let me run Pun-pun.

I actually ran a political campaign type where I was willing to let people do whatever.

Someone brought in Pun-Pun and I smiled and told him that he had attracted the attention of all the various deities, and that they were going to be paying attention.

The campaign's plots and schemes turned it into a Thirty Xanatos Pile-Up.

The unoptimized Fighter type was the only one who could be said to have "won" because he somehow ended up King of his home country, with the sponsorship of half the pantheon.

[Flickerdart]

To the OP - here's a recent 15 page topic on pretty much this exact topic: The Flavor is what you make of it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203878)
That's where it is! I knew there was a thread on this, but couldn't find it and eventually figured I must be insane.

[NineThePuma]

That's where it is! I knew there was a thread on this, but couldn't find it and eventually figured I must be insane.

Nah, you're still insane. You are, afterall, a member of the playground. :smallwink:

[Flickerdart]

Curses! You've seen through my clever ruse.

[Shadowknight12]

Wait, hang on...

Leaving aside Pun-pun for a moment, you'll allow basically anything? Any splatbook? At all? Are we limited to WotC, D&D brand, or is any d20 product allowed?

If the rules are compatible (such as D20 products), it's good to go. If the rules are not compatible (such as things from Exalted or WoD), then effort must be undertaken to convert the crunch from that system to D&D, before implementation.


Either way you're a braver DM than me.

Also...you'll allow any flavor?

So if you were, for the sake of argument, running a Forgotten Realms campaign...and I rolled myself up a Dragonstar character...you'd allow it?

I have no idea what a Dragonstar character is, but sure, if you really want to. I'll sit down with you and you'll explain what Dragonstar is, and what you want to achieve with that character, and why is it important for you, and what, exactly, is so fun about it, so that I am sure not to neglect it.

The thing is, if I choose you as a player, you're pretty much set. I've chosen you because I believe you hold the best interests of the group at heart, and that you will actively cooperate with me to tell a great story and make sure we all have fun. If I don't believe you're the kind of person who is willing to make sacrifices for the sake of the cooperative story we're telling, for the sake of the DM or the other players (say, if you're playing a wizard and a fellow player feels like you're overshadowing him, you change your spell selection so that instead of dominating the encounters by yourself, you instead help out the entire team, for example), then I simply don't choose you to be one of my players. If I believe you're out to have fun all by yourself and damn the rest, I'm not going to run a game for you.

And conversely, if I believe that you're the kind of player who is just as concerned for everyone else's fun as for his own, I'm not going to prohibit anything, because I trust that you will use the freedom of choice I give you responsibly.


Like, fluff-wise as well as using the mechanics. So the character from another planet, and got to the Realms in a spaceship, but she still uses magic, but one of those magical items is a magic chaingun. And a lightsaber. At level 1 using normal WBL rules.

If I have agreed to DM for you and that's the concept you want to play, I trust you know what you're doing, and that you'll take into consideration what the other players and myself want from the game as well. If you know that one of the players is a stickler for FR canon sanctity, I trust you'll make some effort to appease her.

But no, I won't ban any of that. I've actually allowed weirder stuff than that. An awakened housecat who bound vestiges, for example. Or an amnesiac angel from another plane. Or a hivemind composed of the souls of a destroyed city who possessed a little girl and wiped her entire personality and sense of self. Really, the list goes on.

[Telonius]

I'm mainly in the second camp, with a couple exceptions. IMO, the fluff is a lot more important for Divine casters, Clerics of specific gods in particular, than for any of the other classes. If you're playing a Cleric of Pelor, then yes, Pelor is the one giving you the spells, and you're not going to be able to cast spells if you start consistently acting in ways that Pelor doesn't like.

If you don't want to play a Cleric of a specific god, that's fine; there are existing rules to worship a concept or philosophy instead of a god. Use those rules instead. But if you choose to worship a specific god, you are choosing to be constrained by the fluff.

[Rogue Shadows]

But no, I won't ban any of that. I've actually allowed weirder stuff than that. An awakened housecat who bound vestiges, for example. Or an amnesiac angel from another plane. Or a hivemind composed of the souls of a destroyed city who possessed a little girl and wiped her entire personality and sense of self. Really, the list goes on.

See, none of that seems weirder to me than a spaceship and a chaingun in the Realms.

Mind when I say "spaceship" I don't mean a spelljammer, I mean an honest-to-God-spaceship


[snip on what you allow]

Oh...everything you said back in the Spellbook thread makes so much more sense now. You're like an axe-wielding orc going For the Horde!, only instead of an orc, you're you but in a black turtleneck, and instead of saying that, you say For the Art! And you have bongos instead of an axe. And you probably don't shout that line, either. But the same feeling is there.

In my mind, that is. This is my mental image of you.

You don't ban books, you ban people, based on personal criteria as arbitrary as any.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing...but jeeze that has to cause a lot of headaches for player and DM alike.

I'm trying to imagine how even the most easy-going, anything-and-everything-is-allowed DM could possibly integrate a hengeyokai warblade, a trandoshan inkyo, an elf scientist, and a luxan snoop, with fluff for each race and class completely intact, and then honest-to-God try and set it on Krynn without mixing Spelljammer and drugs into the mix. They're all d20 and completely compatible with each other, but still...

Frankly it just seems more worthwhile to do what I do and make up a list of allowed sourcebooks at the beginning of each campaign and then let the players come to you if they want to add something else and make a case.

Like what I'm doing with my a-ways-off-but-I'm-getting-started-on-planning-early Eberron campaign: I'm allowing Core, Eberron campaign setting, Races of Eberron, and Expanded Psionics Handbook. If the players want to use something outside of that, they have to convince me.

At the very least it certainly makes for a more cohesive group and a lot less headaches.

You're like my evil twin, except we're not related and instead of being evil you wear a black turtleneck. In my head.

[HunterOfJello]

I think that fluff is extremely important for classes and bears extra importance for many classes that come with specifically unique features. However, I don't think that adhering to the pre-generated fluff is extremely important. If you dislike the fluff for a specific class, then you should write your own new fluff for it that at least matches the level of complexity that the previous fluff held.

If you want to play a Sorcerer, but don't want to be partially descended from a dragon, then pick a different type of powerful being that has access to arcane magic and roleplay that. A player who decides that they have arcane powers just because the universe recognized that they 'happen to be awesome' is stupid. Go find an awesome race or species to be descended from instead. You could be the descendent of creatures who were horrifically experimented on by Mind Flayers, but barely escaped their captors. You could also be the descendent of Ethergaunts that came upon the material plane for some time. Your character could look at other beings as worthless insects that should be wiped off the planet, without understanding why they feel that way. You could also have a strange disgust for all divine magic to go along with it.

I guess my beef is I think it's fine for fluff to be removed from the game for a class, but doing so purely for the reason that you find roleplaying that way inconvenient is unacceptable. If you get rid of fluff, replace it with other fluff. Otherwise your poor fluffless teddy bear of a class is going to look deflated and empty inside.

~

*edit*

One caveat to what I've said before. I was reading some of the posts before this one and was reminded of Clerics. For whatever reason, I don't like the idea of a Clerics gaining divine power by worshiping an ideal or a land or something. Outside of Eberron (where you can worship a puppet and get 9th level cleric spells), I think all Clerics should be worshiping a being that can actually give them divine powers to use. Which being it is, and the specifics of all that would be completely open for discussion while I'm DMing and I'd allow all sorts of things under that umbrella. I have a particular dislike for divine magic that ends up being from a source that isn't divine at all. (And before you bring up druids, don't. Druids are just weird and everyone knows that.)

[Divide by Zero]

Camp Two, all the way. Your classes are only the sum of your character's abilities. Everything else is up to the background.

[Shadowknight12]

See, none of that seems weirder to me than a spaceship and a chaingun in the Realms.

Mind when I say "spaceship" I don't mean a spelljammer, I mean an honest-to-God-spaceship

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. You say spaceship, I just see another magical construction designed to transport lots of people through vast distances.


Oh...everything you said back in the Spellbook thread makes so much more sense now. You're like an axe-wielding orc going For the Horde!, only instead of an orc, you're you but in a black turtleneck, and instead of saying that, you say For the Art! And you have bongos instead of an axe. And you probably don't shout that line, either. But the same feeling is there.

In my mind, that is. This is my mental image of you.

I have no paintings or pictures in my house, I can't comprehend poetry and I have never been to a play. Also, I'm a scientist. So... actually, if I pick up an axe and paint my face green, I'm closer to the first mental image. Funny, that.


You don't ban books, you ban people, based on personal criteria as arbitrary as any.

Correct. I am a firm believer in the freedom of the individual. Those freedoms include "freedom to choose who to game with."


This isn't necessarily a bad thing...but jeeze that has to cause a lot of headaches for player and DM alike.

Not really. That's why player profiling is so useful, because it diminishes headaches, since part of the things I look for in a player is willingness to help out. The players will actively try to adapt to each other and save me a lot of the hassle of having to work things out on my own.


I'm trying to imagine how even the most easy-going, anything-and-everything-is-allowed DM could possibly integrate a hengeyokai warblade, a trandoshan inkyo, an elf scientist, and a luxan snoop, and then honest-to-God try and set it on Krynn without mixing Spelljammer and drugs into the mix. They're all d20 and completely compatible with each other, but still...

Because I'm not alone, everyone else is helping me out in that integration.


Frankly it just seems more worthwhile to do what I do and make up a list of allowed sourcebooks at the beginning of each campaign and then let the players come to you if they want to add something else and make a case.

That might be easier for you, but I find that to be opposed to my own gaming ethics.


Like what I'm doing with my a-ways-off-but-I'm-getting-started-on-planning-early Eberron campaign: I'm allowing Core, Eberron campaign setting, Races of Eberron, and Expanded Psionics Handbook. If the players want to use something outside of that, they have to convince me.

At the very least it certainly makes for a more cohesive group and a lot less headaches.

If that works for you, cool. That wouldn't work for me. I ran an Eberron campaign where all the players were monsters and orphans raised in the streets of Sharn. I assure you, the group dynamic and the story that took place in that campaign wouldn't have been possible if I had banned sourcebooks, rather than allowing all and getting rid of RHD and LA to allow them the chance to fulfil their character concepts without being gimped.


You're like my evil twin, except we're not related and instead of being evil you wear a black turtleneck. In my head.

Funny, considering that your avatar seems to be doing just that. In my head, that's a black turtleneck.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I'm mostly kidding around. And yes, I fall under the second camp. Binders are wonderful when mixed into Incarnum.

Yo dawg, I heard you like souls, so I put souls in your soul in your soul so yours souls can soul while souling...


I too lean more towards camp two; but I do believe that it is easier for new players to learn the ropes of the game if they have a more established base form where they can get ideas on how to roleplay and in this case I think camp one is a better option.

The base stuff does help if someone doesn't have a particular idea in mind, but I do not consider any of the WotC fluff sacred, even if I do end up using some if not most of it.

[Coidzor]

I'm going to go listen to some literal assassin's creed brotherhood trailer now, thanks guys.

Oh, an example of something I worked out with one of my friends for when we do start running the game he's been working on was that my character's natural talent for magic first began manifesting by gaining knowledge of nature-themed spells due to the adventuring environment he was in and the bond he formed with his animal friend when they first began to manifest and that over time he's going to master his inner sorcerous spark and expand to more typical avenues of magery, however his raw power isn't all that great, so he cannot rip the cosmos asunder.

Basically Mystic Ranger and Sword of the Arcane Order with the gods thrown out of the equation and the spells being treated as a natural extension of the character's soul and self ala how the sorcerer is usually treated.

edit: Of course, I imagine it helped that he's blurred the meaning of divine vs. arcane magic in this setting anyway.

I'm trying to imagine how even the most easy-going, anything-and-everything-is-allowed DM could possibly integrate a hengeyokai warblade, a trandoshan inkyo, an elf scientist, and a luxan snoop, with fluff for each race and class completely intact, and then honest-to-God try and set it on Krynn without mixing Spelljammer and drugs into the mix. They're all d20 and completely compatible with each other, but still...

...E...Even with drugs and/or Spelljammer that sounds... like so much win....

[lesser_minion]

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It depends on what the rules are, what the change is, and why you want to make the change, among other things.

Fluff is no more mutable than crunch -- in fact, if a change to either sees play, a bad piece of fluff is more likely to damage your game than a bad rule or ruling, and the damage will be harder to repair as well.*

Fluff is also harder to dispense with than crunch -- in the strictest sense, all you need to play is a social contract (in other words, any rule that can safely be described as 'crunch' is an unnecessary rule) and a bit of fluff to give some meaning to the activity. Such a game could even constitute 'D&D'. Classes, levels, THAC0s, and to-hit tables are not a fundamental part of the experience.

* This can work the other way -- if the fluff was originally written by some talentless hack, then you would probably have to change it. However, that is a special case.

[Typewriter]

In my opinion any rational explanation for a mechanical effect is a valid usage of that mechanical effect.

Anything and everything can be re-fluffed as long as the mechanics support it. If you are playing a warrior and you want to say that it's magic that makes you a good fighter then what happens in an anti-magic field? If nothing, the mechanics don't support your fluff.

Fluff can be changed, mechanics cannot. If fluff ever contradicts mechanics then mechanics win.

That's my opinion anyway.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Well, seeing as how I'm the OP on that other thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203878), and currently have another similarly long thread on 'We can build it, we have the splatbooks' which rather proves the point, I suppose it's not surprising in the least that I fall heavily into the Type 2 category...

[mootoall]

I don't like how adhering solely to the "immutable fluff" of WotC makes some character concepts impossible, either. If I need someone who's incredibly capable of evading magical effects, I should use whatever combination of classes I like, even if it means using Rogue and Witch Hunter, even if I don't want to be "A thief who is hunting those who are possessed" or what have you. Classes are metagame constructs, plain and simple. A character is the sum of its abilities.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Yo dawg, I heard you like souls, so I put souls in your soul in your soul so yours souls can soul while souling...



The base stuff does help if someone doesn't have a particular idea in mind, but I do not consider any of the WotC fluff sacred, even if I do end up using some if not most of it.

I agree, I just wanted to say the pre-printed fluff is a good base to start with.

[noparlpf]

I prefer to refluff characters to fit their backstories. It allows a lot more variety that way, and it's more fun. Games are supposed to be fun. Hence my way is right.

Besides, I'm probably on the Chaotic end of the spectrum somewhere. To me, rules are just guidelines. Even if something is set in stone, I have Transmute Rock to Mud for it.

[Divide by Zero]

if the fluff was originally written by some talentless hack

So, most of the default fluff?

[Kantolin]

I guess I'm in the middle, then.

Some classes (Say, fighter), have very little fluff attached to them. My fighters do not call themselves 'fighters' usually, nor do my rogues.

Others, however, have attachments. The most popular is Paladin - but I actually like that about Paladins, as it makes 'Paladin' mean something.

Now, I've then played in settings where people have house ruled various things to be various other things, and it didn't wreck the universe. I've also played 'sleeper paladins', who didn't call themselves paladins but were.

But then again, I don't like warblades due to the nonsense showoffy fluff, which outright bugs me.

Part of this, I suppose, is that I also put exceptionally little focus on the mechanics. For example, warblade doesn't appeal to me - the fluff is miserable and I can take or leave the rest, so I don't put thought into them at all. Comparably, while fighter is notably lower-powered, the mechanics aren't at all focal in most games I play, so I'm quite content to use a fighter instead.

Incarnates, however, do appeal to me something fierce, so I like asking to shift things so I can be a 'good' incarnate who's LG instead of NG. ^_^ Not to mention various classes I like due to the default fluff - Paladins being a big part of that.

On that note, however, I am more than willing to refluff things for other people - once in awhile someone gets a genius idea that is replicated with [x] fluff but [y] mechanics. But usually, the stated fluff is what you get, and most of my NPC warblades are absolute showoffs.

[navar100]

For me its number one all the way. The problem is when people think i dont allow (minor) home brewing. I think it makes more sense to make a feat that gives the barbarian pounce feature, with a one feat an +6 base attack bonus requirement as a fighter feat, than to just take a level of barbarian and pretend its a fighter. (with incarnam it basically takes 2 feats to get pounce, and character lvl 6 i believe)

One reason i dont like the idea of dipping barbarian is cus it has an alignment restriction, higher hitpoints and more skill points. If you are pretending its a fighter then why did he get tougher this level, more skilled in acrobatics and survivability, and why cant he use his battletrance if he's lawful?

The problem is when you have Mechanics that are directly tied to fluff. And you can change the mechanics so they match the new fluff (for instance having Barbarian require non chaotic and call ita dragoon), but thats homebrewing (which is perfectly fine).

But bascially telling me to pretend a barbarian is a fighter islike telling me to pretend a duck is a rooster. Now i can do that, but everytime i see that rooster i'm going to think "duck" and i see nothing wrong with that.

The Fighter remembers his training. He has learned to tap into his own energy reserves. He becomes stronger, physically and mentally. While literally that does mean strength, it also mean his ability to shrug off wounds and fight off attacks against his mind. However, tapping into this reserve takes extreme concentration. He's so focus he concentrates less on defense. He wants to kill, so his opponent can hit him easier as a result. Fortunately he has that extra strength to withstand those attacks. When he can no longer keep this level of concentration or chooses to end it, the energy drains out of him, leaving him fatigued. His muscles need to relax before he can do it again. That usually takes a good night's rest, to be fresh and able to do it again the next day. There is some training he could take to be able to do it two more times per day. He'll consider it. After all, by learning how to tap into his energy reserves, he finds himself able to travel a bit farther distance in a short time than normal without even trying. Must be a residual effect.

Fighter multiclassed one level in Barbarian, able to rage once per day gaining +4 Str (literal strength), +4 Con (withstand attacks), +2 Will saves (defend against mental attacks), can't use abilities requiring concentration because he's focused, -2 AC because he can't keep his defenses up as well. As another class ability his speed increases 10ft, residual effect of his training. He ponders whether to take the feat Extra Rage.

How dare a player multi-class, eh?

[Larpus]

I guess I'm the middle too, my view is that most or all the classes have some immutable fluff about them, while at the same time having adaptable fluff.

For examples, Fighters are learned warriors and can range from actual knight-like guys to kids who learned from their retired knight grandfather; Barbarians on the other hand are instinctive warriors, drawing their power from a sort of 'beast within' thing and can range from the usual tribal warrior to a knight who spites in all the lessons and whatnot and prefers to fight with his guts (would guts be an exotic weapon?).

However, if there is one class that I like to add a bit of immutable fluff to is the Paladin, I can't really see him as anything but a servant to the gods, similar to the Cleric.

Either way, this is one of the reasons that I've got a liking to Pathfinder, the class Archetypes options are great to make the mutable fluff aspect, while maintaining the immutable core of each class intact. Sure it's not perfect, but it's more flavorful.

[Tvtyrant]

Since I tend to refluff classes to match my settings... I am probably in B even though part of me yearns for A.

[SuperFerret]

I'm in the middle. Some fluff is more flexible than others. I also disagree with the "classes don't exist in game", because a good deal of them do, particularly the spellcasters and paladins, though the people of the world know that a fighter is a fighter and a rogue is a rogue.

[satorian]

I fall on the first side, though like many others I don't think fluff should be entirely immutable. If the DM is willing to work with the player to make an Ur-Priest a noble atheist, that's great. If not, that's OK too.

[ffone]

I'd reply by pasting my reply from last week's thread on the same topic, if I were slightly less lazy. It was that "class fluff is mutable, but that doesn't mean all pairs of classes have equally interchangeable fluff."

[kharmakazy]

I just ignore the fluff on everything. I don't even read it.

[Thiyr]

In my opinion any rational explanation for a mechanical effect is a valid usage of that mechanical effect.

Anything and everything can be re-fluffed as long as the mechanics support it. If you are playing a warrior and you want to say that it's magic that makes you a good fighter then what happens in an anti-magic field? If nothing, the mechanics don't support your fluff.

Fluff can be changed, mechanics cannot. If fluff ever contradicts mechanics then mechanics win.

That's my opinion anyway.

While part of me agrees with you, practically it ends up coming down as disagreement, for one reason. There is nothing that cannot be fluffed away. Heck, I kinda actually used something similar to your example and made it work anyway. Was playing a game set in the Ravnica setting from MtG. My character was a multiple-agent pretending to be an Izzet guildmage, focusing on "battlemagic", predominantly cold oriented, with bits of fire and earth magic in there, but all used as a means of improving martial capacity. In reality, an unarmed swordsage going towards a modified warmind. Why did it work in an AMF? Because he was -making it up as he went along-, and everyone knew it. Dude seriously acted kinda like Cave Johnson half the time (and did, in fact, quote him at least once. We're throwing magic at the wall and seeing what sticks).

Heck, I can probably figure out a good way to refluff the majority of mechanical conflicts like that in order to make them work. Fighter who's skill comes from magic but it doesn't leave in an AMF? The magic serves as something like a spark to a flame. It's needed to get him going, but not to sustain itself. After rest time, its needed, but so little is required to get him going that he can draw it even through an AMF. Highly specialized, highly skilled, and such small traces of it are required that it's near impossible to stop. Can't think of any other similar examples, but I'm kinda bored, so give me a challenge here.

(Also, I fall squarely in the "Fluff can be changed to suit just about anything" camp. That goes extra-doubly so for alignment restrictions. I just find those tremendously annoying more than anything. I want my chaotic monks and lawful good warlocks and true neutral paladins.)

[LordBlades]

I'm firmly in the second camp.

I see no reason why somebody would have to stick with the default fluff for an ability, as long as he can provide a good refluff for it that makes sense with the mechanics (for example if you want to play something that gains benefits from being part of a group, like Mage of the Arcane Order, you can refluff the said group however you want, but you can't drop it altogether) and it fits in the world (for example no refluffing a barbarian to get his abilities from dragons in a world where dragons don't exist).

I also believe that refluffing/homebrewing(whatever works for your campagn, some people seem more willing to homebrew something entirely new rather than refluff existing mechanics) enable a whole lot of interesting concepts that would be impossible (or very bad) otherwise.

[Divide by Zero]

I'm in the middle. Some fluff is more flexible than others. I also disagree with the "classes don't exist in game", because a good deal of them do, particularly the spellcasters and paladins, though the people of the world know that a fighter is a fighter and a rogue is a rogue.

While the spellcasting mechanics (prepared vs. spontaneous, arcane vs. divine, etc.) certainly do exist in-game, the classes still do not. Is that a wu jen, or a wizard with similar spells? Is it a warmage, or a blaster sorcerer? Cleric, or favored soul/sacred exorcist?

As for the paladin, it frequently comes up that clerics make better paladins than paladins do, and there's dozens of other classes that can do "holy warrior" perfectly well.

[Frozen_Feet]

Fluff is by definition unnecessary to play a given class or race or whatever; that's precisely why it's called fluff and not crunch.

Wrong. Fluff is unnecessary to give one extra feat and skill point to a mechanical chassis. It's indispensable for playing the role of a human.

What you're saying is, particular fluff is unnecessary to use a given mechanic. You maybe right, but it doesn't mean it's practical. If I've labeled something as a "human" or "elf" in a roleplaying game, it's because, I dunno, I maybe want you to play the role of a human or an elf. Handwaving everything it means to be a human or an elf in search of mechanical benefit will be met with a book to the face. :smalltongue:


Name one, one, person in all of history who carried a sword and was called a fighter or warblade. Or a single unarmed warrior not related at all to Asia that was called a monk or swordsage. Hell, find one person who was called a cleric and not a priest, Templar, Hospitaler, or something else.

Why would I have to? D&D does not model history, it models a fantasy world. And in the context of fantasy, referring to people as "fighters" or "wizards" based on their ability sets is perfectly logical. If certain abilities flow from certain practices or cultures of a setting, associating said abilities with said practices or cultures is logical and part of the setting.


The SRD has nearly all fluff expunged. The game is still playable. Ergo, fluff is dispensable, so modifying it is acceptable.
Nearly all. What is left is indispensable; without it, you'd just have a bunch of mathematical equations that could mean anything. The "game" part might be playable, but roleplaying wouldn't be, as you'd do away with everything that defines roles.

Modifying fluff is acceptable, but only so because modifying rules, in general, is acceptable. Fluff isn't a special case to its own.

[Heatwizard]

The "game" part might be playable, but roleplaying wouldn't be, as you'd do away with everything that defines roles.

Wait, wait. Why not? People have been making up characters and acting like them since the dawn of time, and that was well before Gygax, let alone Wizards of the Coast, wrote any books.

[LordBlades]

Modifying fluff is acceptable, but only so because modifying rules, in general, is acceptable. Fluff isn't a special case to its own.

Except modifying fluff is easier because you can't really break the game by changing fluff, like you can with mechanics. The implications of fluff are usually immediate and obvious, unlike crunch, that has deep and far reaching implications in some cases.

[Ravens_cry]

As a personal preference, I like to retain fluff more with prestige classes, especially the ones based around membership or affiliation with in-world groups and organization, than with base classes. Of course, as often as not I am playing in a world that doesn't have those organizations and so the fluff must be changed, but if it does exist, I like having a connection to something in-world or a good explanation why the character does not, like "taught the techniques by ex-member" or a similar trope. Base classes can be a lot of fun to twist. Barbarian is often fluffed as a man out of the wild, but what if instead they are a broken civilized man with a rage fuelled by the loss of loved ones?
A small twist, but one that changes the barbarian from a fur loin-clothed warrior to a peasant who finds strength in his grief.

Paladins are often shown as high class types, even snooty, part of ancient orders of holy knights. Heck, in earlier editions, this was emphasized to the point of practically being in the rules.
But what if instead, a peasant received the power directly in a time of need, or a mercenary? Instead of someone trained from childhood, you have someone of rougher ways, but with a burning conviction that are doing what is right.
The Deed of Paksenarrion explores such themes.

Personally, I do not like totally reducing classes to numbers, because some crunch to me is rather incompatible with some fluff.
Let us say you decide to fluff a Wizard as a frontline warrior. How do you explain the limited times you can do whatever you do, why you seem to be able to evade injury/absorb damage/ <insert rationalization of hit points here/>, why you by default can't hit the broad side of a barn if given the collection of statistics we call "weapons" another dedicated warrior uses, why the collection of stats we call "armour" makes you less likely to be able to do whatever you fluff your spells as, why you are almost certainly powerless without the collection of stats we usually call a "spellbook"?
Fluff can be changed, it often should be changed at least a little to fit a concept, but neither is it unimportant in my mind.

[Feytalist]

Refluff, sure, as long as there is some sort of fluff and not just raw mechanics. As has been mentioned, some classes refluff easier than others.

I have a slight problem however when prestige classes specially designed for a certain setting get refluffed. Red Wizard is and always will be Red Wizard, and not Random Circle Wizard.

My other gripe is that they renamed the named spells. It enriched the whole process so much. Black tentacles, really? Somewhere, the guy who created Evard is crying himself to sleep.

[Ravens_cry]

It was probably trademark and copyrght issues. Trademarks get diluted if they are used by none-trademark holders, I believe, and there probably is copyright issues with using those specific characters.

[lesser_minion]

Except modifying fluff is easier because you can't really break the game by changing fluff, like you can with mechanics. The implications of fluff are usually immediate and obvious, unlike crunch, that has deep and far reaching implications in some cases.

Bad fluff might not 'break' the game, but you are losing something by not having good fluff, and the damage is harder to repair once it's done.

Bad mechanics are less likely to cause an issue, for the same reason that we still get people claiming that fighters are better than wizards, and the damage is much less persistent.

Deliberate malice aside (because if it's in play, a bad houserule is the least of your problems), you can break a session or an encounter, but completely wrecking the game is much less likely.

There exists fluff that doesn't mean anything and doesn't matter. That doesn't mean that all or even most fluff is just pointless words on a page.

[LordBlades]

Bad fluff might not 'break' the game, but you are losing something by not having good fluff, and the damage is harder to repair once it's done.

Bad mechanics are less likely to cause an issue (for the same reason that we still get people claiming that fighters are better than wizards) and the damage is much less persistent. Deliberate malice aside (because if it's in play, a bad houserule is the least of your problems), you can break a session or an encounter, but completely wrecking the game is much less likely.

Given the amount of people on these boards that have suffered at the hand of custom fumble tables (to give just an example) I'd say certain mechanic changes can cause the same amount of permanent damage.

Also, I said refluffing is easier than redoing mechanics because all you need to make a good refluff is some imagination.

To make a good crunch change you not only need imagination, but also system knowledge.

Also, bad fluff is easier to recognize than bad mechanics.

[Typewriter]

Snip

The thing for me is that a 'magic' powered melee warrior is the most powerful magic user in the universe. Magic sparks whenever you attack, and it doesn't go away in an anti-magic field? Why aren't you being hunted down by every wizard whose ever existed? The fluff for such a character is defying the mechanics of magic.

I would allow a fighter to say:

1. Magic was used to augment him.
2. He was infused with pure 'mana' (or some equivalent)

But if your fluff is "My character is a mage, it's just that his particular magic makes him better in combat, and sparks fly when he swings his sword" you're not talking about backstory - you're making yourself a mage who doesn't have to follow the same rules as any other mage.

[lesser_minion]

Given the amount of people on these boards that have suffered at the hand of custom fumble tables (to give just an example) I'd say certain mechanic changes can cause the same amount of permanent damage.

If a custom fumble table causes problems, it can -- and will -- be excised. Whatever mess it leaves behind will heal completely given time.

So no, that's not an example of "mechanical changes causing permanent damage". It's an example of "mechanical changes ruining one encounter or session before being silently reverted".


Also, I said refluffing is easier than redoing mechanics because all you need to make a good refluff is some imagination.

Patently false.

No writing can be good based on an idea alone -- it's the execution that makes something good.

The skills needed to execute a good fluff change include, among other things, writing skills and roleplaying skills. The list of things you need to consider isn't that short either -- among other things, you need to ask yourself:


Why am I making this change?
How should it affect my portrayal of the character? What's significant, what's less important?
Do I have the skills to portray this?
Does this change make my character seem more powerful than he really is?
Does this change fit the general theme of the campaign I'm using this character for?
Does this change break with an established precedent in some way?
Are my needs better served by a different character class?
Are my needs better served by multiclassing or pick-and-mix homebrew?
Are my needs better served by full-fledged homebrew?




To make a good crunch change you not only need imagination, but also system knowledge.

Yes, you need an idea and the ability to execute it. The only difference is the skills you use to execute the idea.


Also, bad fluff is easier to recognize than bad mechanics.

The thing that makes any change good or bad is the execution. The 'execution' of a rules change happens predominantly out-of-game by necessity -- the rules are not the reality of the game world, only a simplification of it.

With fluff changes, much of the execution is in the roleplaying of the resulting character. So in reality, even if it's easier to 'spot' bad fluff, it's already in play once you do.

If you're self-imposing limits on what changes you'll make to ensure that you can portray the resulting character well, you aren't treating the fluff as something "inherently mutable".

[SuperFerret]

While the spellcasting mechanics (prepared vs. spontaneous, arcane vs. divine, etc.) certainly do exist in-game, the classes still do not. Is that a wu jen, or a wizard with similar spells? Is it a warmage, or a blaster sorcerer? Cleric, or favored soul/sacred exorcist?

As for the paladin, it frequently comes up that clerics make better paladins than paladins do, and there's dozens of other classes that can do "holy warrior" perfectly well.

That's assuming two things, that I allow wu jens, warmages and the like in my games, and that my game is like yours and classes don't exist in game, which they totally do in my game.

[Terazul]

But if your fluff is "My character is a mage, it's just that his particular magic makes him better in combat, and sparks fly when he swings his sword" you're not talking about backstory - you're making yourself a mage who doesn't have to follow the same rules as any other mage.

Yeah, and my Psion is a "Wizard" who doesn't have to wiggle his fingers to summon giant robots, my Warlock is a "Sorceror" who can just fly around invisible shooting lasers all day for some reason, and my <insert incarnum thing here> is some crazy whosawhatsit that most other people the character meets won't even be able to explain. With as many crazy Prestige Classes, Regular Classes, Spells, Feats, Vestiges, Chakra Binds, Class Features, Powers, Invocations, Mysteries, and god knows how many other sources of power there are in 3.5, I don't see how you can tell one thing from another half the time unless someone is literally following this guy around 24/7 to see what and what doesn't work inside an AMF, at which point; Who cares?

Welcome to most PCs: not following the same rules as every other person. That's why they're PCs. If I say "my sword sparks when I swing it" and suddenly every Wizard in the world wants to hunt me down because I can make that happen while they can still tear the fabric of space and time asunder, I have to wonder why they seriously have nothing better to do.

[Typewriter]

Yeah, and my Psion is a "Wizard" who doesn't have to wiggle his fingers to summon giant robots, my Warlock is a "Sorceror" who can just fly around invisible shooting lasers all day for some reason, and my <insert incarnum thing here> is some crazy whosawhatsit that most other people the character meets won't even be able to explain. With as many crazy Prestige Classes, Regular Classes, Spells, Feats, Vestiges, Chakra Binds, Class Features, Powers, Invocations, Mysteries, and god knows how many other sources of power there are in 3.5, I don't see how you can tell one thing from another half the time unless someone is literally following this guy around 24/7 to see what and what doesn't work inside an AMF, at which point; Who cares?

Considering that in-world consistency is very important to me (and yes my players as well) then *raises hand*.



Welcome to most PCs: not following the same rules as every other person. That's why they're PCs. If I say "my sword sparks when I swing it" and suddenly every Wizard in the world wants to hunt me down because I can make that happen while they can still tear the fabric of space and time asunder, I have to wonder why they seriously have nothing better to do.

Well, the biggest answer is because you somehow defy the only thing that takes away their power. That would be a pretty big deal to me.

As for "They're PCs", I don't know how you play, but 'being a PC' doesn't mean "I do whatever I want whenever I want" in my group. If they find a mechanical way to do something then they can do it, if there's no mechanics for it - it doesn't happen.

[Terazul]

Considering that in-world consistency is very important to me (and yes my players as well) then *raises hand*.
That's the point; there's so many different things with so few ways to differentiate between them, there really isn't any consistency. The only reason you can tell the difference between a Sorceror and a Wizard by looking is that the Wizard carries around a spellbook. Sometimes. Barring self-spellbook, ancient incense spellbooks, and tattoo spellbooks. Like even right there, there's no consistency within one class.



Well, the biggest answer is because you somehow defy the only thing that takes away their power. That would be a pretty big deal to me.

How do they even know who I am? Hell, if they come and bug me about it, I'll gladly show them how I do it. Now they can learn to do it! Hooray! Problem solved.



As for "They're PCs", I don't know how you play, but 'being a PC' doesn't mean "I do whatever I want whenever I want" in my group. If they find a mechanical way to do something then they can do it, if there's no mechanics for it - it doesn't happen.

Nobody's saying do whatever you want, but it's not even providing a mechanical benefit! It seems like you're being nitpicky for the sake of being nitpicky, when someone's just come up with a clever way to make their character stand out or fit their vision more accurately. Especially when the immediate response is "Every Wizard now knows of your exploits and seeks your blood". Honestly, now. Better start hiding the Binders they don't have to worry about spell slots!

[kharmakazy]

If they find a mechanical way to do something then they can do it, if there's no mechanics for it - it doesn't happen.

I find that kind of sad. The real reason the DM is there is to overcome the limitations of mechanics using to most powerful processor of all, the human imagination (also crystal meth).

Seriously if all you can do is use the mechanics and can't go beyond them when called your players may as well play on the PC instead.

[Kojiro]

Name one, one, person in all of history who carried a sword and was called a fighter or warblade. Or a single unarmed warrior not related at all to Asia that was called a monk or swordsage. Hell, find one person who was called a cleric and not a priest, Templar, Hospitaler, or something else.

Fighter = Person who fights. Lot of people with swords fight, that being one of the main uses of swords. Warblade is a made up term meanwhile, but could be an in-universe order.

Monks are members of monastic orders, although since you've ruled out Asia (while talking about an Asian-themed class), which is where martial arts and religion/philosophy meet most of the time, but I am sure there's been at least one boxing priest out there. Swordsage, same as warblade, except for some reason you're demanding that a class with many possible skills, and the word "sword" in its name, be applied to an unarmed fighter. Whatever.

Cleric? Cleric's the easiest. Any member of the clergy is a cleric. That is what a cleric is. Point to any clergyman ever and you have a cleric, and in centuries past quite a few of those were involved in wars and such, although usually on the planning side than the "hitting people with a mace" side.

So, in short, despite your attempting to phrase your demands in a way that precludes any answers, all of those things can and have existed, and in the case of the latter two "real" names, plus the two DnD made up names, could in fact be in-game-universe terms; "fighter" is a general term meanwhile, but instead of arguing that you tried to say that no one could ever be called a fighter, for some reason, so I answered the point you did make rather than the one you should have made.

Anyway, again, "refluffing" things is possible, and depending on your setting possibly mandatory, but, as people have said, easier in some places than others, and much easier to do wrong than it is right. However, looking at things again, some classes (fighter, rogue, wizard, and so on) actually have little to no fluff, and describe more general skillsets or ways of fighting. These classes, unsurprisingly, are the ones who have more variable and less "fluffy" abilities. A fighter is a general martial expert, a rogue is a guy with a wide range of skills tending towards the larcenous, and a wizard is a learned mage. Compare to monks or paladins, meanwhile, whose abilities are generally more specific and set, and who have more strictly-defined non-ability characteristics. In the former case, you don't need to "refluff" anything, since those are all mostly things that can exist regardless of fluff, with the exception of the wizard who may vary depending on your setting's magic and whatever. Latter, those are more tied to the fluff in their writing.

Which brings me to a point I think is important: While you can change the fluff of those classes, you should pay attention to how you do so. If you change paladins from some holy order to just a strongly dedicated group of knights, you'll have to take a look at their abilities and make sure those actually fit with the idea. If a monk is just some guy practicing hand to hand combat rather than a member of some monastic order with various secret techniques and whatnot, then how are they mastering things like "ki" flow or eventually bringing their body to some state of perfection? When the crunch is written around the fluff, you should probably be careful with what you change, if you don't want to end up with something ridiculous.

[sonofzeal]

Considering that in-world consistency is very important to me (and yes my players as well) then *raises hand*.
But there's a huge variation out there already.

Wizard 1 is an Elven Enchanter, always talking unless you happen to catch him at study, which isn't often. With Still Spell, Silent Spell, and Eschew Materials, you often won't even know he's casting a spell on you until it's too late.

Wizard 2 is a Human Evoker, with a costume aesthetic tending on the infernal with spikes and studs and leather and red. With a number of Reserve Feats, he tosses around blasts all over the place, mostly Fire with Searing Spell.

Wizard 3 is a Dwarven Transmuter, wearing heavy armor onto the battlefield despite the effect it has on his spellcasting. He crafts as many magical items as he has time for, and has the right Wand for just about every situation. In emergency he has a couple Stilled spells prepared so he can cast them in the armor, but mostly relies on long-duration buffs for himself and his allies, and on his wands.


Wizard 1 could easily be a Sorcerer, Wizard 2 could be a Warlock, and Wizard 3 could be an Artificer. Conversely, a Sorcerer could claim to be Wiz1, a Warlock could claim to be Wiz2, and an Artificer could claim to be Wiz3. And hey, guess what, none of those has made the world any more inconsistent in any way.

Point is, characters can claim whatever they want. A Rogue can claim to be a Wizard, using UMD and an impressive array of wands, along with a healthy Bluff score, to fake his way through. Anyone looking at his character sheet would know otherwise, but other characters can't look at his sheet, because his sheet is a purely out-of-game artifact. Objecting on the basis that he's actually a rogue is pure metagaming, nothing else.

Or let's draw a real-world parallel. I'm not a Statistician. I've done a couple statistics courses and understand the basics, but I struggle to remember the process for simple things like confidence intervals. However, I'm a quite good programmer, and in particular I've put a lot of training into designing simulations that do the statistical work for me. The end result is more or less the same, in the same way that "Fireball" and "Energy Missile:Fire" both have the end result of several charred enemies. The process is different, the mechanic is different, but it's close enough in result that I could convincingly pass myself off as a Statistician. I just do things differently.

[Thiyr]

The thing for me is that a 'magic' powered melee warrior is the most powerful magic user in the universe. Magic sparks whenever you attack, and it doesn't go away in an anti-magic field? Why aren't you being hunted down by every wizard whose ever existed? The fluff for such a character is defying the mechanics of magic.

I would allow a fighter to say:

1. Magic was used to augment him.
2. He was infused with pure 'mana' (or some equivalent)

But if your fluff is "My character is a mage, it's just that his particular magic makes him better in combat, and sparks fly when he swings his sword" you're not talking about backstory - you're making yourself a mage who doesn't have to follow the same rules as any other mage.

I'm...having a hard time differentiating between the presented fluff you gave and #1. If he's using magic to make himself better in combat, i'd say that's using magic to augment your abilities. And as far as mages who don't have to follow the rules, there's plenty of precedent in that as well. See: Dweomerkeeper, Assay Spell Resistance, Invoke Magic. As for why mages aren't hunting you down for being able to get around how magic works (working with you for this example)? I'm seeing it as like two different kinds of gun/bullet. Obviously they have common components, hence why they're identified similarly. But some work differently. Some are more powerful than others. Some more easily accessed. Some can be used in places others cannot (If I remember right, a handgun bullet would be able to be fired in a vacuum, as there is enough air trapped inside, while a shotgun shell wouldn't.) So this "sword magic" is simply a different, strange kind of gun/bullet hybrid that works in an odd way. Perhaps people are interested in it, but that's hardly a reason to deny the fluff's viability.

So long as the proposed fluff and what's on the sheet aren't -directly- contradictary in such a way that fluff is giving you unpaid for benefits (saying you never actually touch your sword, you just control it with your mind, even though you're a straight fighter, saying you hover an inch off the ground instead of walking without having some kind of means of doing so paid for) I'm cool with it normally. Hence why I have no issue with your example. The proposed character isn't trying to sneak a hidden mechanical benefit in.

That said, your comment on consistency does lead to me wondering if each of the separate systems of magic or magical aptitude are kept distinctly different in feel in-play. Is divine magic never confused with arcane never confused with invocations/incarnum/binding/whatever, such that when someone says "Sorcerer", it's clearly defined that this is someone who casts a large quantity of a limited variety of spells spontaneously, or could a wizard who wanted to call himself a sorcerer get away with it?

[JKTrickster]

Honestly while I can see how you can enjoy the fluff in the books you shouldn't be afraid of changing it, especially if you're the DM.

I mean its not like the WoTC are especially proficient in these things. I'm sure most people can make their own fluff that can be just as great. So why not do something special for your players? Change the fluff for the barbarian or the fighter or whatever, if that makes them a little happier.

I mean, its not like that takes away from your experience right? Both as a DM and a player, a little trust and flexibility can go a long way.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I agree, I just wanted to say the pre-printed fluff is a good base to start with.

Certainly it is. I know I played a Spellguard of Silverymoon that was actually all about protecting that very city, but I have also played characters that while they could have been something like a Runescared Beserker, I instead used I think just a standard wizard who tattooed himself with his spells to help crank up his whole "does not belong at this mage guild" vibe he had going.

Just because I will use WotC's fluff, doesn't mean I hold it to some higher standard. It is there: if I like it, I use it. If not, screw it.

[Frozen_Feet]

Wait, wait. Why not? People have been making up characters and acting like them since the dawn of time, and that was well before Gygax, let alone Wizards of the Coast, wrote any books.

Sure. But that fluff can be changed doesn't mean it's irrelevant, or useless. Premade fluff is not inherently less valuable than what you as a player make up, and can be better.

Do note, I was specifically refuting the idea of game with no fluff, not just a game with different fluff. To have a roleplaying game, you need fluff. Crunch largely exists just to mirror or simulate various fluff realities. Crunch is not the point of the game, fluff is.

If you utterly remove fluff from any system, you don't have a roleplaying game. You might not have a game at all. You have a bunch of equations that may or may not represent in-game reality. There's no room for roleplaying there. And while you may label the equations any which way, it doesn't necessarily follow the equation makes any sense for what it's supposed to represent.

Let's take a look at the SRD. Someone here said class names aren't part of their fluff. I disagree. They're some of the most important parts. The label "Wizard" in that classes entry immediatly invokes several images and archetypes, based on the common language use of the word. It gives a sense of what to expect from the class, what roles it can be used for, and so on, even if you then choose to disregard all that.

If, intead of "Wizard", the entry read "Class W", it would not tell anything. Calling "spells" "ability set S" instead wouldn't give a barest hint of what role the class is supposed to play, rendering immersion impossible. It might not be apparent to you, since you're a skilled player and experienced with making your own fluff, but coming up with a sensical meaning for a bunch of disparate mechanics is hard.


Except modifying fluff is easier because you can't really break the game by changing fluff, like you can with mechanics. The implications of fluff are usually immediate and obvious, unlike crunch, that has deep and far reaching implications in some cases.

It should be obvious by this point that I disagree on pretty much all accounts. Lesser_Minion already went in-depth about it, and I would've said many of the same things.

Making good fluff that's consistent with mechanics is just as hard as making good mechanics that are consistent with fluff. They're sides of the same coin. Ultimately, you can consider them both part of making good rules. The division of fluff and crunch is pretty arbitrary on the level of game design. This becomes more apparent if you venture outside D&D - some systems are so defined by their fluff that trying to use their mechanics for anything else would be, well, missing the point of using that system in the first place.

[Kojiro]

Actually, expanding on what I said earlier, do most classes even need the fluff to be changed? A majority of the classes allow for a very, very wide range of character stories and such. With a few exceptions, it doesn't even seem necessary; you could have a rogue or a fighter from a variety of sources. Barbarian, monk, paladin... Wizards need to have learned stuff somehow, and I suppose nobility is a prerequisite of the Aristocrat class, if for some reason you feel like using one. Really, though, apart from a few base classes (and the PrCs, but those are different), you shouldn't need to change much.

[Boci]

Sure. But that fluff can be changed doesn't mean it's irrelevant, or useless. Premade fluff is not inherently less valuable than what you as a player make up, and can be better.

I'd say it is inherantly better for their own character concept, because they made it up for themselves, where as the official fluff was made for everybody.

[Typewriter]

That's the point; there's so many different things with so few ways to differentiate between them, there really isn't any consistency. The only reason you can tell the difference between a Sorceror and a Wizard by looking is that the Wizard carries around a spellbook. Sometimes. Barring self-spellbook, ancient incense spellbooks, and tattoo spellbooks. Like even right there, there's no consistency within one class.

How do they even know who I am? Hell, if they come and bug me about it, I'll gladly show them how I do it. Now they can learn to do it! Hooray! Problem solved.

Nobody's saying do whatever you want, but it's not even providing a mechanical benefit! It seems like you're being nitpicky for the sake of being nitpicky, when someone's just come up with a clever way to make their character stand out or fit their vision more accurately. Especially when the immediate response is "Every Wizard now knows of your exploits and seeks your blood". Honestly, now. Better start hiding the Binders they don't have to worry about spell slots!

I'm not talking about just being able to differentiate between classes by appearance, I'm talking about having observable effects with no mechanics to support it. Psionics has mechanics that support them and differentiate them from everything else. So does incarnum and everything else.

Saying, "I make sparks for no reason, and am subject to no rules regarding them" may be a purely cosmetic change, but there are no mechanics to support them. Since it's an observable act that no mechanis support I wouldn't allow it.

As for hiding XYZ it's not necessary because there are mechanics that a few knowledge checks can solve the problem of. A fighter who has magic sparkles following him around ignoring every known law of physics (or in game terms; no knowledge check can explain) is bizarre.


I find that kind of sad. The real reason the DM is there is to overcome the limitations of mechanics using to most powerful processor of all, the human imagination (also crystal meth).

Seriously if all you can do is use the mechanics and can't go beyond them when called your players may as well play on the PC instead.

You have a different playstyle than my group. If it's not what you like, that's fine, but my group enjoys building characters within the confines of a ruleset to making stuff up.

If you want to play a smart character but you don't invest point in intelligence then you don't want to roleplay an intelligent character. If you had you would have put points into INT. If you want sparkles to follow your sword figure out a way to do it in the mechanics the game presents, and if you can't - then you can't.

If my player came to me and said, "Hey, I want sparkles" I'll work with him and allow him to do it, but it's going to follow certain mechanics. Yes, it's only visual but it can be dispelled and it doesn't work within the confines of an anti-magic field.

That however is homebrew, not just fluff - because you are changing things to work within mechanics when there were previously no rules for them.


But there's a huge variation out there already.

Wizard 1 is an Elven Enchanter, always talking unless you happen to catch him at study, which isn't often. With Still Spell, Silent Spell, and Eschew Materials, you often won't even know he's casting a spell on you until it's too late.

Wizard 2 is a Human Evoker, with a costume aesthetic tending on the infernal with spikes and studs and leather and red. With a number of Reserve Feats, he tosses around blasts all over the place, mostly Fire with Searing Spell.

Wizard 3 is a Dwarven Transmuter, wearing heavy armor onto the battlefield despite the effect it has on his spellcasting. He crafts as many magical items as he has time for, and has the right Wand for just about every situation. In emergency he has a couple Stilled spells prepared so he can cast them in the armor, but mostly relies on long-duration buffs for himself and his allies, and on his wands.

Wizard 1 could easily be a Sorcerer, Wizard 2 could be a Warlock, and Wizard 3 could be an Artificer. Conversely, a Sorcerer could claim to be Wiz1, a Warlock could claim to be Wiz2, and an Artificer could claim to be Wiz3. And hey, guess what, none of those has made the world any more inconsistent in any way.

And there are mechanics to support all of those. There is nothing that just doesn't make sense within the context of the rules or the mechanics.



Point is, characters can claim whatever they want. A Rogue can claim to be a Wizard, using UMD and an impressive array of wands, along with a healthy Bluff score, to fake his way through. Anyone looking at his character sheet would know otherwise, but other characters can't look at his sheet, because his sheet is a purely out-of-game artifact. Objecting on the basis that he's actually a rogue is pure metagaming, nothing else.

This I'm completely fine with - any character can think whatever they want. They can even believe it if they want to. In a previous thread someone pointed out a barbarian who thought he was a wizard and it was one of the greatest things ever. The important thing though is that he wasn't actually magical.

Your rogue example can call himself a wizard, he can tell others he's a wizard, but he's using mechanics to achieve that. The 'observable effect' has mechanics behind it that people could discern in game. Saying "I have sparkles because I do" has no mechanics.



Or let's draw a real-world parallel. I'm not a Statistician. I've done a couple statistics courses and understand the basics, but I struggle to remember the process for simple things like confidence intervals. However, I'm a quite good programmer, and in particular I've put a lot of training into designing simulations that do the statistical work for me. The end result is more or less the same, in the same way that "Fireball" and "Energy Missile:Fire" both have the end result of several charred enemies. The process is different, the mechanic is different, but it's close enough in result that I could convincingly pass myself off as a Statistician. I just do things differently.

But the example we're giving would have you working as a statistician, but at the end instead of having a spreadsheet you have a program that says "Hello World".

A fighter who fights can think he's magic, he can call himself a mage, but he cannot just 'be magic' because he's not. The outcome of fighter being magic makes no sense to me.


I'm...having a hard time differentiating between the presented fluff you gave and #1. If he's using magic to make himself better in combat, i'd say that's using magic to augment your abilities. And as far as mages who don't have to follow the rules, there's plenty of precedent in that as well. See: Dweomerkeeper, Assay Spell Resistance, Invoke Magic. As for why mages aren't hunting you down for being able to get around how magic works (working with you for this example)? I'm seeing it as like two different kinds of gun/bullet. Obviously they have common components, hence why they're identified similarly. But some work differently. Some are more powerful than others. Some more easily accessed. Some can be used in places others cannot (If I remember right, a handgun bullet would be able to be fired in a vacuum, as there is enough air trapped inside, while a shotgun shell wouldn't.) So this "sword magic" is simply a different, strange kind of gun/bullet hybrid that works in an odd way. Perhaps people are interested in it, but that's hardly a reason to deny the fluff's viability.

The big difference between 1 and 3 (3 being the example) would be:

1. How did you get so strong? -> Mages grew my muscles in a jar.
3. Why are you currently so strong? -> Magic is pulsing through my blood.



So long as the proposed fluff and what's on the sheet aren't -directly- contradictary in such a way that fluff is giving you unpaid for benefits (saying you never actually touch your sword, you just control it with your mind, even though you're a straight fighter, saying you hover an inch off the ground instead of walking without having some kind of means of doing so paid for) I'm cool with it normally. Hence why I have no issue with your example. The proposed character isn't trying to sneak a hidden mechanical benefit in.

That said, your comment on consistency does lead to me wondering if each of the separate systems of magic or magical aptitude are kept distinctly different in feel in-play. Is divine magic never confused with arcane never confused with invocations/incarnum/binding/whatever, such that when someone says "Sorcerer", it's clearly defined that this is someone who casts a large quantity of a limited variety of spells spontaneously, or could a wizard who wanted to call himself a sorcerer get away with it?

Depends on the person observing. To your average person magic is magic. Incarnum would probably be interpreted a little differently, but that's mostly because of all the glowing blue souls everywhere. It also depends on the campaign world.

When my players and I crafted our current world a very strong line between 'arcane' and 'divine' was made - to the point where they live on separate continents and the diviners are constantly hunting down arcane magic users in their territories to kick them out. The arcane users are a bit more open minded.

As for the distinction between wizard/sorceror most of the time (not always) I refer to all arcane users as 'mages'. Sorceror is generally a derogatory term used by the prepared mages (wizards and the like) towars spontaneous casters somewhat out of jealousy, and somewhat out of arrogance. Sorcerors didn't have to learn their magic, so it's uncontrolled. They didn't earn it. They aren't worthy. I tend to make wizards arrogant jerks, and sorcerors good guys.

EDIT:
A better example might be this:
Rogues have SA that is precision damage. They are targeting weak spots. In 3.5 precision damage doesn't work against all creatures equally.

If you were to 'refluff' SA to be "Powerful attack" and say that you just hit harder sometimes that works... up to a point. Suddenly you're attacking golems and undead and you simply can't hit him. It's not precision damage, so you should be able to, but for some reason you can't. Suddenly fluff doesn't quite align with mechanics.

Now, what you could do is play a rogue and in character you just think "Sometimes I hit really hard. Why doesn't it always work? How weird" - but that is your characters interpretation of the ability, not an actual refluff of the ability.

[Frozen_Feet]

Actually, expanding on what I said earlier, do most classes even need the fluff to be changed?

That's a valid question. The answer depends slightly. Most of the time people want to refluff something, it's because the system does not support a perceived "cool" option. (Another big reason would be unwilligness to learn new rules, so remodeling old ones to cover more ground might be easier.)

Ie., a player has come up with a fringe character concept where there's no obvious way to make it viable. The next question then becomes, does the perceived "coolness" of the idea justify changing the rules for it?

Personally, I find the case to be "no" more often than not. There is zero logical reason for every option to be available, for every combination to be viable. All choices don't need to be good, or even need to exist. So once I've laid down rules for a game, what falls outside them doesn't get a pass simply because it'd be "awesome".


I'd say it is inherantly better for their own character concept, because they made it up for themselves, where as the official fluff was made for everybody.

The claim may be true, but it might not carry all that much weight. Ergo, self-made fluff is better, but in very minor way. I'd say there are two hidden premises here: one, that the player is skilled in coming up with good character concepts, and two, that the player's own character concepts will fit a game better than a class using premade fluff.

There's also the fact that a lot of people don't create a character concept first, mechanics second. It's also possible to use mechanics as foundation of a concept. The latter method meets increasing headwind the less connection there is with fluff and crunch. It's likely why many people feel GURPS and other general systems are "complicated", even if they're not harder to run once you get past character creation - it's just the lack of framework for characters making it hard to picture what kind of a character to even play.

[lesser_minion]

Let's take a look at the SRD. Someone here said class names aren't part of their fluff. I disagree. They're some of the most important parts. The label "Wizard" in that classes entry immediatly invokes several images and archetypes, based on the common language use of the word. It gives a sense of what to expect from the class, what roles it can be used for, and so on, even if you then choose to disregard all that.

Yes, that was me. The point wasn't that you can replace the word 'wizard' with "class W" and still have the same effect, however (which isn't the case).

The thing is that being derived from the fluff isn't the same thing as being part of the fluff. Class names have to fit the fluff of the class, but the same is true of many things that aren't fluff.

We call the Samurai a Samurai because the Samurai was written for samurai, but the reason we called that class anything at all is because we need a concise and unambiguous word to refer to that class in the metagame.

For the most part, in-universe people will probably use a word more specific than the class name to describe members of a particular class -- Fighters would often be referred to as 'knights' or 'samurai', for example.

[Coidzor]

How is having sparks fly when one hits things with one's sword sparks flying for no reason? :smallconfused: Heck, that's practically a fantasy staple.

[Thiyr]

If you were to 'refluff' SA to be "Powerful attack" and say that you just hit harder sometimes that works... up to a point. Suddenly you're attacking golems and undead and you simply can't hit him. It's not precision damage, so you should be able to, but for some reason you can't. Suddenly fluff doesn't quite align with mechanics.

Now, what you could do is play a rogue and in character you just think "Sometimes I hit really hard. Why doesn't it always work? How weird" - but that is your characters interpretation of the ability, not an actual refluff of the ability.


At that point, I'll use a slightly modified reasoning, cribbed both from sneak attack and power attack. Putting that much power behind a hit means sacrificing accuracy. Your character's means of delivering it has been honed such that when making those powerful hits, he absolutely needs to have an enemy who's in some way distracted in order to get the hit in. constructs, undead, oozes, etc. all have a natural capacity to not leave themselves as open to those hits, letting them either avoid or redirect the damage that would normally ruin a living person's day to non-integral parts of their body. You can connect, but they're guiding the blow a lot better than you can.

And that makes about as much sense as the normal precision damage fluff, to be honest. You're a golem, or an undead. Doesn't mean you don't have weak points which I can hit for massive damage, but because you're not "living", that means I can't exploit them? What?

also, if i'm not mistaken, there's a template for folks that have been around magic for so long that it's become integrated into their very being, strengthening them. it may, i'm gonna have to double check, also not be turned off in an AMF. that and it feels a lot more like a racial thing, be it magic running through your veins or being a (magical) test tube baby

edit: from dragon magazine 350. Arcane Blood, quite literally your blood is turned into one of the 4 big magical elements. Same issue had 3 other templates, all magical mutations of your body, which honestly feels close enough to me. It's that magic has become part of who you are, so ingrained that it cannot be separated from you. And even outside of that, it could very well that the magic in you works similarly to how the magic in golems or undead works in an AMF: It just does.

[kharmakazy]

A sparkly, no mechanical benefit sword is just prestidigitation. Tada!

[Boci]

The claim may be true, but it might not carry all that much weight. Ergo, self-made fluff is better, but in very minor way. I'd say there are two hidden premises here: one, that the player is skilled in coming up with good character concepts,

With the help of other player's and the internet, yes everyone is. How many people use these resources is another question.


and two, that the player's own character concepts will fit a game better than a class using premade fluff.

No, they will probably fit it worse. But they will fit his own character concept better than the premade fluff.

[sonofzeal]

And there are mechanics to support all of those. There is nothing that just doesn't make sense within the context of the rules or the mechanics.
Agreed. One class can claim to be another class, if the mechanics support it. That's a significant Lemma - chacters can believe thing about other characters that contradict the books.


This I'm completely fine with - any character can think whatever they want. They can even believe it if they want to. In a previous thread someone pointed out a barbarian who thought he was a wizard and it was one of the greatest things ever. The important thing though is that he wasn't actually magical.
I'd agree with all but the last sentence. This is also a significant lemma - characters can believe things about themselves that contradict the books.


A fighter who fights can think he's magic, he can call himself a mage, but he cannot just 'be magic' because he's not. The outcome of fighter being magic makes no sense to me.
Let us take a hypothetical fighter. He thinks he's a magic-powered swordmage, he calls himself such, and he acts it out convincingly enough that the people around him mostly believe him too. No rules have been changed, there's no "magic sparkles", and the Fighter is in actual fact entirely mundane and slightly delusional, but good enough at swordfighting, and at the pagentry of magic, that he pulls it off.

From the lemmas above, that's acceptable, right? Characters are allowed to believe "falsehoods". The mechanics fully support his actions. The gameworld is rational and consistent, albeit a little unusual. Many NPCs would never have seen something exactly like our Fighter here, but that's okay, there's enough character classes and variants and options and PrCs and multiclass paths that a cosmopolitan NPC could see something just as unique every day for their adult life without running out.

Or, for a real example from my own gaming group - someone brought in a Drunken Master character who believed, with complete confidence, that he was a God of Storms slumming it among mortals. He had a few unusual magic items from the MIC that enabled it, and played it to the hilt so other characters began to believe it too. He wasn't "actually" a god, as far as it mattered for the game, but he was pretty memorable and it added some fun to the game.

Do we agree that both of those characters are acceptable?

[kharmakazy]

There is absolutely no harm in having the fighter's weapons actually sparkle with actual magic. There are plenty of races that have weird supernatural looking event's that take place around them, enough to say that the fighter was born with a trait that makes weilded weaponry glow ala the last dragon. If that makes the player happy with his roleplaying experience the DM should let him, it harms exactly nothing.

Whether it is "in the mechanics" or "technically homebrew" is entirely besides the point. Changing fluff is homebrew by default, so I'm not sure why that is even brought up.

[Kojiro]

If someone did the "magic fighter" thing in a game that I was running, and were actually able to convince me to use it, then I actually would make that stop functioning in an anti-magic field. If they want their Fighter to be magic, then they can deal with the problems that come with something being magic. They're not going to dismantle how my things work just because they have a character idea and won't compromise. Fluff it to be magic, it works like magic.

[druid91]

Fluff is by definition unnecessary to play a given class or race or whatever; that's precisely why it's called fluff and not crunch.

I always called it Fluff because it comes into play normally when someone isn't going "crunch".:smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

[kharmakazy]

If someone did the "magic fighter" thing in a game that I was running, and were actually able to convince me to use it, then I actually would make that stop functioning in an anti-magic field. If they want their Fighter to be magic, then they can deal with the problems that come with something being magic. They're not going to dismantle how my things work just because they have a character idea and won't compromise. Fluff it to be magic, it works like magic.

There are no problems though, since the fighter gains no benefits from being a "magic fighter". Take away all the benefits he gains from being magic in a AMF, okay... he gains none. It's fluff.

[Boci]

If someone did the "magic fighter" thing in a game that I was running, and were actually able to convince me to use it, then I actually would make that stop functioning in an anti-magic field. If they want their Fighter to be magic, then they can deal with the problems that come with something being magic. They're not going to dismantle how my things work just because they have a character idea and won't compromise. Fluff it to be magic, it works like magic.

Yet the zombie is fine.

[NNescio]

If someone did the "magic fighter" thing in a game that I was running, and were actually able to convince me to use it, then I actually would make that stop functioning in an anti-magic field. If they want their Fighter to be magic, then they can deal with the problems that come with something being magic. They're not going to dismantle how my things work just because they have a character idea and won't compromise. Fluff it to be magic, it works like magic.

What about the magic barbarian? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195049)

[kharmakazy]

I mean.. if a player wants his character to be a demon... I say fine. Take the human stats, but list your race as "Demon" It makes literally no difference in the world except player enjoyment.

But I want my demon to fly! Whatever. You start out as not such a good demon. Feats and class features and such represent you learning to use your DEMON features. "Fell Flight" invocation is now "I learned to fly!".

[Frozen_Feet]

With the help of other player's and the internet, yes everyone is. How many people use these resources is another question.

Well, obviously anyone who uses time and resources to become good at it will become good. :smalltongue: However, I firmly hold coming up with interesting character concepts is a skill, and it's not one every player possesses, even if he has the option available to practice. Developing a character concept (ie., playing it out without wasting any of its potential) is even harder.

[Boci]

Well, obviously anyone who uses time and resources to become good at it will become good. :smalltongue: However, I firmly hold coming up with interesting character concepts is a skill, and it's not one every player possesses, even if he has the option available to practice. Developing a character concept (ie., playing it out without wasting any of its potential) is even harder.

Yes, but you can ask the internet to help you. Its more suited for mechanical advice, but you see roleplaying anf fluff questions on this board as well. So if you have a concept but don't feel you have the skill to fully flesh it out, you could always ask for help.

[Coidzor]

If the people that aren't skilled enough or have the inclination to try don't try, then what's the incentive to forbid those who do have the skill and inclination from doing so?

And if that's not what you're advocating, how is this pertinent that only some people are going to have the time and inclination to try it in the first place?

[Hiro Protagonest]

What about the magic barbarian? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195049)

"Krog too powerful to be affected by your anti-magic field!"

[Frozen_Feet]

I was examining logicality of a statement. It's got little to do with forbidding anything, and everything with pointing out "everyone can" isn't the same as "everyone will" isn't the same as "everyone is". It's pertinent, because people with different skill levels sometimes need different environments to operate optimally.

[Coidzor]

people with different skill levels sometimes need different environments to operate optimally.

I thought we were still in a discussion of whether fluff is considered alterable and the extent to which it is if so?

I can see this being of concern during a discussion of how much to alter things in a given game/setting or the accessibility of how one's (altered) fluff has actually been written... Is there a particular hypothetical that got brought up that was being played off of that I missed? I've been looking for what set this subthread off and haven't found it yet, so I'm not quite following the real thrust here, I think. :smallconfused:

[Typewriter]

There is absolutely no harm in having the fighter's weapons actually sparkle with actual magic. There are plenty of races that have weird supernatural looking event's that take place around them, enough to say that the fighter was born with a trait that makes weilded weaponry glow ala the last dragon. If that makes the player happy with his roleplaying experience the DM should let him, it harms exactly nothing.

Whether it is "in the mechanics" or "technically homebrew" is entirely besides the point. Changing fluff is homebrew by default, so I'm not sure why that is even brought up.

Fluff is not mechanics. Fluff is background, rationale, and the like. It's only homebrew when you introduce mechanics. That's how I always made the distinction anyway. As for why it's important:

"My character is going to be a fighter who didn't learn to fight in the way that the generic fluff lists. I don't need to run this by the DM because there is no observable effect in game which needs justification."
vs.
"My character has an observable, unexplained phenomenon about him. Since I'm changing something that can be observed I need to clear it with the DM to see if he's OK with it."


There are no problems though, since the fighter gains no benefits from being a "magic fighter". Take away all the benefits he gains from being magic in a AMF, okay... he gains none. It's fluff.

And if all he has are 'magical sparkles' then they go away in an anti-magic field or they aren't magic and saying they're 'magical sparkles' is untrue.


I mean.. if a player wants his character to be a demon... I say fine. Take the human stats, but list your race as "Demon" It makes literally no difference in the world except player enjoyment.

But I want my demon to fly! Whatever. You start out as not such a good demon. Feats and class features and such represent you learning to use your DEMON features. "Fell Flight" invocation is now "I learned to fly!".

Well, what if he's targeted with some ability that affects demons differently than other people? Does it affect him? If no, then he's not a demon. I have nothing wrong with a character 'thinking' he's a demon, but he is, in fact, not a demon if that's the case. If it does affect him then you're not playing a 'refluffed human' you're playing a 'homebrew demon'.

[Frozen_Feet]

@Coidzor: Me and Boci got sidetracked on a musing about whether player-made fluff is inherently better than ready-made fluff, and how. As a tangent of tangent, we touched on whether every player is good at coming up with character concepts or not.

[Coidzor]

@Coidzor: Me and Boci got sidetracked on a musing about whether player-made fluff is inherently better than ready-made fluff, and how. As a tangent of tangent, we touched on whether every player is good at coming up with character concepts or not.

Ah. I must've just missed where the turn-off onto that topic was. x.x Thanks.

[kharmakazy]

Just because something is observable does not mean it is not fluff. That is patently absurd. Everything about how a character looks is observable. It's still fluff. Having Red hair is mechanical? What if the character wants to have freckles? Better homebrew something up. DMs who try and enforce fluff as crunch inevitable suck all the life out of games.

[Typewriter]

Just because something is observable does not mean it is not fluff. That is patently absurd. Everything about how a character looks is observable. It's still fluff. Having Red hair is mechanical? What if the character wants to have freckles? Better homebrew something up. DMs who try and enforce fluff as crunch inevitable suck all the life out of games.


"My character has an observable, unexplained phenomenon about him. Since I'm changing something that can be observed I need to clear it with the DM to see if he's OK with it."


There are rules that allow for characters to have hair. Hair is not magic. If you said "I want to have magic hair" then I would say "No" or "Fine, but your hair winks out in an anti-magic field and can be dispelled."

"Magic" means something in D&D. Injecting magic into places without having a mechanical reason is not 'fluff' - it's homebrew. Hair also means something in D&D. Having hair is fluff. Having red hair is fluff. Having eyes is fluff. Having 'magic hair' would not be fluff.

[Kojiro]

Yet the zombie is fine.

Oh yes the magically reanimated zombie that no one ever mentioned prior to this is fine Of course not. Unless this is a plague-type zombie, the sort that's more modern horror than DnD, pretty sure that would fall apart too. And don't bring up RAW because we're dealing with a magic Fighter here.


What about the magic barbarian? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195049)

Well, since that's in his head, I suppose it'd depend on if he noticed, or cared. Also, that thread is still hilarious.


Just because something is observable does not mean it is not fluff. That is patently absurd. Everything about how a character looks is observable. It's still fluff. Having Red hair is mechanical? What if the character wants to have freckles? Better homebrew something up. DMs who try and enforce fluff as crunch inevitable suck all the life out of games.

...What? Where did that come from? I don't think anyone here implied that. Apart from you right now, I suppose.

[nyarlathotep]

I've got nothing against camp two, but personally I lean towards camp one. If you want to play an optimized build you better RP it good or you won't be playing in my game. If anything can be fluffed however you like, then there are literally no restrictions to shenanigans. You can take what's best, just like that, without trying. In my games, if you want Ultimate Power(TM) you better work for it, RP-wise.

Or play straight class druid. :smallbiggrin:

[Typewriter]

...What? Where did that come from? I don't think anyone here implied that. Apart from you right now, I suppose.

I had been attempting to say that observable things with no explanation or rationale required homebrew to bring them into accordance with the rules(thus providing a rationale or explanation).

He thought I was saying anything observable was homebrew. I probably wasn't clear enough.

[Kojiro]

Ah, alright. I read what you said as, well, as what you said, so I didn't figure that that's where he got it.

[Boci]

Oh yes the magically reanimated zombie that no one ever mentioned prior to this is fine Of course not.

I said "the zombie" because it sounded more poetic.


Unless this is a plague-type zombie, the sort that's more modern horror than DnD, pretty sure that would fall apart too.

And we were supose to know about this house rule of yours?


And don't bring up RAW because we're dealing with a magic Fighter here.

But thats the whole point: a fighter who can wield a weapon because of a wizard's experimentations ahs nothing to do with RAW, its just refluffing. Nothing has changed except the explanation for his abilities, which are not mechanically relevant.

[Kojiro]

But thats the whole point: a fighter who can wield a weapon because of a wizard's experimentations ahs nothing to do with RAW, its just refluffing. Nothing has changed except the explanation for his abilities, which are not mechanically relevant.

That's not related to Fighter fluff at all actually, that's just a character origin. I was arguing that, if his abilities were magic, which is what was suggested if I recall correctly, although I could be wrong, then he would lose said magical abilities in a field that removes all magic. If he was just "made" by magic, as in a permanent alteration where the source was magic but the effects weren't, in the same way reshaped stone, or scorched ground from a fireball, isn't magic, then he wouldn't lose it, and it wouldn't require altering any existing fluff either.

[Shadowknight12]

I had been attempting to say that observable things with no explanation or rationale required homebrew to bring them into accordance with the rules(thus providing a rationale or explanation).

He thought I was saying anything observable was homebrew. I probably wasn't clear enough.

Sorry, I disagree. I don't think that it's REQUIRED that all things MUST be explained or that anything that is not specifically written on a book is homebrew. I would have no problem with a character who had magic hair and it didn't wink out in an AMF (if you read the description of the AMF spell, you'll notice that it's not really Anti-Magic, it's more like Anti-almost-but-not-all-Magic), because it adds mystery and variety to the setting. Some people might find it really, really grating that something doesn't fit with the rules they know, but I see it as the promise of new discoveries, new phenomena and the rules by which they're governed (or their absence thereof!).

I think that's really also about "immutability of fluff." Why must what crunch says it's magic, be the ONLY possible kind of thing fluff deems magic? Why can't we have something (Ex) be called "magic" in fluff? Why can't my warblade, whose every ability and manoeuvre is (Ex), call himself a swordmage and perform sword magic? Because he doesn't ping as magic under Detect Magic? Because he doesn't lose his powers in an AMF? Must ALL magic follow the exact same rules, then? We can't have any variety in our settings without resorting to homebrew?

I say no, really. I say that you can follow crunch closely (Hair is (Ex), hair doesn't wink out in AMF) and still change fluff (Hair is magical) to have variety without resorting to homebrew.

[SuperFerret]

Magic is a rules term, so changing that is homebrew.

[Shadowknight12]

Magic is a rules term, so changing that is homebrew.

And it is also a fluff term, you know. That's what I'm saying. That maybe something "magical" is not actually something that the rules term as magic. A thief-acrobat with a maxed-out Jump might call himself a mage simply because he firmly believes that he's using magic to defy the law of gravity. That's not "magic" by the rules, but it might be "magic" in fluff terms.

[Boci]

That's not related to Fighter fluff at all actually, that's just a character origin. I was arguing that, if his abilities were magic, which is what was suggested if I recall correctly, although I could be wrong, then he would lose said magical abilities in a field that removes all magic.

But anti magic field doesm't remove all magic. It removes all spells that allow SR, may remove those that do not, supernatural abilities and incorporeal undead.



and it wouldn't require altering any existing fluff either.

Yes it would. The fluff of a fighter is that he got that good at martial combat by training. If you alter that to make is magical enhancement or extraordinary time manipulation then you have changed the fluff.

[Typewriter]

Sorry, I disagree. I don't think that it's REQUIRED that all things MUST be explained or that anything that is not specifically written on a book is homebrew. I would have no problem with a character who had magic hair and it didn't wink out in an AMF (if you read the description of the AMF spell, you'll notice that it's not really Anti-Magic, it's more like Anti-almost-but-not-all-Magic), because it adds mystery and variety to the setting. Some people might find it really, really grating that something doesn't fit with the rules they know, but I see it as the promise of new discoveries, new phenomena and the rules by which they're governed (or their absence thereof!).

I think that's really also about "immutability of fluff." Why must what crunch says it's magic, be the ONLY possible kind of thing fluff deems magic? Why can't we have something (Ex) be called "magic" in fluff? Why can't my warblade, whose every ability and manoeuvre is (Ex), call himself a swordmage and perform sword magic? Because he doesn't ping as magic under Detect Magic? Because he doesn't lose his powers in an AMF? Must ALL magic follow the exact same rules, then? We can't have any variety in our settings without resorting to homebrew?

I say no, really. I say that you can follow crunch closely (Hair is (Ex), hair doesn't wink out in AMF) and still change fluff (Hair is magical) to have variety without resorting to homebrew.

Magic is magic, but calling something that doesn't behave like magic magic isn't home-brew because not all magic should follow the same rules for magic?

[Thiyr]

How it is that you think magic behaves? Without defining that, I think we're all just kinda going nowhere.

[Coidzor]

Magic is magic, but calling something that doesn't behave like magic magic isn't home-brew because not all magic should follow the same rules for magic?

Indeed, not all magic follows the same rules. Vancian Spellcasters, Binding, Incarnum, Truenaming, Shadowcasting, Incantations, the more supernatural forms of blade magic, Factotum's magical abilities... Psionics, from a practical standpoint. Reserve Feats, kinda-ish.

[Shadowknight12]

Magic is magic, but calling something that doesn't behave like magic magic isn't home-brew because not all magic should follow the same rules for magic?

That's exactly my point. The current rules already say that not all magic follows the same rules for magic. Why, you have an Anti-Magic field that lets lots of magical things happen inside it. And it's also really inconsistent and picky about the stuff it affects and the stuff it doesn't affect. Why does it make incorporeal undead wink out, and not other types of incorporeal creatures, like the Unbodied? If I'm a sorcerer, outside an AMF, and I want to harm someone inside one, I just cast any of the Orb spells. They're spells that deal energy damage and inflict a condition upon the recipient... and they still go through AMF as though they were not magical.

Mind you, this is purely within the rules. What I'm saying is not even that. What I'm saying is that "magic" in fluff terms can be more general than what the crunch defines as magic. Having a really high modifier for any "flashy" skill (like jump, balance, tumble, swim, climb, bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, etc) might be called "magic" simply because it's so far from the ordinary that common people would really believe it's magical.

[Terazul]

Indeed, not all magic follows the same rules. Vancing Spellcasters, Binding, Incarnum, Truenaming, Shadowcasting, Incantations, the more supernatural forms of blade magic, Factotum's magical abilities... Psionics, from a practical standpoint. Reserve Feats, kinda-ish.

Yeah, I pointed this out earlier, but he ignored it on the fact that since it has mechanical representation it's "okay", but anything we can't readily explain with a knowledge check or something is totally off-limits and will freak everyone out. :smallconfused:

[kharmakazy]

The "rules" are filled with "game terms" being used as "fluff". Heck I was talking about black tentacles yesterday... It creates tentacles that you treat as creatures that make "grapple checks" to do "bludgeoning damage" Only they aren't creatures, so they can't make grapple checks, and the damage isn't bludgeoning. It's all fluff.

[Typewriter]

How it is that you think magic behaves? Without defining that, I think we're all just kinda going nowhere.

It is not a specific behavior that defines what is and what isn't magic, but instead the mechanics of D&D. Things that are 'magic' are listed. You can use some spells to make interesting things happen that are 'magic'. You can craft items that are 'magic'.

If you have some aspect of your character that is 'magic' without using some predefined path then it is either 'not magic' or 'home-brew'. Or it could just be "because".

A barbarian who thinks he's a magician is 'not magic' (though he thinks he is).
A barbarian who trained in a monastery to gain mastery over his rage is a re-fluffed character.

A barbarian with magic sparks and the reason is something that the player and DM came up with is homebrew.
A barbarian whose hair is on fire 24/7 for no in-game reason has magic hair 'because'.

EDIT:


Indeed, not all magic follows the same rules. Vancian Spellcasters, Binding, Incarnum, Truenaming, Shadowcasting, Incantations, the more supernatural forms of blade magic, Factotum's magical abilities... Psionics, from a practical standpoint. Reserve Feats, kinda-ish.

This is true, but if something doesn't fall under one of those categories then what is it if not "Homebrew Magic"?


Yeah, I pointed this out earlier, but he ignored it on the fact that since it has mechanical representation it's "okay", but anything we can't readily explain with a knowledge check or something is totally off-limits and will freak everyone out. :smallconfused:

If something in the game has no mechanical representation in the rules it's home-brew isn't it? Knowledge checks or not it's something that there are no rules for - how is that not home-brew?

[gomipile]

Your warlock's powers come from the fiends

...or fey.

[ImperatorK]

how is that not home-brew?
It's fluff.

[kharmakazy]

This is true, but if something doesn't fall under one of those categories then what is it if not "Homebrew Magic"?



If something in the game has no mechanical representation in the rules it's home-brew isn't it? Knowledge checks or not it's something that there are no rules for - how is that not home-brew?

Why do you keep calling things "homebrew"? The ENTIRE thread is about changing what is written... it is, by it's very nature, homebrew. That is not an argument, it's not a point of view...

[Coidzor]

This is true, but if something doesn't fall under one of those categories then what is it if not "Homebrew Magic"?

*shrug* What's that got to do with your objection to magic not working under the exact same rules as other magic? Because that's what I was responding to, so if I can figure out the connection I might be better able to address this one.

[Shadowknight12]

It is not a specific behavior that defines what is and what isn't magic, but instead the mechanics of D&D. Things that are 'magic' are listed. You can use some spells to make interesting things happen that are 'magic'. You can craft items that are 'magic'.

Again, this is magic by the rules. By the fluff, this doesn't have to be true. It can be true, if that's what you want it to be in your campaign, but it doesn't have to be.


If you have some aspect of your character that is 'magic' without using some predefined path then it is either 'not magic' or 'home-brew'. Or it could just be "because".

Nope. I can have something that people say it's magic without the rules agreeing that it's magic. In fact, I can have something that people say it's magic without involving the rules at all.


A barbarian who thinks he's a magician is 'not magic' (though he thinks he is).
A barbarian who trained in a monastery to gain mastery over his rage is a re-fluffed character.

A barbarian with magic sparks and the reason is something that the player and DM came up with is homebrew.
A barbarian whose hair is on fire 24/7 for no in-game reason has magic hair 'because'.

"Not magic" by the rules? Absolutely. But the world can react to him and treat him as though he was a mage. As for the second part, it doesn't have to be homebrew if it's treated as normal hair. If the barbarian is half-elemental, what makes his fiery hair any more "magic" than a human's red hair?


EDIT:

This is true, but if something doesn't fall under one of those categories then what is it if not "Homebrew Magic"?

Fluff?


If something in the game has no mechanical representation in the rules it's home-brew isn't it? Knowledge checks or not it's something that there are no rules for - how is that not home-brew?

Oh, all right. So hair and skin and eye colour are all homebrew because they have no rules for them. Gotcha.

[Typewriter]

*shrug* What's that got to do with your objection to magic not working under the exact same rules as other magic? Because that's what I was responding to, so if I can figure out the connection I might be better able to address this one.

I don't think you understand the point I was trying to make. All of those are types of magic. They are all 'magic'. If something doesn't fall under one of those categories it is not 'magic'. It doesn't matter that one type of magic doesn't work the same as another type of magic, it's that if you're making up a new type of magic that doesn't fall into any of those categories then it is not a *type* of magic.

Does that make more sense? I'm just trying to clarify my earlier statement.


Why do you keep calling things "homebrew"? The ENTIRE thread is about changing what is written... it is, by it's very nature, homebrew. That is not an argument, it's not a point of view...

I don't think you realize what this thread is about then.

As ImperatorK says:

It's fluff.

Some things are 'fluff' and some things are 'home-brew'. The point of this topic, as I understood it, is not "Let's change stuff, wheee home-brew" it's whether or not the pre-packaged fluff that comes with all WotC materials are seen as rules or simply 'flavor text' that can be overwritten with any other flavor text.

In other words - if the book says "Barbarians come from tribes of savages" and you are playing a "Barbarian from the city with rage problems" are you breaking or modifying a rule? My opinion is no - this is not breaking any rules, nor is it home-brew. It's only home-brew if it creates an observable phenomenon for which no explanation exists other than one outside of the rules as written.

[kharmakazy]

In other words - if the book says "Barbarians come from tribes of savages" and you are playing a "Barbarian from the city with rage problems" are you breaking or modifying a rule? My opinion is no - this is not breaking any rules, nor is it home-brew. It's only home-brew if it creates an observable phenomenon for which no explanation exists other than one outside of the rules as written.

So the barbarian's home town is not observable? If he decides to visit his parents is the whole place invisible in your mind? Being from a city has no explanation other than outside the rules for a barbarian. Must be "magic".

His hometown disappears when he is in an AMF. (this would be kind of cool actually...)

[sonofzeal]

It is not a specific behavior that defines what is and what isn't magic, but instead the mechanics of D&D. Things that are 'magic' are listed. You can use some spells to make interesting things happen that are 'magic'. You can craft items that are 'magic'.

If you have some aspect of your character that is 'magic' without using some predefined path then it is either 'not magic' or 'home-brew'. Or it could just be "because".

A barbarian who thinks he's a magician is 'not magic' (though he thinks he is).
A barbarian who trained in a monastery to gain mastery over his rage is a re-fluffed character.

A barbarian with magic sparks and the reason is something that the player and DM came up with is homebrew.
A barbarian whose hair is on fire 24/7 for no in-game reason has magic hair 'because'.

I assume what I said up here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11401454&postcount=106) was acceptable to you?

If so, why not call it homebrew? For example....


HOMEBREW FEAT: WILD SURGE STRIKE
You draw some of the pure essence of Wild Magic into your weapon, greatly enhancing its power but rendering it unpredictable and chaotic.

Requires
Mystical Sword-Mage class, Str 13

Benefit
On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.

Special
If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls. You can’t add the bonus from Wild Surge Strike to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies. (Normally, you treat a double weapon as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon.)

The magics of this strike are so potent that not even an Antimagic Field or Dead Magic Zone can suppress them.

This feat counts as Power Attack for the purpose of prerequisites.

A Mystical Sword-Mage may select Wild Surge Strike as one of their bonus feats.

Compare that homebrew to my hypothetical fighter from the linked post. The latter might claim their power attack is tapping into "wild magic", and other characters might believe them. Someone with this feat could do exactly the same. There is no metric by which a third character could distinguish between the two.

And, if there is no way to tell one from the other, in what way exactly is there a difference?

[ImperatorK]

ToB says that maneuvers are "Blade Magic", yet only a couple of them are actually magical (su) rules-wise. Still, the book says "Blade Magic". So there can be something that's magic, but not really magical, fluff or not.
Also, epic rules. Most of the stuff an epic character can do is not magical, but still quite like magic. Walking on clouds, anyone?

[Typewriter]

Again, this is magic by the rules. By the fluff, this doesn't have to be true. It can be true, if that's what you want it to be in your campaign, but it doesn't have to be.

That is magic by the rules. If you are adding rules, or changing rules it's home-brew isn't it? I don't really understand what you're saying.



Nope. I can have something that people say it's magic without the rules agreeing that it's magic. In fact, I can have something that people say it's magic without involving the rules at all.


OK, so it's magic, but the rules don't say it is. You're not giving any explanation as to how, so is this a "because" scenario?



"Not magic" by the rules? Absolutely. But the world can react to him and treat him as though he was a mage. As for the second part, it doesn't have to be homebrew if it's treated as normal hair. If the barbarian is half-elemental, what makes his fiery hair any more "magic" than a human's red hair?


For the first part: Is he magic or isn't he? I'm saying he's not, but he can say he is. People can think he is. That's all fine and good. For the 5th time - I am OK with characters thinking things that aren't true. If he is *magic* then that's what I'm saying is a problem. He didn't get this 'magic' from any source, so it's not magic.

For the second part, being half-elemental is an in game justification.



Fluff?


Or home-brew depending on the situation. If you have an argument I'd love to hear it because so far your post has just said "Nuh uh, nuh uh, nuh uh".



Oh, all right. So hair and skin and eye colour are all homebrew because they have no rules for them. Gotcha.


There are rules that allow for characters to have hair. Hair is not magic. If you said "I want to have magic hair" then I would say "No" or "Fine, but your hair winks out in an anti-magic field and can be dispelled."

"Magic" means something in D&D. Injecting magic into places without having a mechanical reason is not 'fluff' - it's homebrew. Hair also means something in D&D. Having hair is fluff. Having red hair is fluff. Having eyes is fluff. Having 'magic hair' would not be fluff.

And if you bothered to look you'd see that many races do have standard hair types listed in amongst the 'fluff' and what not. I've already stated I have no problems with people changing fluff to something reasonable (ala something that doesn't introduce new forms of magic).


So the barbarian's home town is not observable? If he decides to visit his parents is the whole place invisible in your mind? Being from a city has no explanation other than outside the rules for a barbarian. Must be "magic".

His hometown disappears when he is in an AMF. (this would be kind of cool actually...)

OK, 2 things
First, are you saying that because of what I said, 'a character whose home town was a dream would be valid since no one can observe it'? If that's what you were saying then wow that blew my mind. And no, I probably wouldn't allow it by virtue of the fact that "I can't see/find/locate your hometown" is an observation. Actually I probably would allow it....
Secondly, Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? Just a second ago I thought you were saying that it was all home-brew by virtue of the fact that you were changing what was written? Are you agreeing with me in that that's only sometimes true, are you disagreeing with me in that it's always true, or are you saying that it's never true? I'm so confused....


Snip

I agree with all of that, no feat required. I'm fine with a character thinking his power attack is magic, and telling others. Possibly even convincing others. You can call yourself whatever you want, do and say whatever you want.

But just to ensure we're agreeing: It's not magic.

I don't consider this to be home-brew, I consider this to be re-fluffing. I wouldn't even require a player to tell me he was doing of this before a campaign because it is all entirely based on "In character" interpretations and actions with no 'weird effects' or 'altered rules'.

[AppleChips]

I think the distinction between fluff and homebrew is purely mechanical. Fluff could be anything that does not directly represent the mechanic involved. You could rename everything in a class without changing how it works and it would still be fluff. You could give a character fire hair from his elemental roots and no one would care _unless_ it is actually used with a purpose. If you made it act as a torch, you could either find some rule that would allow that mechanically, such as an eternal torch grafted on to his head, or you could "homebrew" it by saying that his hair acts as a torch. But the point is, it doesn't matter at all unless it has an impact on the mechanics of a game. If it has this impact on the game, then it is homebrew.

Then again, using that argument, if the hometown of a character is relevant, it is homebrew and not fluff. Maybe that's true. I don't know if it really matters at all. The point of D&D is its sand boxiness, the ability to role play and use you're imagination, in my opinion. Although I know debating semantics and mechanics is fun, to a certain degree, it doesn't really matter.

[noparlpf]

I think the distinction between fluff and homebrew is purely mechanical. Fluff could be anything that does not directly represent the mechanic involved. You could rename everything in a class without changing how it works and it would still be fluff. You could give a character fire hair from his elemental roots and no one would care _unless_ it is actually used with a purpose. If you made it act as a torch, you could either find some rule that would allow that mechanically, such as an eternal torch grafted on to his head, or you could "homebrew" it by saying that his hair acts as a torch. But the point is, it doesn't matter at all unless it has an impact on the mechanics of a game. If it has this impact on the game, then it is homebrew.

Then again, using that argument, if the hometown of a character is relevant, it is homebrew and not fluff. Maybe that's true. I don't know if it really matters at all. The point of D&D is its sand boxiness, the ability to role play and use you're imagination, in my opinion. Although I know debating semantics and mechanics is fun, to a certain degree, it doesn't really matter.

The hometown of a character doesn't have to be homebrew, except insofar as there probably aren't explicit rules for making up street names and shop names and the like. Haven't you ever played in an urban campaign in which the city was built entirely by the book?

[Rukia]

Personally I think it lies in between based completely on the situation. If a player wants to change a bit of the fluff to fit his backstory better but doesn't change the mechanics of the class then I don't see an issue. However most of the time I see fluff changing it's due to players wanting to gain the benefit of some feat without having to deal with the negatives that the fluff carries with it. Think of these feats:

Ashbound summoning - Fluff basically says you despise arcane casters. Simply changing the fluff to negate that just gives you the powerful feat without having to roleplay it. It's metagame sidestepping.

Greenbound summoning - Broken feat, but at least assumes you came across this powerful form of summoning somehow. Legitimately you'd have to have come across this in a quest or something and learned it's secrets, but to ignore it's fluff and just say "my dude knows this" is another metagame sidestep.

Craven - Fluff says you are cowardly and take a penalty to fear saves, and in turn you gain a bonus damage to sneak attacks. For a character who's fluff is to be some a light hearted, brave Rogue it would make no sense to be allowed to take this feat. It is more designed for darker aligned, dishonorable types of characters that could take advantage of their sneakiness. To ignore the fluff is to sidestep the negatives.

I could go on and on but there are tons of feats where players want to ignore the fluff simply to be able to gain the power of the feat without the consequences. This is where I feel it's wrong unless there is a really good reason for it and even the DM agrees the fluff is lame and unwarranted.

With that said I have a character that was killed inside of an undead tomb and was left there while the party escaped. He was a rogue/factotum mostly because at the time my DM didn't want me to play a swordsage like I wanted. Fast forward a couple months and now my DM is more open to swordsage and our party(along with my new character) re-entered the tomb, finished off the BBEG who was a vampire and recovered my old character's body along with the cleric that had died as well. Their corpses had started taking on Wight characteristics as they were slowing being tainted and turned by the Vampire.

So now my DM is allowing me the chance to resurrect my character and has agreed to change him to a swordsage. Normal swordsage fluff would have me being trained for years in one of the temples but that doesn't fit this setting or situation. So we're changing the fluff that his death, his exposure to the taint of the tomb and the affect of the Vampire has now given him some new supernatural powers that he did not have before. Swordsage is similar to rogue in a lot of ways so he will be roleplayed as discovering his new powers over time. The fluff has changed but the mechanics of the class have not, we've just given him a new justification to have these powers. Due to the taint his alignment will also shift a bit and he will be borderline neutral evil and my actions will determine which way he will lean in the future.

In this scenario I feel the fluff change is totally warranted and is the means to an end. Sure it may not make total sense if you go by the fluff of the Bo9S book, but by focusing on shadow hand maneuvers it makes sense as the undead abilities are very similar to all of the types of ability damage that those maneuvers can do, and the rogue-like abilities fit in with my character's previous role. My characters back story had a bit about his knowledge and intelligence so Diamond Mind also works well with this change. I feel in this situation we can still achieve suspension of disbelief and it makes sense.

[Shadowknight12]

That is magic by the rules. If you are adding rules, or changing rules it's home-brew isn't it? I don't really understand what you're saying.

Yes. Adding or changing rules is homebrew. We're not adding or changing rules here. If I make my prettyboy bard have glittery sparkly skin, that LOOKS magical, but (according to the rules) it's not. Therefore, there's no homebrewing, because I'm not altering the rules. He gets no mechanical benefits or detriments from having that kind of skin, nor is it written down in his character sheet in any way. It's just for show. It's just for looks and it doesn't have any mechanical effects.


OK, so it's magic, but the rules don't say it is. You're not giving any explanation as to how, so is this a "because" scenario?

I can come up with a million explanations, it depends on the case. If I have someone who jumps REALLY high, the mechanical explanations are not magical (he has a very high Jump skill modifier). The fluff explanations CAN be magical, since for a lot of people, he's jumping WAY higher than anything they've seen in their lives, and my character can think that it's magic (since, again, this is something he's never seen before).

I can have my aforementioned prettyboy bard have that glittery skin because he thinks he's been blessed by the goddess of beauty, but that doesn't make it true. A party member can say that he's seen another person with a similarly glittery skin that had other origins. It's up to the players and the DM to explain what each refluff means.


For the first part: Is he magic or isn't he? I'm saying he's not, but he can say he is. People can think he is. That's all fine and good. For the 5th time - I am OK with characters thinking things that aren't true. If he is *magic* then that's what I'm saying is a problem. He didn't get this 'magic' from any source, so it's not magic.

For the second part, being half-elemental is an in game justification.

But that's what you're not getting. You're assuming that his belief of having a high Jump skill being magic is false because it's not what the rules say qualifies as "crunch magic." In terms of crunch, he's not magical. In terms of fluff, his belief COULD be true. Maybe when he jumps, magic sparks fly around his feet. Again, those magical sparks are not magic by the rules, they're just for show, just for fluff.

And what about sorcerers? Can't my human sorcerer have flaming hair because his great great great great granddaddy was a red dragon?


Or home-brew depending on the situation. If you have an argument I'd love to hear it because so far your post has just said "Nuh uh, nuh uh, nuh uh".

I don't know what I can possibly say that I haven't already said. I am saying that something CAN happen and I'm giving you example after example. What part of that is not an argument?


And if you bothered to look you'd see that many races do have standard hair types listed in amongst the 'fluff' and what not. I've already stated I have no problems with people changing fluff to something reasonable (ala something that doesn't introduce new forms of magic).

Firstly, those are actually fluff. There are no rules for hair. Saying "gray elves typically have silvery hair" doesn't mean that other hair types aren't possible. Why? Because it's a fluff suggestion that has no rules correlation.

I think that's the problem. I think that you're not seeing that we're not suggesting introducing new "rules" for magic. We're not talking about altering the way magic works by the rules. We're talking about introducing magical effects that have no rules correlation and exist purely for fluff.

[sonofzeal]

I agree with all of that, no feat required. I'm fine with a character thinking his power attack is magic, and telling others. Possibly even convincing others. You can call yourself whatever you want, do and say whatever you want.

But just to ensure we're agreeing: It's not magic.

I don't consider this to be home-brew, I consider this to be re-fluffing. I wouldn't even require a player to tell me he was doing of this before a campaign because it is all entirely based on "In character" interpretations and actions with no 'weird effects' or 'altered rules'.
I'm with you that Deluded Fighter is totally cool. And not magic.

But the homebrew feat would be completely fair (we know it's balanced because it's exactly the same in every way), and WOULD be magic, would it not?

So what's the difference between the two? How does it matter, for the purposes of the game, which one is actually being used? And if it doesn't matter, why not let the player use the one he wants?

Character A is entirely acceptable. Character B is for all intents and purposes identical to Character A. So shouldn't Character B be acceptable?

[The Glyphstone]

Ashbound summoning - Fluff basically says you despise arcane casters. Simply changing the fluff to negate that just gives you the powerful feat without having to roleplay it. It's metagame sidestepping.

Greenbound summoning - Broken feat, but at least assumes you came across this powerful form of summoning somehow. Legitimately you'd have to have come across this in a quest or something and learned it's secrets, but to ignore it's fluff and just say "my dude knows this" is another metagame sidestep.

Craven - Fluff says you are cowardly and take a penalty to fear saves, and in turn you gain a bonus damage to sneak attacks. For a character who's fluff is to be some uber-powerful kick-ass rogue who take's no **** then the feat wouldn't fit the fluff and wouldn't work. To ignore the fluff is to sidestep the negatives.


Ashbound Summoning: The mechanics of this feat have absolutely diddly-squat to do with arcane casters, so there's no reason why you should have to hate them (that's a trait of the Ashbound Druid sect, which might not exist in the world you're playing in). It doubles summon duration and gives a luck bonus on attacks; there's tons of ways you could refluff that feat to strip out the Ashbound sect flavor and add in flavor of your own...maybe you summon your animals from the wild forests of Bytopia or something.

Greenbound Summoning: Firstly, if something is legitimately OP, ban it outright instead of setting up complicated and discouraging hoops to jump through for qualifications. For the feat itself though...its only flavor is "you are learned in a long-forgotten manner of summoning once taught by [Group X]. If that doesn't work, change it - "Your deep-rooted beliefs in the druidic faith extend to both plants and animals, causing the two of them to blend into one when you invoke summoning magic". Ta-da!

Craven: Mechanics say you have a penalty on Fear saves and gain bonus sneak attack. Default fluff says you're cowardly; if you don't want to play a coward, play a braviso braggart who's utterly, excessively over-confident in his own abilities, like over-baking pottery to where it becomes brittle and easily shattered if actually subjected to force or damage.


All logical, sensical refluffing of abilities without altering the mechanics in any way.

[thompur]

Personally I think it lies in between based completely on the situation. If a player wants to change a bit of the fluff to fit his backstory better but doesn't change the mechanics of the class then I don't see an issue. However most of the time I see fluff changing it's due to players wanting to gain the benefit of some feat without having to deal with the negatives that the fluff carries with it. Think of these feats:

Ashbound summoning - Fluff basically says you despise arcane casters. Simply changing the fluff to negate that just gives you the powerful feat without having to roleplay it. It's metagame sidestepping.

Greenbound summoning - Broken feat, but at least assumes you came across this powerful form of summoning somehow. Legitimately you'd have to have come across this in a quest or something and learned it's secrets, but to ignore it's fluff and just say "my dude knows this" is another metagame sidestep.

Craven - Fluff says you are cowardly and take a penalty to fear saves, and in turn you gain a bonus damage to sneak attacks. For a character who's fluff is to be some a light hearted, brave Rogue it would make no sense to be allowed to take this feat. It is more designed for darker aligned, dishonorable types of characters that could take advantage of their sneakiness. To ignore the fluff is to sidestep the negatives.

I could go on and on but there are tons of feats where players want to ignore the fluff simply to be able to gain the power of the feat without the consequences. This is where I feel it's wrong unless there is a really good reason for it and even the DM agrees the fluff is lame and unwarranted.

With that said I have a character that was killed inside of an undead tomb and was left there while the party escaped. He was a rogue/factotum mostly because at the time my DM didn't want me to play a swordsage like I wanted. Fast forward a couple months and now my DM is more open to swordsage and our party(along with my new character) re-entered the tomb, finished off the BBEG who was a vampire and recovered my old character's body along with the cleric that had died as well. Their corpses had started taking on Wight characteristics as they were slowing being tainted and turned by the Vampire.

So now my DM is allowing me the chance to resurrect my character and has agreed to change him to a swordsage. Normal swordsage fluff would have me being trained for years in one of the temples but that doesn't fit this setting or situation. So we're changing the fluff that his death, his exposure to the taint of the tomb and the affect of the Vampire has now given him some new supernatural powers that he did not have before. Swordsage is similar to rogue in a lot of ways so he will be roleplayed as discovering his new powers over time. The fluff has changed but the mechanics of the class have not, we've just given him a new justification to have these powers. Due to the taint his alignment will also shift a bit and he will be borderline neutral evil and my actions will determine which way he will lean in the future.

In this scenario I feel the fluff change is totally warranted and is the means to an end. Sure it may not make total sense if you go by the fluff of the Bo9S book, but by focusing on shadow hand maneuvers it makes sense as the undead abilities are very similar to all of the types of ability damage that those maneuvers can do, and the rogue-like abilities fit in with my character's previous role. My characters back story had a bit about his knowledge and intelligence so Diamond Mind also works well with this change. I feel in this situation we can still achieve suspension of disbelief and it makes sense.

That is very creative...and very cool!:smallcool:

[Logalmier]

I don't think it would even be possible to be in the first category, because WotC makes their fluff to be changeable. For example, for many prestige classes there are suggestions on how you could change the fluff to fit your ideas or setting. Same with base classes. A warlock can get his powers from fairies, or almost anything that they could make a pact with. These changes to fluff are actively discussed and encouraged by WotC.

That said, I don't think classes are purely mechanical. You can change the fluff around, but a lack of fluff is just boring.

[Rukia]

All logical, sensical refluffing of abilities without altering the mechanics in any way.

That was my entire point. Some of these feats are written with the fluff that to take advantage of them you are meant to follow the fluff. Anyone can just hand wave the fluff and take the mechanical benefit, the point is that defeats the purpose. If your character is a hero type then you should not be allowed to take craven. Period.

If your character has arcane casters in the party and you want to take ashbound summoning you should at least roleplay some sort of conflict with them. Just as regional feats require you to be of that region to work, feats with specific fluff should require you to play along. Generic feats can be taken by anyone that meets prerequisites without much explanation. Feats with a certain amount of fluff should require you to at least pay heed to it and not outright ignore it just because you want said power without the hassle of what comes with it. That is metagaming and while nothing wrong with it, it only defies the fluff because it's inconvenient to getting what you want.

Don't get me wrong, there are times I wish to use things that don't necessarily fit the fluff but I at least try to justify it somehow. I was planning on playing a Druid with Ashbound and my DM simply expected me to roleplay it with our party Wizard. On the other hand I wanted to use kung-fu genius on my swordsage which is explicitly monk only, but fluff wise it wasn't hard to stretch it since it worked with my character background and the mechanics of the swordsage bonuses are similar to a monks. One completely ignores the fluff, the other just changes the mechanics to fit a similar role. There is a difference.

[Typewriter]

I'm with you that Deluded Fighter is totally cool. And not magic.

But the homebrew feat would be completely fair (we know it's balanced because it's exactly the same in every way), and WOULD be magic, would it not?

So what's the difference between the two? How does it matter, for the purposes of the game, which one is actually being used? And if it doesn't matter, why not let the player use the one he wants?

Character A is entirely acceptable. Character B is for all intents and purposes identical to Character A. So shouldn't Character B be acceptable?

Blah blah, sorry I didn't read the feat close enough.

I thought you were using it as an example to make a point to me, and that's my bad entirely. I thought you were saying "Make the delusional fighter a feat, see here - this feat that is exactly like power attack but has a different name?"

I feel bad for not reading your post close enough...

Anyway, yes I would be fine with that from a balance perspective as long as my players were all fine with it. The one thing I would say is that just like he can't tread PA like a magic attack, he can't just treat this attack like it's just a powerful blow.

Honestly if my player came to me and said "I want to be arcane powered warrior, and all my power comes from magic - but I don't have to worry about dispels and AMFs, etc. etc" I would probably ask what his reasoning is. If it's because he wants to be the son of a god of magic, or because he was magically augmented, or something like that I would allow him to do so without having to have custom feats or the like. At this point he's given an in-game rationale for the 'oddity', and is *essentially* playing a homebrew race. Augmented human, Magics Son, etc.

[sonofzeal]

Blah blah, sorry I didn't read the feat close enough.

I thought you were using it as an example to make a point to me, and that's my bad entirely. I thought you were saying "Make the delusional fighter a feat, see here - this feat that is exactly like power attack but has a different name?"

I feel bad for not reading your post close enough...

Anyway, yes I would be fine with that from a balance perspective as long as my players were all fine with it. The one thing I would say is that just like he can't tread PA like a magic attack, he can't just treat this attack like it's just a powerful blow.
Oh, exactly. =) Good to see we seem to agree entirely, then!

[The Glyphstone]

That was my entire point. Some of these feats are written with the fluff that to take advantage of them you are meant to follow the fluff. Anyone can just hand wave the fluff and take the mechanical benefit, the point is that defeats the purpose. If your character is a hero type then you should not be allowed to take craven. Period.

If your character has arcane casters in the party and you want to take ashbound summoning you should at least roleplay some sort of conflict with them. Just as regional feats require you to be of that region to work, feats with specific fluff should require you to play along. Generic feats can be taken by anyone that meets prerequisites without much explanation. Feats with a certain amount of fluff should require you to at least pay heed to it and not outright ignore it just because you want said power without the hassle of what comes with it. That is metagaming and while nothing wrong with it, it only defies the fluff because it's inconvenient to getting what you want.

Don't get me wrong, there are times I wish to use things that don't necessarily fit the fluff but I at least try to justify it somehow. I was planning on playing a Druid with Ashbound and my DM simply expected me to roleplay it with our party Wizard. On the other hand I wanted to use kung-fu genius on my swordsage which is explicitly monk only, but fluff wise it wasn't hard to stretch it since it worked with my character background and the mechanics of the swordsage bonuses are similar to a monks. One completely ignores the fluff, the other just changes the mechanics to fit a similar role. There is a difference.

But that, again, doesn't make sense...why do the benefits of Ashbound necessitate conflict with arcane casters? If the fluff of the feat doesn't fit your character, you should be allowed to change the fluff rather than have a straightjack put on your roleplaying for the sake of mechanical abilities. As long as you're adhering to the new fluff, there's no metagame effects.

[Thiyr]

That was my entire point. Some of these feats are written with the fluff that to take advantage of them you are meant to follow the fluff. Anyone can just hand wave the fluff and take the mechanical benefit, the point is that defeats the purpose. If your character is a hero type then you should not be allowed to take craven. Period.

If your character has arcane casters in the party and you want to take ashbound summoning you should at least roleplay some sort of conflict with them. Just as regional feats require you to be of that region to work, feats with specific fluff should require you to play along. Generic feats can be taken by anyone that meets prerequisites without much explanation. Feats with a certain amount of fluff should require you to at least pay heed to it and not outright ignore it just because you want said power without the hassle of what comes with it. That is metagaming and while nothing wrong with it, it only defies the fluff because it's inconvenient to getting what you want.

Don't get me wrong, there are times I wish to use things that don't necessarily fit the fluff but I at least try to justify it somehow. I was planning on playing a Druid with Ashbound and my DM simply expected me to roleplay it with our party Wizard. On the other hand I wanted to use kung-fu genius on my swordsage which is explicitly monk only, but fluff wise it wasn't hard to stretch it since it worked with my character background and the mechanics of the swordsage bonuses are similar to a monks. One completely ignores the fluff, the other just changes the mechanics to fit a similar role. There is a difference.

I...kinda disagree with you here. The entire point of refluffing (at least for me) is that the fluff that pre-exists is stifling in some way (which is by definition inconvenient), and changing it makes it easier to do that instead of saying "I want a character who's good at summoning but doesn't hate arcane casters" or something similar. I've had characters with craven who are anything -but- cowardly. First guy into a fight if he had any say in the matter. Had to carry the party into what was functionally a magical supermax prison. And then break out again after everyone was made fully aware of the break-in. He was in -no way- a coward, and anyone that tried to insinuate as such would probably be wondering why they still had a head in a few moments. Did I ignore the penalty to fear effects? No, but it had nothing to do with cowardice. He had a bad history with torture that left him particularly vulnerable if people were trying to push his buttons. His -entire driving motive- was trying to find his brotherfigure and his sister, who had been sold into slavery by a crime family he had formerly been a member of, and nothing would stop him from charging in there and kicking faces in to get what he wanted, but craven was still very fitting mechanically.

similarly, take ashbound. There's nothing about long, lucky summons that's against arcane casters. If I've got a druid who has made a point of focusing on improving their ability to summon, then there's no reason they can't take ashbound. What if you're a druid who's been friends with arcane casters all your life, who's been practicing getting their summons to last just that extra bit longer? Does that mean when ashbound (which mechanically fits what you're going for perfectly) gets taken, you suddenly grow a hatred of arcane casters? Why should it? What if you're not in Ebberon, and there are no Ashbound druids, but your DM has no issues with you taking the feat? Why hate arcane casters then? It's not even an inconvenience at that point, it's just something that doesn't fit. I'm more of the opinion that your character should take precedence over whatever the book says about fluff, and your character's fluff should match their mechanics. If it fits the setting and doesn't impact mechanics, refluff away (So if we were in ebberon, there's baggage associated with Ashbound, but I'd not stop you from taking it and doing something different in a different setting). Doublyso for ashbound, as it's got no fluff prereqs and is a general feat. But I'm not gonna care where you're from for regional feats, for instance. if it has a prereq, I'll ask for some kind of explanation, but there is absolutely no need to follow whatever their fluff was to the letter.

Maybe it's just because I'm used to having a bunch of people who tend to come up with weird character ideas before figuring the mechanics out, though.

[DontEatRawHagis]

Of the Two DMs that I play with who regularly do DnD they are both in different camps. However the DnD group my freshman year(I never played with them) seemed to be more into the fluff than I was.

He commented when I played Neverwinter Nights(the Video Game) that my character should have saved an enchanted pig from its enchantment because I was playing a druid. Its my character not his, maybe my character hated pigs.

If you can't guess by now I believe that the fluff of a class isn't set in stone.

[ImperatorK]

I agree with Rukia. You guys seem to not understand what he/she is saying.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with refluffing. But some of the material is quite powerful and fluff is the only thing that could keep it in check. You want Ashbound Summoning? It's a great feat, don't you think? Well, mechanically there no real cost, you just take it. But the fluff is there to prevent taking it just like that. Like Ben Parker said, "With great power comes great responsibility". It doesn't have to be the default fluff, but the stronger mechanical stuff should have some kind of more restrictive fluff tied to it, for balancing issues.

[Shadowknight12]

I agree with Rukia. You guys seem to not understand what he/she is saying.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with refluffing. But some of the material is quite powerful and fluff is the only thing that could keep it in check. You want Ashbound Summoning? It's a great feat, don't you think? Well, mechanically there no real cost, you just take it. But the fluff is there to prevent taking it just like that. Like Ben Parker said, "With great power comes great responsibility". It doesn't have to be the default fluff, but the stronger mechanical stuff should have some kind of more restrictive fluff tied to it, for balancing issues.

That sounds all well and good until you remember wizards. And clerics. And druids. And artificers. And archivists.

Suddenly that kind of feat doesn't seem powerful at all compared to what a druid can already do.

[Kojiro]

Well, on the topic of Craven, between the fear save penalty and the very meaning of the word (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/craven), if you don't want it to be on a cowardly character you should get your DM to agree on a different penalty, preferably one that actually fits with the feat. Not familiar with the other feats mentioned, though.

[The Glyphstone]

I agree with Rukia. You guys seem to not understand what he/she is saying.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with refluffing. But some of the material is quite powerful and fluff is the only thing that could keep it in check. You want Ashbound Summoning? It's a great feat, don't you think? Well, mechanically there no real cost, you just take it. But the fluff is there to prevent taking it just like that. Like Ben Parker said, "With great power comes great responsibility". It doesn't have to be the default fluff, but the stronger mechanical stuff should have some kind of more restrictive fluff tied to it, for balancing issues.

Well, then we add restrictive fluff. For Ashbound Summoning, we turn it into
'Fortune-blessed Summons'
Your expression of the druidic faith focuses on the inherent randomness and chaos of life itself, manifesting in your summons and personal outlook. Complicated plans and long-term thinking are not your strong suit, but the animals you conjure to aid you are especially strong at maintaining their ties to the world, and luck seems to bend in their favor when defending you.Same rules text.

Just as restrictive as Ashbound...more, in fact, as this puts limiters on your actual behavior, not just who you can hang around with peaceably.


Well, on the topic of Craven, between the fear save penalty and the very meaning of the word (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/craven), if you don't want it to be on a cowardly character you should get your DM to agree on a different penalty, preferably one that actually fits with the feat. Not familiar with the other feats mentioned, though.

So, rename it "Trauma-Scarred", and apply it to the backstory given by Thiyr.

[ImperatorK]

Think of it as opportunity cost. Is it worth to take that Ashbound Summoning and be forced to hate arcane caster, or do you just take the less powerful, but more generic feat and don't worry? If there's no fluff that will restrict you, why would you not take the better feat?


That sounds all well and good until you remember wizards. And clerics. And druids. And artificers. And archivists.

Suddenly that kind of feat doesn't seem powerful at all compared to what a druid can already do.
Uh... So? Just because there are classes that are powerful and can be easily refluffed, my and Rukias point doesn't matter all of a sudden?


Well, then we add restrictive fluff. For Ashbound Summoning, we turn it into
'Fortune-blessed Summons'
Your expression of the druidic faith focuses on the inherent randomness and chaos of life itself, manifesting in your summons and personal outlook. Complicated plans and long-term thinking are not your strong suit, but the animals you conjure to aid you are especially strong at maintaining their ties to the world, and luck seems to bend in their favor when defending you.Same rules text.

Just as restrictive as Ashbound...more, in fact, as this puts limiters on your actual behavior, not just who you can hang around with peaceably.
Exactly! That's what I was saying.

[Shadowknight12]

Uh... So? Just because there are classes that are powerful and can be easily refluffed, my and Rukias point doesn't matter all of a sudden?

No, you're advocating that power should come with costs and restrictions. I point out a wealth of power and versatility that comes at no such cost and has no such restrictions. What you suggest is not actually a part of the system, it's merely arbitrary.

[ImperatorK]

No, you're advocating that power should come with costs and restrictions. I point out a wealth of power and versatility that comes at no such cost and has no such restrictions. What you suggest is not actually a part of the system, it's merely arbitrary.
Well, duh. If you don't care about power in your games then go ahead and let your players take whatever they want. Did I say that this is mandatory to play? I'm not forcing you, just stating how I think about fluff. Sometimes it should work as a straitjacket, a power-damper.:smallwink:

[sonofzeal]

I agree with Rukia. You guys seem to not understand what he/she is saying.
Yes, there's nothing wrong with refluffing. But some of the material is quite powerful and fluff is the only thing that could keep it in check. You want Ashbound Summoning? It's a great feat, don't you think? Well, mechanically there no real cost, you just take it. But the fluff is there to prevent taking it just like that. Like Ben Parker said, "With great power comes great responsibility". It doesn't have to be the default fluff, but the stronger mechanical stuff should have some kind of more restrictive fluff tied to it, for balancing issues.
There's a way to do that, it's called the "requirements" section. Check out the entry for Assassin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/assassin.htm),or Blackguard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/blackguard.htm), or Pyrokineticist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/prestigeClasses/pyrokineticist.htm). But if it's not a listed requirement, then it isn't requiered, y'know? Ashbound Summoning doesn't require being a member of that sect, even though it could.

Not everything bad comes with something good, and vice versa. Not all options are created equal. "Athletic" is not as good as "Power Attack". Character can and often do face RP difficulty because of their abilities, but that's the DM's job, and part of the story. But adding restrictions where the rules don't require them, that's bad form imo. A player should be able to open the books, choose mechanically appropriate options that suit the character they're building, and not have to worry about the DM banhammering anything they personally don't feel meets the "spirit" of the text.

[The Glyphstone]

Exactly! That's what I was saying.

But...I was disagreeing with Rukia? And agreeing with you?

:smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused:




There's a way to do that, it's called the "requirements" section. Check out the entry for Assassin,or Blackguard, or Pyrokineticist. But if it's not a listed requirement, then it isn't requiered, y'know? Ashbound Summoning doesn't require being a member of that sect, even though it could.


This. If it's meant to be a limiter, place mechanical Requirements on it. Fluff should be mutable to fit the character, a character should not have to be built around pre-written (and often awful) fluff.

[Shadowknight12]

Well, duh. If you don't care about power in your games then go ahead and let your players take whatever they want. Did I say that this is mandatory to play? I'm not forcing you, just stating how I think about fluff. Sometimes it should work as a straitjacket, a power-damper.:smallwink:

Ah, okay, then we're in complete and absolute disagreement, no problem. I just thought you said that it was actually built in the system. :smallbiggrin:

[ImperatorK]

Ah, okay, then we're in complete and absolute disagreement, no problem. I just thought you said that it was actually built in the system. :smallbiggrin:
Maybe not as a set-in-stone mechanic that must be absolutely followed (the books themselves have sections on refluffing stuff, like "Adaptation" by most of the classes), but it can totally fulfill this role if you need it.


But...I was disagreeing with Rukia? And agreeing with you?

:smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused:
So you where being sarcastic? :smallconfused:


This. If it's meant to be a limiter, place mechanical Requirements on it. Fluff should be mutable to fit the character, a character should not have to be built around pre-written (and often awful) fluff.
But then it becomes home-brewing. And I'm not saying "Use the pre-written fluff". I'm saying "You can refluff stuff however you like, just make the fluff restricting".

[Typewriter]

. Adding or changing rules is homebrew. We're not adding or changing rules here. If I make my prettyboy bard have glittery sparkly skin, that LOOKS magical, but (according to the rules) it's not. Therefore, there's no homebrewing, because I'm not altering the rules. He gets no mechanical benefits or detriments from having that kind of skin, nor is it written down in his character sheet in any way. It's just for show. It's just for looks and it doesn't have any mechanical effects.

I honestly have no idea why you keep bringing up the lack of a mechanical benefit. I don't know if you think it matters to me, but it doesn't. I don't care if your getting some benefit or no benefit.

If you are different, then either it's mechanically justified or it is not.



I can come up with a million explanations, it depends on the case. If I have someone who jumps REALLY high, the mechanical explanations are not magical (he has a very high Jump skill modifier). The fluff explanations CAN be magical, since for a lot of people, he's jumping WAY higher than anything they've seen in their lives, and my character can think that it's magic (since, again, this is something he's never seen before).

Again, you're providing no rationale here. You're saying "Since I can jump really high I'm going to go ahead and say it's magic". He may think it's magical, but unless something is magically affecting his jump check - it is not actually magic.

Since when does fluff get to determine whether or not something is magical? That's what I don't understand about your argument - "Is magical" is not fluff. That's mechanic. It sounds to me like you're fluffing rules, which is what I don't agree with.



I can have my aforementioned prettyboy bard have that glittery skin because he thinks he's been blessed by the goddess of beauty, but that doesn't make it true. A party member can say that he's seen another person with a similarly glittery skin that had other origins. It's up to the players and the DM to explain what each refluff means.

So, you're gold for no reason, but in character you think you know the reason but it's wrong? So... you're just gold because? Because is not an argument.



But that's what you're not getting. You're assuming that his belief of having a high Jump skill being magic is false because it's not what the rules say qualifies as "crunch magic." In terms of crunch, he's not magical. In terms of fluff, his belief COULD be true. Maybe when he jumps, magic sparks fly around his feet. Again, those magical sparks are not magic by the rules, they're just for show, just for fluff.

Your argument seems to me to be that stuff happens for no reason other than because you want it to. I disagree. Those sparks come from somewhere - true or false? If false, then no they're not there because there is no reason for them. If true are there mechanics for them? If yes - it's justified in game. If false, it's home-brew.



And what about sorcerers? Can't my human sorcerer have flaming hair because his great great great great granddaddy was a red dragon?


Sure you're free to play a home-brew race called "1/32 red dragon" whose entry reads "This race is identical to humans except they have flaming hair"



I don't know what I can possibly say that I haven't already said. I am saying that something CAN happen and I'm giving you example after example. What part of that is not an argument?

You keep saying it can, but not how. You keep providing examples, but instead of defending them you just drop them and provide new ones. You're not making arguments, you're making statements and then you're not defending them when someone responds to them. Disagreement, in of itself, is not an argument.




Fluff that gives an example of hair existing. Yes - I agree with that. You can replace fluff with your own, as long as it doesn't change things. Having fire on your head is considerably different from having *hair* on your head.

[QUOTE=Shadowknight12;11403493]
I think that's the problem. I think that you're not seeing that we're not suggesting introducing new "rules" for magic. We're not talking about altering the way magic works by the rules. We're talking about introducing magical effects that have no rules correlation and exist purely for fluff.

I disagree, I understand perfectly what you're saying. You seem to think though, for some reason, that the 'no mechanical benefit' means something to me.

Tell me, how is "introducing magical effects" not home-brew? Doesn't matter if it alters 'crunch' in any way. You are *adding* a magical effect.

It doesn't matter if you introduce a type of magic into your world called "Awesome magic" that occasionally causes people to be born with weird traits - it's still home-brew by virtue of the fact that "Awesome magic" is something you made up for the game.

EDIT:

My opinion on fluff is general is that it gives you an example of what you're working with, but you are not required to stick to exactly what is mentioned. Fluff may tell us that a race has hair, but it's up to the player to determine what color that hair is, and how long it is, etc. etc.

Replacing 'hair' with fire is not a 'refluff'. It's putting fire on the top of a characters head.

[Kojiro]

Hm, I think at least part of this general issue should be up to the DM, and not just for the obvious reason of the DM being in charge. Like, if the DM is just running a vague, anything-goes setting of whatever sort, than most things, such as that example of a "demon" that was a human every way except visible basically. On the other hand, if this is a well-defined world with specific things in mind and/or a lot of work into it, such as a defined set of demon "species" and hierarchy, then it's his call on altering fluff, for the sake of his own world, setting-consistency, story quality, and the like. Likewise with prestige classes that actually are tied to a specific group in his world and such.

So, basically, clear it with your DM, not only because of general reasons but because it should actually make sense in the world he's running, if he cares about that. It'd be a bit impolite not to.

[The Glyphstone]

So you where being sarcastic? :smallconfused:



No, I was being utterly serious - Rukia was saying that you must use the printed fluff, otherwise there's no reason not to take the more powerful feat. I presented a mechanically identical version of the feat with differently restrictive fluff for a druid whose best friend was an arcane caster, and didn't want to strip that part out of his backstory for double summon duration and a luck bonus on attack rolls. You must have misunderstood my message, if you think I was agreeing with you.

[ImperatorK]

No, I was being utterly serious - Rukia was saying that you must use the printed fluff, otherwise there's no reason not to take the more powerful feat. I presented a mechanically identical version of the feat with differently restrictive fluff for a druid whose best friend was an arcane caster, and didn't want to strip that part out of his backstory for double summon duration and a luck bonus on attack rolls. You must have misunderstood my message, if you think I was agreeing with you.
Ah. You see, I was agreeing with Rukia, but just in general. Of course I'm absolutely okay with changing the pre-written fluff to whatever you like. just change it to something uqually restricting, because otherwise the feat/class/race is just too good to not be taken. That's all I was advocating. I've must have not realized that he's saying "Don't change the fluff". I don't agree with him on that part. :)

[Thiyr]

The only reason I dislike that is because at that point, these fluff requirements are tied to the feat. And that starts making you question what happens to the feat if your character undergoes some development and realizes that arcane casters aren't all that bad/long term planning isn't that bad/sometimes it's right to stand and fight for a cause, etc. As it stands now, the only feat amongst these that are being discussed where it matters is craven. If you get buddy-buddy with an arcane caster, you don't lose ashbound. And honestly, I think that's how it should be. And especially if it's not got a pre-req, it's hard to determine what counts as equally restricting. I'm all for characters with quirks and traits like these, I'm just not a fan of tying character traits to feat mechanics. Force me to worship a deity, be a member of an organization, or sacrifice my left pinky toe, and I'm fine, but say "to have this feat you must loathe vanilla pudding", I start having issues, even if it's tied to a group which traditionally hates vanilla pudding.

[Kojiro]

I actually have to agree with that to an extent; even Craven's justification in the rules seems a bit odd, too, as a careful, studious, efficient character would actually be more likely to be better at stabbing people in the right places than a coward, although at the same time that same cautious behavior could tie to a different type of cowardice. But, yes, apart from feats that actually do tie to something related to behavior (of which there are very few, if any; maybe things related to a Barbarian's rage?), the feats that describe attitude bother me too. I was looking at the Mage Slayer feat and the related one for spell resistance or penetration or whatever, and noticed the whole "hatred of mages" bit. I found it rather peculiar, to say the least.

[Shadowknight12]

I honestly have no idea why you keep bringing up the lack of a mechanical benefit. I don't know if you think it matters to me, but it doesn't. I don't care if your getting some benefit or no benefit.

If you are different, then either it's mechanically justified or it is not.

That makes absolutely no sense. If it doesn't have a mechanical effect (a penalty or a benefit, for example), then it doesn't actually interact with the rules and it doesn't have to be mechanically justified. If it doesn't have a mechanical effect, the rules don't care about it. The colour of a character's cloak doesn't have a mechanical effect, therefore there are no rules to govern it. I can make that cloak any colour I like. If I want it to give me a mechanical benefit (such as a white cloak in a snow-covered area), I look up a way to make it legit with the rules. If not, I can say that the cloak is the colour of the screams of a dying man and the rules stay out of it.


Again, you're providing no rationale here. You're saying "Since I can jump really high I'm going to go ahead and say it's magic". He may think it's magical, but unless something is magically affecting his jump check - it is not actually magic.

It's like you're not listening. You accused me of saying "Nuh uh" and to be honest, that's what I see you're doing right now. I provided you with an example of what I'm proposing, but you're not doing the same. The character may not be performing the specific category of actions that the rules label as magic, but what fluff can call "magic" is actually more inclusive than that. Or not, it's up to you. But it can be so. Something that is not mechanically magic can be fluff-wise magic. Both statements can coexist without any logical discord because they're talking about two completely different things.


Since when does fluff get to determine whether or not something is magical? That's what I don't understand about your argument - "Is magical" is not fluff. That's mechanic. It sounds to me like you're fluffing rules, which is what I don't agree with.

Since Rules!magic and Fluff!magic are not the same? Rules!magic is left untouched. What the rules call magic is left undisturbed. Nobody's changing any of that. However, Fluff!magic is mutable. It can change. It doesn't have to correlate 100% with Rules!magic. It can be so in your game, but it can be different in mine. In my game, I can say that anything that a commoner is not normally capable of doing (which obviously includes things that are outside Rules!magic) is Fluff!magic. Meaning, it's seen as magic and it may even be accompanied by minor magical effects that have no mechanical effects but are just for show (such as a barbarian being surrounded by a chorus of whispers, since as he grows in power, the spirits of his ancestors flock to him from his ancestral homeland; or a rogue slowly becoming "one with the shadows" as he gains more and more ranks in Hide and Move Silently).


So, you're gold for no reason, but in character you think you know the reason but it's wrong? So... you're just gold because? Because is not an argument.

No. Character A thinks it's for X reason. Character B thinks it's for Y reason. Since the players like the idea of the mystery this creates, I as a DM go with it, because it provides an interesting plot hook. Maybe they're both wrong, and the answer is completely different. Maybe the answer is that every single one of the glittery ones are marked to fulfil a prophecy.

My point is that none of this has any bearing with the rules as written. I don't need to justify with rules giving my character magical tattoos that change colour, shape and location every day. It doesn't have any mechanical effects and I don't need a rules justification for it. A fluff justification for it will suffice.


Your argument seems to me to be that stuff happens for no reason other than because you want it to. I disagree. Those sparks come from somewhere - true or false? If false, then no they're not there because there is no reason for them. If true are there mechanics for them? If yes - it's justified in game. If false, it's home-brew.

You're creating a false dichotomy here. Firstly, the sparks may have any number of explanations that have no bearing in the rules. The sparks may come from another plane, from the character's soul, from the character's ancestry, from the land itself, from one of the gods, from the presence of another character, from a piece of his equipment, and so on and so forth. Or it may be a mystery, something for the players to discover as the campaign unfolds.

Secondly, it seems you have a skewed definition of homebrew. Homebrew refers to either rules or whole campaign settings. If this is neither (the sparks have no mechanical rules and they're obviously not a campaign setting), it can't, by definition, be homebrew. If there WERE mechanics for the sparks but they were NEW mechanics that I had created for them, then yes, that would be homebrew. But they have no mechanics behind them. They simply exist without having any mechanical effect or rules. Those sparks do not cause damage, or provide concealment, bonus or penalties of any kind. They have no actual mechanical effects.

Your chart should be something like this instead:

Sparks.
|--> Come from somewhere?
| |--> No. --> Mystery.
| |--> Yes. --> Explanation.
|
|--> Have mechanics for them?
|--> Yes.
| |--> Pre-existent?
| |--> Yes. --> Standard mechanics.
| |--> No. --> Homebrew.
|
|--> No. --> Purely for fluff.


Sure you're free to play a home-brew race called "1/32 red dragon" whose entry reads "This race is identical to humans except they have flaming hair"

But that's not what I'm doing. What happens if, in my character sheet, I write down "Race: Human" and "Hair: Flaming"? Does reality implode or something?


You keep saying it can, but not how. You keep providing examples, but instead of defending them you just drop them and provide new ones. You're not making arguments, you're making statements and then you're not defending them when someone responds to them. Disagreement, in of itself, is not an argument.

I don't understand how am I suppose to "defend" a statement that begins with "You can..." :smallconfused:

Do tell me what exactly would constitute "defending" my examples, because I have no idea what you expect from me. I say "You can do this, here's how:" and then you say that I'm not defending them? What would I have to do to defend them? Provide mechanical justifications for why they have such mechanical effects? That's precisely my point, that you don't need to provide mechanical justifications for ALL magical effects, that you can have purely-for-fluff-magical effects that are not mechanically magical.


Fluff that gives an example of hair existing. Yes - I agree with that. You can replace fluff with your own, as long as it doesn't change things. Having fire on your head is considerably different from having *hair* on your head.

What is "changes things"? There ARE creatures that have fire for hair. There are creatures that have snakes for hair. There are creatures that have crystals or gusts of wind or tentacles for hair. What exactly is the "change" we're talking about here? And what about skin? Why can't a sorcerer have scaly skin (that provides absolutely no mechanical effects, of course) without having to justify it mechanically somewhere on the character sheet? Or, without going to such extremes, why not blue skin? Or green skin? Or something that has no actual mechanical effect but differs from the norm?

I mean, I get it if that's the way you want to run your games, but it's a choice that you, as the DM are making. Nobody's forcing you to play like that, and other ways to run games are fine, too.


I disagree, I understand perfectly what you're saying. You seem to think though, for some reason, that the 'no mechanical benefit' means something to me.

Tell me, how is "introducing magical effects" not home-brew? Doesn't matter if it alters 'crunch' in any way. You are *adding* a magical effect.

It doesn't matter if you introduce a type of magic into your world called "Awesome magic" that occasionally causes people to be born with weird traits - it's still home-brew by virtue of the fact that "Awesome magic" is something you made up for the game.

Because if it doesn't have a mechanical effect, it has nothing to do with mechanics. That's why I keep repeating the "mechanical effect" bit. Mechanics only govern things that have a mechanical effect, just like computer coding languages only govern computer codes or the laws of logic only govern things that follow the laws of logic. It sounds tautological, but it's true. If something does not have a mechanical effect, it cannot be affected by mechanics. It is literally outside the scope of mechanics and rules. If you make up a rule that affects something previously untouched by mechanics (such as a table where you roll to see what your hair colour is), then you're expanding the scope of mechanics towards a section of the game where it previously had no influence.

There ARE magical things that are outside the realms of mechanics, such as how can angels fly (it's actually magic, since physics say that their wings cannot support their weight) or how is it possible for outsiders to be one in both soul and body, or how can fire elementals exert force, since fire has no mass, or how can an Aboleth turn people from air-breathing to water-breathing with slime, and so on. The rules merely describe what they do, but they don't explain how this is possible. And since none of the things I mentioned count as "magic" according to the rules (they don't ping in Detect Magic or go away in an AMF), they are not magic according to the rules. But according to fluff, they ARE magic. A pair of ordinary feathered wings can't support 500 lbs of Solar without SOME form of magic, no matter how big they are. No slime can reconstruct a human's pulmonary histology without magic. Fire can't exert force, since it has no mass. So how can a fire elemental grapple anyone? Oh, but they can. Because the rules say they do. And how does this happen? The only explanation is magic.

And finally, I am not "adding" anything any more than you are whenever you create a character. Every character is unique and never existed in the world prior to you creating them. Every decision you make, every trait that you add to it, you're adding something new to the world. Just because I choose for my sorcerer to have flaming hair and you choose for yours to have red hair doesn't mean that I'm adding to the campaign setting any "more" than you are.

[Rukia]

Everyone has good points and I was not trying to say in stone that you absolutely must adhere to all fluff, only that some feats are heavily invested with fluff and disregarding it is going against the spirit of it entirely. Craven is an excellent example as I had brought up. It's name implies the complete fluff surrounding it.

cra·ven
noun /ˈkrāvən/
cravens, plural

A cowardly person

So my argument was simply saying if your character is a hero type then it makes no sense to use that feat as you're ignoring the intent completely. Sure you can rename it or refluff it how you wish, but then we've gone beyond fluff and switched into homebrew which is an entirely different argument. Ignoring the fluff and using it and renaming it to Hero and giving you a penalty to your AC during that round or something doesn't necessarily fly. Craven means you're cowardly and look for the first chance you can get to take advantage of someone turning their back to backstab them thus getting extra damage because of it. Renaming it to something else and giving a similar penalty still does not address the idea behind the spirit of the feat. Sure it doesn't specifically prohibit it's use by a lawful good character, but it shouldn't have to as it's obvious. Seeing craven on the sheet of a lawful good character just rings ridiculous.

Now as a player I don't really care about things like this because obviously it benefits me. If my DM said you can take the mechanical benefit of Craven, just rename it and change the penalty then I'd probably do it. As a DM though I'm not sure I'd let a character have it unless he truly played a bit more closely to the intended character roll which to me would be a fairly wimpus type of rogue who probably dumped strength, has low charisma and roleplays his guy as someone who never puts himself in harms way if he can help it. My first rogue was not like this and in fact protected party members much of the time so Craven would not have made sense.

Think of it this way. Power attack is a generic feat with no fluff. You reduce your chance to hit but increase the potential damage. But what if your character wasn't a big damage guy and his focus was entirely on tanking and soaking up hits. Would you have made up a feat on the spot that allowed you to reduce your chance to hit but given you temporary hit points instead? Probably not before Stone Power came out which is an entirely different feat. If we "refluffed" power attack in that sense we've essentially just created a new feat. That is not refluffing, that is homebrewing a new feat and seems to be a big rift in the argument right now. Refluffing implies leaving something alone mechanically but changing the description. What a some people are talking about is changing it mechanically to fit some different fluff which is not the same thing.

Personally I'm not vested that much into either method, I'm simply saying that the spirit of some feats is that in order to use them you follow the fluff and at times that itself is a negative. If you choose to ignore fluff simply because it's inconvenient than you're just seeking to extract the benefit without any negatives. Ashbound doesn't require you to act out your hatred of Arcane magic, but it seriously implies that you probably should consider it or else don't bother with the feat.

[ImperatorK]

Stuff.
Or, if TL;DR: Change fluff how you want, but make it still matter. :smallwink:

[The Glyphstone]

You and the rest of us will just have to disagree then, I guess.


Or, if TL;DR: Change fluff how you want, but make it still matter. :smallwink:

Well no - he's specifically saying that if you change the fluff, you have to change the rules too.

[ImperatorK]

You and the rest of us will just have to disagree then, I guess.
So you're saying that fluff doesn't matter at all? :smallconfused:


Well no - he's specifically saying that if you change the fluff, you have to change the rules too.
And I already said that I'm not agreeing with him on that specific part.

[The Glyphstone]

So you're saying that fluff doesn't matter at all? :smallconfused:

Didn't we just go through that?:smallconfused: Rukia is arguing that any deviation from printed fluff is homebrewing, thus we might as well change mechanics too. You, me, and everyone else are saying that fluff can be re-written at well as long as it makes sense.


EDIT: Ah. I was talking to Rukia, you slipped in ahead of me.

[ImperatorK]

And I already said that I'm not agreeing with him on that specific part.

[The Glyphstone]

And I already said that I'm not agreeing with him on that specific part.

See the edit. We're talking past each other, which is causing all sorts of confusion.

[ImperatorK]

Okay. So just to be clear: I'm not agreeing on the homebrewing part and on the "Don't change fluff" part, but I agree on the overall message (that fluff should matter, even if it isn't rules).

[Shadowknight12]

Guys, it's a "she." :smalltongue:

[ImperatorK]

"He" is a gender neutral word when you don't know someones gender. :smalltongue: (at least that's what I read in "V's gender debate")

[Shadowknight12]

"He" is a gender neutral word when you don't know someones gender. :smalltongue: (at least that's what I read in "V's gender debate")

But you do. It's right under her avatar. That's the reason for the gender thing to exist, so that you can use the right pronoun. :smalltongue:

Or are we adhering to the old adage: "On the internet, the men are men, the women are also men and the children are FBI agents"?

[The Glyphstone]

And I've long since stopped paying any attention to people's gender icons, ever since the Gender Swap Week.

"She", then, for Rukia.



Okay. So just to be clear: I'm not agreeing on the homebrewing part and on the "Don't change fluff" part, but I agree on the overall message (that fluff should matter, even if it isn't rules).

So are a lot of other people, myself included. It's the fluff that makes this an RPG, not a wargame. It's like soup and a bowl, since I had soup for dinner...you can put any kind of soup in any kind of bowl, but without one or the other, you either go hungry or have a gigantic mess everywhere.


EDIT: Bread bowls don't count.

[Typewriter]

That makes absolutely no sense. If it doesn't have a mechanical effect (a penalty or a benefit, for example), then it doesn't actually interact with the rules and it doesn't have to be mechanically justified. If it doesn't have a mechanical effect, the rules don't care about it. The colour of a character's cloak doesn't have a mechanical effect, therefore there are no rules to govern it. I can make that cloak any colour I like. If I want it to give me a mechanical benefit (such as a white cloak in a snow-covered area), I look up a way to make it legit with the rules. If not, I can say that the cloak is the colour of the screams of a dying man and the rules stay out of it.

Are you really comparing blue cloak -> green cloak as a parallel to hair -> fire? The rules care about it because you have a random fire on your head that doesn't make any sense. It can't be identified, it's not tied to your race, it's not any type of known magic. It's just there.

If it makes no sense to you, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Converting hair to fire may not cause any type of mechanical change, but you are still changing a race.



It's like you're not listening. You accused me of saying "Nuh uh" and to be honest, that's what I see you're doing right now. I provided you with an example of what I'm proposing, but you're not doing the same. The character may not be performing the specific category of actions that the rules label as magic, but what fluff can call "magic" is actually more inclusive than that. Or not, it's up to you. But it can be so. Something that is not mechanically magic can be fluff-wise magic. Both statements can coexist without any logical discord because they're talking about two completely different things.

When I said that I was referring, specifically, to this post:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11403082&postcount=146

In that post you didn't respond to any of my arguments with anything other than "Yeah I can", "It doesn't have to be", and a sarcastic misinterpretation about a statement I had made regarding hair.

In response to your statement about what 'fluff calls magic'. If you make a character and say his 'power' comes from horse magic, but the mechanics don't say there's any such thing as horse magic, what is happening? Your character might think that horses are supplying him with power, but since horse magic doesn't exist within the rules, it's not really supplying him with power is it? If you create horse magic to exist then you are home-brewing a type of magic.

I get what you're saying - I really do. I just disagree completely. If you say your power comes from source X but the rules don't support your power coming from X then where is it coming from? Your character may think it's coming from X, but that doesn't mean it does.



Since Rules!magic and Fluff!magic are not the same? Rules!magic is left untouched. What the rules call magic is left undisturbed. Nobody's changing any of that. However, Fluff!magic is mutable. It can change. It doesn't have to correlate 100% with Rules!magic. It can be so in your game, but it can be different in mine. In my game, I can say that anything that a commoner is not normally capable of doing (which obviously includes things that are outside Rules!magic) is Fluff!magic. Meaning, it's seen as magic and it may even be accompanied by minor magical effects that have no mechanical effects but are just for show (such as a barbarian being surrounded by a chorus of whispers, since as he grows in power, the spirits of his ancestors flock to him from his ancestral homeland; or a rogue slowly becoming "one with the shadows" as he gains more and more ranks in Hide and Move Silently).

The fluff is that 'he's surrounded by whispers', but the mechanic is "As he gains in power spirits flock to him". You are causing an observable event in game to happen, and you are providing an in-game explanation.



No. Character A thinks it's for X reason. Character B thinks it's for Y reason. Since the players like the idea of the mystery this creates, I as a DM go with it, because it provides an interesting plot hook. Maybe they're both wrong, and the answer is completely different. Maybe the answer is that every single one of the glittery ones are marked to fulfil a prophecy.

I understand that the characters think things that can be wrong. I'm fine with that. The thing that I'm having a disconnect on is that you, in this case the DM, know what is going on. There is a reason. You may not be telling people this, but you have made a mechanical ruling. If the ruling is "People who are to fulfill this prophecy are born with sparkly skin" that doesn't become not a house-rule or home-brew just because there's no mechanical side effects.



My point is that none of this has any bearing with the rules as written. I don't need to justify with rules giving my character magical tattoos that change colour, shape and location every day. It doesn't have any mechanical effects and I don't need a rules justification for it. A fluff justification for it will suffice.

Quick clarification: I'm perfectly fine with people doing whatever they want in their games, and doing what their DM allows. I'm arguing my viewpoint on the subject, not what I think is 'right'. That being said...

If you purchase a magical tattoo then the mechanical change is "People can buy magical tattoos". I'm not saying that's the reason you were going with, I'm just using that as an example. As far as I know there are no rules for buying non-functional visual only magical tattoos, so if your in game justification is "I found a guy who sells them" then you are creating an NPC capable of selling this type of tattoo. You don't 'just have them'. You attained them through some type of home-brew means.



You're creating a false dichotomy here. Firstly, the sparks may have any number of explanations that have no bearing in the rules. The sparks may come from another plane, from the character's soul, from the character's ancestry, from the land itself, from one of the gods, from the presence of another character, from a piece of his equipment, and so on and so forth. Or it may be a mystery, something for the players to discover as the campaign unfolds.

How did I make a false dichotomy? Look at my argument:
1. Those sparks come from somewhere - true or false? Based off of what you're saying the answer is true. They are coming from *somewhere*. The characters may not know, but they are coming from *somewhere*.
2.If true are there mechanics for them? For the sake of argument let's go with "no". You have refluffed the character to have sparks because of some reason. There are no *mechanics* that justify those sparks existing.
3. If false, it's home-brew. You say that there is some reason. Mechanically speaking something is happening that is causing the sparks, but it's not any mechanics that came with the game. You or a player have determined that your character is tapping into another plane, or that it only happens near other characters. An event is occurring because of an in-game reason. How is that not a mechanic?



Secondly, it seems you have a skewed definition of homebrew. Homebrew refers to either rules or whole campaign settings. If this is neither (the sparks have no mechanical rules and they're obviously not a campaign setting), it can't, by definition, be homebrew. If there WERE mechanics for the sparks but they were NEW mechanics that I had created for them, then yes, that would be homebrew. But they have no mechanics behind them. They simply exist without having any mechanical effect or rules. Those sparks do not cause damage, or provide concealment, bonus or penalties of any kind. They have no actual mechanical effects.

But mechanically something is happening. In real life, if I throw a paper airplane and it falls to the ground then there is a reason for it. Physics determined whether or not my throw was good enough, whether the design of the plane was well done.

In D&D you don't have physics, you have mechanics. If a portal to another plane opens up and sparks shoot out of it every time I swing my sword then mechanically - something is happening.

Beyond that, I disagree with your definition of homebrew. I'd always heard homebrew used as "Anything in D&D that the standard rules don't supply rules for". Rules is a lot more than just campaign settings...



Your chart should be something like this instead:

Sparks.
|--> Come from somewhere?
| |--> No. --> Mystery.
| |--> Yes. --> Explanation.
|
|--> Have mechanics for them?
|--> Yes.
| |--> Pre-existent?
| |--> Yes. --> Standard mechanics.
| |--> No. --> Homebrew.
|
|--> No. --> Purely for fluff.

How is it No and Mystery? If it didn't come from somewhere, it's not a mystery - there is just no source.

And are "come from somewhere" and "have mechanics for them" completely separate, or do you go from one to the other? Assuming you always wind up at the bottom chart what does "purely for fluff" mean, To me it sounds like "because".



But that's not what I'm doing. What happens if, in my character sheet, I write down "Race: Human" and "Hair: Flaming"? Does reality implode or something?


Assuming you still mean that your in game justification is that your 1/32 dragon - then no the universe won't explode, but it doesn't change the fact that you're not playing a human - you're playing a 1/32 dragon. That's an in-game justification, and you've made rules saying that that means you can have a flame head.

If you're no longer using any justification, then you don't have flaming hair because there is no reason for you to have flaming hair. That's how my group treats things. If you don't have flaming hair, then you don't get flaming hair just for wanting it really hard.



I don't understand how am I suppose to "defend" a statement that begins with "You can..." :smallconfused:

Do tell me what exactly would constitute "defending" my examples, because I have no idea what you expect from me. I say "You can do this, here's how:" and then you say that I'm not defending them? What would I have to do to defend them? Provide mechanical justifications for why they have such mechanical effects? That's precisely my point, that you don't need to provide mechanical justifications for ALL magical effects, that you can have purely-for-fluff-magical effects that are not mechanically magical.


"You can" is not an argument. It's a statement. I've explained why I disagree (everything happens for a reason - if there's no reason then how is it happening). Replying with "But you can anyway" isn't an argument. I don't know how to defend your argument because it makes no sense to me. I would assume that if I knew how to defend "Yes you can", then I would probably be agreeing with you.

Here's how I see things (feel free to edit and repost to clarify a point to me):
Player: Check out my character
DM: It says you have fire instead of hair. What's up with that?
Player: I thought it was cool.
DM: OK, where is it coming from?
Player: Well I figure I could be some kind of weird race with fire hair. Like an Azir...
DM: Are you playing an Azir?
Player: No, I just figured I could be something similar. Like have blood from them that grants me fire for hair.
DM: Well, I wasn't going to allow home brew this campaign, but if it's cosmetic I don't see the harm.
Player: No, I don't want home brew, I just want fire instead of hair
DM: But where is it coming from
Player: I wrote it on my character sheet
DM: Writing something on your character sheet doesn't mean it happens in game. There needs to be an in-game reason for it. If you want to have Azir blood that's fine, but you're playing an Azir blooded creature. It won't have any mechanical affects one way or the other, but it will grant you your fire hair.



What is "changes things"? There ARE creatures that have fire for hair. There are creatures that have snakes for hair. There are creatures that have crystals or gusts of wind or tentacles for hair. What exactly is the "change" we're talking about here? And what about skin? Why can't a sorcerer have scaly skin (that provides absolutely no mechanical effects, of course) without having to justify it mechanically somewhere on the character sheet? Or, without going to such extremes, why not blue skin? Or green skin? Or something that has no actual mechanical effect but differs from the norm?


Are humans able to be born with fire instead of hair? Not humans with elemental blood, or azir blood. Just humans. Not humans that are cursed or blessed by the gods, not humans that are in any way special. Humans that are born on a farm, and live their entire lives there?

If the answer is "yes" you've not just 'refluffed' your human character, you've 'refluffed' the human race.

If the answer is "no" then you have to have something that makes your character different from every other human. If you are a human, and humans aren't born with fire in place of hair - then what are you. Whatever reason you come up with as a ruling (or mechanic if you will) now says "Humans born matching this criteria are sometimes born with fire in place of hair".



I mean, I get it if that's the way you want to run your games, but it's a choice that you, as the DM are making. Nobody's forcing you to play like that, and other ways to run games are fine, too.


I apologize if at any point I made it seem like I considered my way to be the only way to play, or that my way is in some way superior. I'm not arguing the superiority of one style over another, I'm simply stating my viewpoint on this particular subject.



Because if it doesn't have a mechanical effect, it has nothing to do with mechanics. That's why I keep repeating the "mechanical effect" bit. Mechanics only govern things that have a mechanical effect, just like computer coding languages only govern computer codes or the laws of logic only govern things that follow the laws of logic. It sounds tautological, but it's true. If something does not have a mechanical effect, it cannot be affected by mechanics. It is literally outside the scope of mechanics and rules. If you make up a rule that affects something previously untouched by mechanics (such as a table where you roll to see what your hair colour is), then you're expanding the scope of mechanics towards a section of the game where it previously had no influence.

As I mentioned earlier, the default fluff says "Race has hair". It gives an example of what kind of hair is normal, but I consider a refluff of that to be fair game. Since fire is not hair, saying "My character has fire on his head because the book fluff says I have hair" is not 'refluffing'. It's putting fire on someones head.

If the mechanics cannot touch it then how does it exist?



There ARE magical things that are outside the realms of mechanics, such as how can angels fly (it's actually magic, since physics say that their wings cannot support their weight) or how is it possible for outsiders to be one in both soul and body, or how can fire elementals exert force, since fire has no mass, or how can an Aboleth turn people from air-breathing to water-breathing with slime, and so on. The rules merely describe what they do, but they don't explain how this is possible. And since none of the things I mentioned count as "magic" according to the rules (they don't ping in Detect Magic or go away in an AMF), they are not magic according to the rules. But according to fluff, they ARE magic. A pair of ordinary feathered wings can't support 500 lbs of Solar without SOME form of magic, no matter how big they are. No slime can reconstruct a human's pulmonary histology without magic. Fire can't exert force, since it has no mass. So how can a fire elemental grapple anyone? Oh, but they can. Because the rules say they do. And how does this happen? The only explanation is magic.

There are no physics in D&D, only mechanics. If D&D mechanics say that an angel can fly it doesn't matter what our physics say. Are you trying to correlate physics to D&D? Because if so that's not a conversation I'm interested in having.



And finally, I am not "adding" anything any more than you are whenever you create a character. Every character is unique and never existed in the world prior to you creating them. Every decision you make, every trait that you add to it, you're adding something new to the world. Just because I choose for my sorcerer to have flaming hair and you choose for yours to have red hair doesn't mean that I'm adding to the campaign setting any "more" than you are.

As a character you perform actions that are allowed through the mechanics. You're able to swing your sword because the game has rules for it. You can cast spells because the game has rules for it. You can talk to people because the game has rules for it.

I fail to see how a standard characters actions which are permitted by the rules are the same as saying that a characters head is on fire just because you wanted it to be.

EDIT: Yes, I'm perfectly aware that sometimes players do things that aren't defined by the rules completely. Generally what happens is the DM makes a ruling that says "Whenever X is done, we roll Blah" or perhaps "Whenever X is done, no rolls are required, it just happens". Those are house rules, or home-brew - whatever you choose.

[Rukia]

Well no - he's specifically saying that if you change the fluff, you have to change the rules too.

I'm only suggesting that in the fluff heavy feat type of instances in which there probably aren't that many. I just brought up a few off the top of my head as I've had experience with them personally.

Overall I'm totally ok with fluff changes to fit the character's story or better fit the campaign. A swordsage doesn't have to have been trained specifically at one of the Bo9S temples, he could have easily found similar powers another way. I once played a Dragonborn in a world without Bahamut and it was explained that my character had been experimented on with Dragon's blood and escaped his captors. The DM decided that better than simply saying no to my request to play one.

I just think it's a cop out to change fluff solely for the purpose of getting some cool power your character wants without any regards to fluff that might have worked against you. IE; Playing an evil Dragonborn character in a world where Bahamut does exist since you're basically getting the template but not following Bahamut's will. The idea behind the Dragonborn is being reborn and following a new path, leaving your dastardly ways behind you. If I want to play a Dragonborn in a campaign then I simply accept that I will have to worship Bahamut and play a good guy and not skirt the issue to metagame the template without the fluff.

If I was a DM I'd send out a ton of Bahamut's children out to hunt you down as you'd be just as bad as one of Tiamat's minions. And I don't care about the "she" thing, as said who knows who is truly on the other end of these avatars. :smallbiggrin:

[Lord_Gareth]

I can't believe I'm getting involved in another one of these threads, but here goes nothing:

If you are in Camp 1, ask yourself, "Are my players happy with my games?" If not, there is a problem that needs to be corrected, and joining Camp 2 may actually help with this. Alternately, you may just have a flaw (or series of flaws) with your DMing style, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

If your players are having fun, then fine, whatever. Go play how you want to. Just keep in mind that every last person in Camp 2 was in Camp 1 at some point (including me) and every last one of us is telling you without a shadow of doubt in our hearts that our games involve more fun than your games do. Take that advice how you will.

Does anything else actually need to be said on the matter?

[Shadowknight12]

Are you really comparing blue cloak -> green cloak as a parallel to hair -> fire? The rules care about it because you have a random fire on your head that doesn't make any sense. It can't be identified, it's not tied to your race, it's not any type of known magic. It's just there.

Why doesn't it make sense? We're talking about a universe with all sorts of possibilities. What makes you say "this makes sense" and "this doesn't"?


If it makes no sense to you, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Converting hair to fire may not cause any type of mechanical change, but you are still changing a race.

Why? Where in the books is that actually specifically stated? Is it really stated anywhere that whenever I create a character from a race that is not exactly average then he must be a member of another race?


When I said that I was referring, specifically, to this post:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11403082&postcount=146

In that post you didn't respond to any of my arguments with anything other than "Yeah I can", "It doesn't have to be", and a sarcastic misinterpretation about a statement I had made regarding hair.

But that's what I don't understand. What more do you want from me? What else can I do to prove to you that yeah, you CAN do it. I'm serious here, do tell me exactly what you expect from me as an answer to your arguments.


In response to your statement about what 'fluff calls magic'. If you make a character and say his 'power' comes from horse magic, but the mechanics don't say there's any such thing as horse magic, what is happening? Your character might think that horses are supplying him with power, but since horse magic doesn't exist within the rules, it's not really supplying him with power is it? If you create horse magic to exist then you are home-brewing a type of magic.

I think that you really have to understand what I'm saying here, because you're forcing me to repeat myself over and over again.

"What is happening?" The character obtains his powers, mechanically, from anywhere he wants. Maybe he's a druid or a paladin or a cleric. It doesn't matter, he's mechanically identical to any other character at the table. No homebrewing. Fluffwise, horses give him power.

Say you have Alice and Bob. They're both clerics. Alice is your standard cleric who gets her powers from the god she worships. You know, standard cleric fluff. Now Bob, on the other hand, has the exact same character sheet as Alice, with the same stats, feat choices, equipment, spells and etc. They're both mechanically identical. The only difference is that Bob's powers come from horses. Or pink umbrellas. Or the space between two things.

See what I'm saying? They are mechanically identical but another one has a different fluff. And the good thing is that both concepts can work if Alice and Bob are fighters rather than clerics. Alice gets her "powers" from the god she worships and Bob gets his "powers" from the colour ochre.


I get what you're saying - I really do. I just disagree completely. If you say your power comes from source X but the rules don't support your power coming from X then where is it coming from? Your character may think it's coming from X, but that doesn't mean it does.

Again, you're mixing crunch and fluff. Crunchwise, my powers come from my mechanical choices. Fluffwise, my powers can come from anywhere I want. Maybe my wizard didn't spend his whole life studying in an academy. Maybe his spellbook is not full of arcane formulae, but instead he draws powers from laughter itself and his spellbook is full of jokes. Mechanically, his spells have the same origin and source as any other wizard in the campaign and they behave exactly the same way. Fluffwise, he's different.


The fluff is that 'he's surrounded by whispers', but the mechanic is "As he gains in power spirits flock to him". You are causing an observable event in game to happen, and you are providing an in-game explanation.

Actually, no. That's not a mechanic. "As he gains in power, spirits flock to him" is not a mechanic because it's not written in any book and it's not in any character sheet. That's pure fluff right there. Also, in-game =/= mechanics. In-game is fluff. Mechanics are outside the game, even if they influence it. In-game, people don't say "My +5 Holy Avenger," or "I'm a 12th-level fighter!" (OotS and fourth-wall-breaking aside).


I understand that the characters think things that can be wrong. I'm fine with that. The thing that I'm having a disconnect on is that you, in this case the DM, know what is going on. There is a reason. You may not be telling people this, but you have made a mechanical ruling. If the ruling is "People who are to fulfill this prophecy are born with sparkly skin" that doesn't become not a house-rule or home-brew just because there's no mechanical side effects.

What? No, there are a TON of things that I, the DM, don't know about my world. I leave things deliberately vague because it enhances the mystery. If I know the answers, the mystery is gone, and I'm closing the door on a ton of options that might be even better. Maybe I say that the bard's glittery skin is a blessing from the Fae gods, but they get confused and think that a prophecy I presented them (that points out at something completely different) points out at the glittery skin of the bard, and they draw a connection that I never thought about, but it is actually way better than what I had originally thought. Since this happens to me ALL the time, I've long-stopped coming up with explanations for things. I let the explanations be whatever is better for the story.

As an aside, your definition of house-rule or homebrew is way too vague. The glittery skin/prophecy thing is pure plot. Are you saying that every time I come up with a plot, I'm making a house-rule? If I signal the players as "destined to fall and then rise again," am I making a house-rule? If the players set up a detective agency in Sharn to solve crime, is that homebrew?


Quick clarification: I'm perfectly fine with people doing whatever they want in their games, and doing what their DM allows. I'm arguing my viewpoint on the subject, not what I think is 'right'. That being said...

Ah, all right. Well, that's good to know.


If you purchase a magical tattoo then the mechanical change is "People can buy magical tattoos". I'm not saying that's the reason you were going with, I'm just using that as an example. As far as I know there are no rules for buying non-functional visual only magical tattoos, so if your in game justification is "I found a guy who sells them" then you are creating an NPC capable of selling this type of tattoo. You don't 'just have them'. You attained them through some type of home-brew means.

But why is that a mechanical change? Where is the mechanical effect? "Able to purchase a magical tattoo" is not a mechanical effect. "Able to purchase a potion" is not a mechanical effect, else it'd be written on a character sheet, along with "Able to breathe underwater" and "immune to sleep effects."

So every NPC I create is homebrewing? Are we even working under the same definitions of the word? :smallconfused:


How did I make a false dichotomy? Look at my argument:
1. Those sparks come from somewhere - true or false? Based off of what you're saying the answer is true. They are coming from *somewhere*. The characters may not know, but they are coming from *somewhere*.
2.If true are there mechanics for them? For the sake of argument let's go with "no". You have refluffed the character to have sparks because of some reason. There are no *mechanics* that justify those sparks existing.
3. If false, it's home-brew. You say that there is some reason. Mechanically speaking something is happening that is causing the sparks, but it's not any mechanics that came with the game. You or a player have determined that your character is tapping into another plane, or that it only happens near other characters. An event is occurring because of an in-game reason. How is that not a mechanic?

Again, mechanics are not in-game constructs. Mechanics exist outside the game, even though they influence it.

The false dichotomy comes from assuming that if it is not part of the mechanics printed in a book, it must be part of homebrewed mechanics. This is false, because homebrew refers to mechanics. If something does not have mechanics, it cannot be homebrew. That's what you seem to ignore despite how many times I say it. Mechanics are homebrew. House-rules are mechanics too. Things that are not mechanics cannot be homebrew or house-rules because they do not fit in the definition of those words.

In this, you are actually wrong, because you're applying a word (homebrew) to a situation that contradicts its very definition.


But mechanically something is happening. In real life, if I throw a paper airplane and it falls to the ground then there is a reason for it. Physics determined whether or not my throw was good enough, whether the design of the plane was well done.

You talk about physics here and then below you tell me not to bring physics into D&D? Seriously?

Anyway, no. You are wrong. Some things have no mechanical correlation. I've given you examples. I can find more.


In D&D you don't have physics, you have mechanics. If a portal to another plane opens up and sparks shoot out of it every time I swing my sword then mechanically - something is happening.

Fluffwise, something is happening, yes. Mechanically, this need not be the case. Some things happen without having to be justified by mechanics. Or are you telling me that love cannot exist since there's no mechanic for it? Or that a character cannot be afraid without suffering a [Fear] effect?


Beyond that, I disagree with your definition of homebrew. I'd always heard homebrew used as "Anything in D&D that the standard rules don't supply rules for". Rules is a lot more than just campaign settings...

Unfortunately, there's no official definition of what homebrew is, exactly, so I can't prove you wrong. My definition of homebrew refers exclusively to mechanics created by an unofficial source. If it doesn't have mechanical effects, it's not homebrew. It's just refluffing.


How is it No and Mystery? If it didn't come from somewhere, it's not a mystery - there is just no source.

No. Just because you don't know the source, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe neither the players nor the DM know the reason something exists. That's a mystery.


And are "come from somewhere" and "have mechanics for them" completely separate, or do you go from one to the other? Assuming you always wind up at the bottom chart what does "purely for fluff" mean, To me it sounds like "because".

They are completely separate. A single event can have two completely different answers to "come from somewhere." Mechanically, they can come from a class (as in, a class feature). Fluffwise, they can come from ancestry, a specific event in the character's past, etc.

Purely for fluff means that it exists in the game but it has no mechanical correlation. It is as real as any other thing, but it has no actual mechanical explanation or effect. It is something that exists merely for the sake of RPing, or story, or whatever other reason the players want it to exist. If it's important for the player that his sword is made of magical ice (but it behaves exactly like normal steel), then why do I have to make him find a mechanical reason for it, when he's not gaining a mechanical effect from such a decision?


Assuming you still mean that your in game justification is that your 1/32 dragon - then no the universe won't explode, but it doesn't change the fact that you're not playing a human - you're playing a 1/32 dragon. That's an in-game justification, and you've made rules saying that that means you can have a flame head.

If you're no longer using any justification, then you don't have flaming hair because there is no reason for you to have flaming hair. That's how my group treats things. If you don't have flaming hair, then you don't get flaming hair just for wanting it really hard.

And my group says that your fun comes first. If your fun hinges heavily on being a human with flaming hair, I'll darn sure let you play one, because I'm not going to get my boxers in a twist over a detail that doesn't matter. And if you're not getting a mechanical effect out of it, it doesn't matter. And if you are, sometimes it doesn't matter even then.


"You can" is not an argument. It's a statement. I've explained why I disagree (everything happens for a reason - if there's no reason then how is it happening). Replying with "But you can anyway" isn't an argument. I don't know how to defend your argument because it makes no sense to me. I would assume that if I knew how to defend "Yes you can", then I would probably be agreeing with you.

And I replied "the reason does not have to be mechanical." Which you're not answering to. Sure, things happen for a reason, but those reasons don't need to be written on a character sheet and include dice rolls, numbers or rules.


Here's how I see things (feel free to edit and repost to clarify a point to me):
Player: Check out my character
DM: It says you have fire instead of hair. What's up with that?
Player: I thought it was cool.
DM: OK, where is it coming from?
Player: Well I figure I could be some kind of weird race with fire hair. Like an Azir...
DM: Are you playing an Azir?
Player: No, I just figured I could be something similar. Like have blood from them that grants me fire for hair.
DM: Well, I wasn't going to allow home brew this campaign, but if it's cosmetic I don't see the harm.
Player: No, I don't want home brew, I just want fire instead of hair
DM: But where is it coming from
Player: I wrote it on my character sheet
DM: Writing something on your character sheet doesn't mean it happens in game. There needs to be an in-game reason for it. If you want to have Azir blood that's fine, but you're playing an Azir blooded creature. It won't have any mechanical affects one way or the other, but it will grant you your fire hair.

Yeah, that's about right. Only the thing is, what if the character does not want to be descended from Azir? What if they're a sorcerer playing up the fire theme? Picking fire spells and all that? And they want a character arc planned where the character flirts with the notion of embracing his fiery nature and letting go of his humanity, and to represent this, he starts taking up fiery characteristics, like flaming hair? Why does that have to be a homebrewed race?

Or a barbarian that comes from the frozen north and was blessed by the ice faeries and now he's always cold to the touch? Why do I need a mechanical ruling for something cosmetic like that?


Are humans able to be born with fire instead of hair? Not humans with elemental blood, or azir blood. Just humans. Not humans that are cursed or blessed by the gods, not humans that are in any way special. Humans that are born on a farm, and live their entire lives there?

If the answer is "yes" you've not just 'refluffed' your human character, you've 'refluffed' the human race.

If the answer is "no" then you have to have something that makes your character different from every other human. If you are a human, and humans aren't born with fire in place of hair - then what are you. Whatever reason you come up with as a ruling (or mechanic if you will) now says "Humans born matching this criteria are sometimes born with fire in place of hair".

Have I actually done either of those two things? If I say "yes" why am I refluffing the entire race? Humans can be sorcerers, right? Why can't that sorcerer grow closer and closer to a certain element and start taking on some cosmetic characteristics?

And if I say "no," why do I have to come up with a rule? Why can't I say "Okay, since this grants you no mechanical benefit, there's no need to create a rule for it" and be done with it?


I apologize if at any point I made it seem like I considered my way to be the only way to play, or that my way is in some way superior. I'm not arguing the superiority of one style over another, I'm simply stating my viewpoint on this particular subject.

Oh, that's fine. Sorry, I just get a bit defensive since there's a prevalent feeling among some people here that their way really is the one true way of playing and any other way of playing is wrong.


As I mentioned earlier, the default fluff says "Race has hair". It gives an example of what kind of hair is normal, but I consider a refluff of that to be fair game. Since fire is not hair, saying "My character has fire on his head because the book fluff says I have hair" is not 'refluffing'. It's putting fire on someones head.

If the mechanics cannot touch it then how does it exist?

Because mechanics don't govern everything that exists? I've cited examples already.


There are no physics in D&D, only mechanics. If D&D mechanics say that an angel can fly it doesn't matter what our physics say. Are you trying to correlate physics to D&D? Because if so that's not a conversation I'm interested in having.

No, I'm not, you've missed the entire point I was making. I'm talking about things that are MAGICAL to everyone who sees them, but which are not magical according to the rules. An angel's flight is magical, you cannot question that. But the rules say it's not magical. That right there is an example of mechanics disagreeing with the in-game reality, showing you that the in-game (or fluff) definition of magic is broader and more inclusive than the rules' definition of magic.


As a character you perform actions that are allowed through the mechanics. You're able to swing your sword because the game has rules for it. You can cast spells because the game has rules for it. You can talk to people because the game has rules for it.

Wow. No, sorry, we don't agree at all here. At all. There are things that my characters do that the game has no rules for. My characters fall in love, they have children, they breathe and they blink without any rules for that.


I fail to see how a standard characters actions which are permitted by the rules are the same as saying that a characters head is on fire just because you wanted it to be.

And I'm saying that they're NOT the same. I'm saying that some things do not have to have mechanical explanations. They can exist without an official rule saying they are allowed to exist.


EDIT: Yes, I'm perfectly aware that sometimes players do things that aren't defined by the rules completely. Generally what happens is the DM makes a ruling that says "Whenever X is done, we roll Blah" or perhaps "Whenever X is done, no rolls are required, it just happens". Those are house rules, or home-brew - whatever you choose.

So... I have to make up a new rule every time a character blinks? Because there actually aren't rules for that.

[Rogue Shadows]

Wow. No, sorry, we don't agree at all here. At all. There are things that my characters do that the game has no rules for. My characters fall in love, they have children, they breathe and they blink without any rules for that.

Actually there are rules for breathing - or at least implied rules, since there are definitely rules for what happens when your character can't breathe.

Actually for that matter, there's been rules for giving birth too, if you go 3rd party.

[Shadowknight12]

Actually there are rules for breathing - or at least implied rules, since there are definitely rules for what happens when your character can't breathe.

Actually for that matter, there's been rules for giving birth too, if you go 3rd party.

Yeah, there are rules for being unable to breathe, but not for actually breathing.

I used "having children" as an euphemism. But then again, 3rd party has extensive rules for that too. Unnecessary rules, but c'est la vie.

[sonofzeal]

Actually there are rules for breathing - or at least implied rules, since there are definitely rules for what happens when your character can't breathe.

Actually for that matter, there's been rules for giving birth too, if you go 3rd party.

He's still got a point. I daresay half of the activities in my group aren't directly covered by the rules. I don't remember seeing official WotC rules for sleep, or starvation, or drawing maps of where we'd been, or desecrating holy sites with the intestines of a dozen slaughtered kobolds. Characters perform actions not explicitly described by the rules all the time. As much as you can point me to a 3rd party supplement that covers the fine art of kobold-gut streamers, I don't need that supplement to exist for it to happen in my game. I've never read it, I'm perfectly happy never having read it, I'm darn sure neither the DM nor the player in question ever read it, but it happened just fine anyway.

The rules are a framework, they give structure to the game world. But it's the players and the DM who fill in that framework and make it into a complete experience. And I dare say for most groups that's going to involve filling in details around that framework, extrapolating things not explicitly described.

[lesser_minion]

But that, again, doesn't make sense...why do the benefits of Ashbound necessitate conflict with arcane casters? If the fluff of the feat doesn't fit your character, you should be allowed to change the fluff rather than have a straightjack put on your roleplaying for the sake of mechanical abilities. As long as you're adhering to the new fluff, there's no metagame effects.

There is no value whatsoever to a piece of crunch beyond the fluff it allows you to depict. If a feat was written to portray a particular piece of fluff and it fails to do so, then that feat is broken and in need of fixing. Whether balanced or not, it simply does not work.

The crunch is not sacred. If a feat requires membership in a particular druidic sect, feel free to substitute an equivalent druidic sect. If your paladin's code of conduct doesn't work out for you, feel free to substitute a new code of conduct.

Refluffing puts the cart before the horse. There's nothing wrong with using different fluff for a given piece of crunch, but it's better to start from the fluff, and have a clear idea of what it is you want to portray before you figure out the mechanics. If you really must have a particular feat or build option, just take it -- you don't have to justify every last build decision you make with the fluff, only the biggest ones.

This avoids needlessly complicated character builds, and when designing things it helps to avoid the D&D problem where you end up with five different sets of rules for how to walk and chew gum.

[Ravens_cry]

I had a character who fell in love and courted an NPC, then proposed and got married at the end of the campaign without touching a die. I never rolled Diplomacy, I never made Seduction check, it was all fluff and roleplay and yet it felt like some of the most meaningful experiences I have had in a Campaign.
So please, don't say fluff is meaningless.
Without it, we aren't playing D&D, we are just rolling strange dice, seen if we reach or exceed target numbers with a weighted random number generator. That is not to say crunch is not important.The crunch helps facilitate the experience, to arbitrate actions that we feel need to be resolved in a neutral, unbiased, way. But it isn't the only thing.
Fluff, home made or 'official', is the world, crunch helps make it move.

[Darth Stabber]

Definitely closest to camp 2 with 2 reservations. The first reservation only effects wizards, wu jen, death masters (in the rare instances they are used), and archivists, and only due to the existence of spell books (since spell books are somewhat interoperable), and even then I am willing to allow refluff so long as it makes sense for you to still be able to share spells. All of that comes along with the additional caveat that you do give atleast a reasonable explaination as to how you do what you do. The second is races, I may refluff a races, but race matters, in that it describes what species you are even if you are raised by another race. If you want to mechanically be a half elf (for this example let's pretend they aren't a joke), but don't want pointy ears and slight social stigma, too bad.

Now I will demand that you create some fluff if you are not going to use the default. You have warlock powers, but you have made no pact with fey or fiend? You should have some reason (even if your character doesn't know). I have played warlocks that used sorcerer's fluff, and I have allowed vice-versa as a gm. I have played a dread necro that got her powers from her faith in We Jas. These examples all have a fluff that is technically covered by a different class, but the abilities that fit the character I had in mind did not fall under the class that would be assigned normally.

Example: I once played a dread necro that was a priestess of we-jas, but part of her concept was that she was very zealous and 'look before you leap' to the point of foolishnessness, and her natural social grace coupled with the low wisdom of her normal modus operandi lead to her being awefull as a cleric (and soulborn make terrible necromancers). Dread necro had a perfect spell list and the right class features, the only down side was arcane casting. My choices were modify fluff, or play a class that fit fluff only in the most literal manner. I was perfectly willing to seperate "priestess" from cleric, and had a fun character as a result.

Also, while I have refluffed binder in a homebrew setting before, I must say that Binders should not be refluffed, their fluff is way too awesome for that.

[LordBlades]

There is no value whatsoever to a piece of crunch beyond the fluff it allows you to depict. If a feat was written to portray a particular piece of fluff and it fails to do so, then that feat is broken and in need of fixing. Whether balanced or not, it simply does not work.


Bolded what I think it's one of the key elements in this discussion. Crunch is mainly a means with which to bring a character concept to life. Therefore, if the mechanics of ability X (be it class feature, feat, spell etc.) are the best fit for your character's fluff I think you should take it and be allowed to refluff accordingly.

For example, take a melee warrior with some dragon blood in his veins, that wants to be able to tap into his draconic heritage occasionally to become stronger and more resilient for a while. The mechanics of Rage are a very good fit for such a concept, but unless he's able to refluff the barbarian(and rage) he'd have to 'come from uncivilized lands and barbaric tribes' and 'fly into a screaming blood frenzy' whenever he wants to tap into his latent draconinc power.

[Frozen_Feet]

It's fluff.

But does it make a difference?

The difference between "fluff" and "crunch" is largely arbitrary. In the end it boils down to "rules that matter" vs. "rules that don't matter". Even if you deem some rules to not matter and change them, you're still changing the rules, ergo homebrewing. And fluff does factor heavily to rules, as it defines what actions they represent in a gameworld.

So it's not "if you change fluff, you have to change crunch", it's "you're changing the fluff, you're changing the rules".



Since when does fluff get to determine whether or not something is magical? That's what I don't understand about your argument - "Is magical" is not fluff. That's mechanic. It sounds to me like you're fluffing rules, which is what I don't agree with.


Since day one, actually. Crunch for magic only exists because fluff for magic existed. In a way, arguing whether something is magical based on what crunch says is hilariously ass-backwards.

But we can do away with the crunch and fluff division completely for the purposes of this question. Suppose a story where ability A is defined as 'magic', and 'magic' is decreed to follow rules XYZ. If you then introduce ability B and claim it's magic when it clearly doesn't follow rules XYZ, you've just damaged consistency of your world by adding an element that does not fit.

If you don't go around and explain how B is magic despite not following XYZ (or explain that it's not magic after all, or...), at best you have a mystery or a loose-end, at worst you have a plothole or absurdity threatening willing suspension of disbelief. But regardless of how it pnas out, you've added something to the story that wasn't there, and wasn't expected to be there.

Claiming that's not "homebrew" is... somewhat silly. Hombrewed fluff and homebrewed crunch are both homebrew, regardless of how extensive they are. It's a matter of degree, rather than some deep-running difference.

[lesser_minion]

Bolded what I think it's one of the key elements in this discussion. Crunch is mainly a means with which to bring a character concept to life. Therefore, if the mechanics of ability X (be it class feature, feat, spell etc.) are the best fit for your character's fluff I think you should take it and be allowed to refluff accordingly.

Erm... yes, that's what I said.

There is nothing inherently wrong with adapting mechanics originally designed for something else to fit whatever you have in mind.

The problem comes in when you start with the mechanics of a character and then try to hack together some fluff to justify it. That leads to needless complication and -- when applied to game design -- reams of functionally identical character classes that differ only in their execution.

[LordBlades]

Erm... yes, that's what I said.

There is nothing inherently wrong with adapting mechanics originally designed for something else to fit whatever you have in mind.

I meant to say that I agree with you, sorry if it was unclear:smallwink:


The problem comes in when you start with the mechanics of a character and then try to hack together some fluff to justify it. That leads to needless complication and -- when applied to game design -- reams of functionally identical character classes that differ only in their execution.

I beg to disagree. When properly executed, the fluff and crunch will fit together well, to form a character. In such cases why does it matter which came first?

To keep with my earlier example, what's the difference if the guy thought 'I'd like to be a warrior with dragon ancestors whose draconic blood surfaces from time to time helping me to fight better' or 'I like the barbarian class and Rage, but I don't want to have to roleplay a savage' ?

When improperly executed, the guy that starts with fluff will have a char whose crunch is inadequate (either because it fails to achieve what he set out to do, or because it falls outside the scope of the game power-wise); The guy that starts with the crunch will end up with a character that's little more than a collection of stats. I've played with both kinds and I find them equally annoying.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm only suggesting that in the fluff heavy feat type of instances in which there probably aren't that many. I just brought up a few off the top of my head as I've had experience with them personally.


The trick then becomes defining what is 'fluff heavy' on a feat. Personally, I don't think "hates arcane magic" is any more fluff heavy than "swings a weapon extra hard" - in fact, I'd call it less fluff-heavy, because the cause and effect are entirely unrelated. When you attack harder but less accuracy, you'll do more damage with a lower chance of hitting successfully...but hating arcane magic has nothing to do with how long your summoned animals hang around.

[Typewriter]

If your players are having fun, then fine, whatever. Go play how you want to. Just keep in mind that every last person in Camp 2 was in Camp 1 at some point (including me) and every last one of us is telling you without a shadow of doubt in our hearts that our games involve more fun than your games do. Take that advice how you will.

Does anything else actually need to be said on the matter?

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.


Why doesn't it make sense? We're talking about a universe with all sorts of possibilities. What makes you say "this makes sense" and "this doesn't"?

Inconsistency? If humans are *not* born with fire on their head, then playing a human who has fire on their head is *not* a human. He's a variant human.

In D&D you're playing in a universe of unlimited possibilities, but a possibility doesn't just cause oddities to spring up randomly. If Thor grants you fire on your head as a human then you are playing a human blessed by Thor. When things start to happen *for no reason* it doesn't make sense.



Why? Where in the books is that actually specifically stated? Is it really stated anywhere that whenever I create a character from a race that is not exactly average then he must be a member of another race?

Because your rationale for having that flaming hair is that you're not human. The example you gave was that you had dragon blood in your veins. I believe the number of greats you mentioned was roughly equivalent to making you 1/32 Red dragon. That rationale is the reason you said you wanted fire instead of hair.

To answer your specific question though, from the SRD, under dwarf:

Hair color can be black, gray, or brown.

That's fluff, but it's presenting itself as a statement. That's not an opinion - that says "Hair color *can* be black, gray, or brown". Now, I believe that most people aren't going to argue if you play a dwarf with blonde hair. You are just 'refluffing' hair. Once you put something other than hair on your head you're not 'refluffing', you're just putting stuff on a dwarfs head.



But that's what I don't understand. What more do you want from me? What else can I do to prove to you that yeah, you CAN do it. I'm serious here, do tell me exactly what you expect from me as an answer to your arguments.


As I said I have no idea how to argue your case for you. You're telling me all the things you can do, but when I point out the ways that doing so alters the game you don't respond beyond simply disagreeing.

You say you can, I say that "Yes you can, but it's home brew and here's why", and you say "You just don't get it. I can".



I think that you really have to understand what I'm saying here, because you're forcing me to repeat myself over and over again.[quote]

I honestly have no idea why you keep repeating yourself. Do you think that if you making new examples I'll start to agree with them? I don't agree with the examples you've given, and I've explained why. You're not disagreeing with my arguments, you're just providing new examples. The examples aren't new arguments, they're just the same argument over and over and over again - and I disagree with that argument.

[QUOTE=Shadowknight12;11406143]
"What is happening?" The character obtains his powers, mechanically, from anywhere he wants. Maybe he's a druid or a paladin or a cleric. It doesn't matter, he's mechanically identical to any other character at the table. No homebrewing. Fluffwise, horses give him power.

Say you have Alice and Bob. They're both clerics. Alice is your standard cleric who gets her powers from the god she worships. You know, standard cleric fluff. Now Bob, on the other hand, has the exact same character sheet as Alice, with the same stats, feat choices, equipment, spells and etc. They're both mechanically identical. The only difference is that Bob's powers come from horses. Or pink umbrellas. Or the space between two things.

See what I'm saying? They are mechanically identical but another one has a different fluff. And the good thing is that both concepts can work if Alice and Bob are fighters rather than clerics. Alice gets her "powers" from the god she worships and Bob gets his "powers" from the colour ochre.

Well, for clerics and the like that kind of thing wouldn't be unheard of. They essentially get their power from whatever ideal/source they want as I understand it.

For arguments sake, let's take this to a class who has no 'power source'. Fighter.

Fighters fight because they fight. That's about all their is to the class. If my player came to me and said "My character thinks he's strong because the noble spirit of the steed races through him" I would say that's fine. That's fluff. If my player came to me and said "My character has a mane because the noble spirit of the steed races through him" I would say that's home brew, because this 'noble spirit of the steed' is no longer just character interpretation. You are allowing a character to have a mane because of his chosen power source. The home brew power source "spirit steed" is causing an in game event (people are sometimes born with manes).



Again, you're mixing crunch and fluff. Crunchwise, my powers come from my mechanical choices. Fluffwise, my powers can come from anywhere I want. Maybe my wizard didn't spend his whole life studying in an academy. Maybe his spellbook is not full of arcane formulae, but instead he draws powers from laughter itself and his spellbook is full of jokes. Mechanically, his spells have the same origin and source as any other wizard in the campaign and they behave exactly the same way. Fluffwise, he's different.

And you still seem to think that just because something doesn't have a mechanical effect it's free game, and I've already said I disagree with that.

If your fluff is "Horses are great so I have a mane" then you are not just refluffing a character - you are saying that because horses are great sometimes people are born with manes.

Your wizard example - you're not just saying "My character gains power from jokes" you're saying "Jokes are a valid path to arcane power". Introducing jokes as an alternative source of arcane power is introducing something into the world that wasn't there previously isn't it?



Actually, no. That's not a mechanic. "As he gains in power, spirits flock to him" is not a mechanic because it's not written in any book and it's not in any character sheet. That's pure fluff right there. Also, in-game =/= mechanics. In-game is fluff. Mechanics are outside the game, even if they influence it. In-game, people don't say "My +5 Holy Avenger," or "I'm a 12th-level fighter!" (OotS and fourth-wall-breaking aside).

I agree with you on the sword thing? What?

In character - people hear whispers around this guy. It's cool, mysterious. Woo - I got that.

Out of character - It's happening for a reason. No the reason isn't written down - but it's still a reason. You've still ruled that as this barbarian grows in power spirits flock to him. Why does whether or not it's written down make any difference?



What? No, there are a TON of things that I, the DM, don't know about my world. I leave things deliberately vague because it enhances the mystery. If I know the answers, the mystery is gone, and I'm closing the door on a ton of options that might be even better. Maybe I say that the bard's glittery skin is a blessing from the Fae gods, but they get confused and think that a prophecy I presented them (that points out at something completely different) points out at the glittery skin of the bard, and they draw a connection that I never thought about, but it is actually way better than what I had originally thought. Since this happens to me ALL the time, I've long-stopped coming up with explanations for things. I let the explanations be whatever is better for the story.

Fair enough - you sometimes wait to make a ruling on why something is the way it is, but does that change the fact that there is a reason for something that is *odd* to be *odd*? If something has no source, it has no mystery - it just doesn't have a source and makes no sense. If it comes from an unknown source it is a mystery.



As an aside, your definition of house-rule or homebrew is way too vague. The glittery skin/prophecy thing is pure plot. Are you saying that every time I come up with a plot, I'm making a house-rule? If I signal the players as "destined to fall and then rise again," am I making a house-rule? If the players set up a detective agency in Sharn to solve crime, is that homebrew?


Yes. I do that all the time. If your plot requires no additional rules beyond what exists in the game, then it's not home brew. If it requires a change to the game it is. Making decisions for NPCs is not home brew - it's playing a character.

Let's say you are playing in a D&D campaign setting and you create a storyline that revolves around thieves stealing from nobles. The thieves are humans and they're using standard rules to pull off their thefts. You as the DM essentially roleplay all the involved NPCs up to the point where the party joins.

Now let's say the same thing, but instead - for some unknown reason - whenever the party kills one of these thieves there is a crackle of energy. You, as the DM, know that the reason for the crackle of energy (maybe it's that you're heroes of prophecy, and killing these thieves is advancing said prophecy).

Scenario 1 is not home brew because you're doing everything within the rules. Scenario 2 is home brew because you've modified the way the game behaves (even if it is purely visual). An event is happening for a reason.



But why is that a mechanical change? Where is the mechanical effect? "Able to purchase a magical tattoo" is not a mechanical effect. "Able to purchase a potion" is not a mechanical effect, else it'd be written on a character sheet, along with "Able to breathe underwater" and "immune to sleep effects."


In the 3.5 book there is a list of goods you can buy. You just added a new item to the list didn't you?



So every NPC I create is homebrewing? Are we even working under the same definitions of the word? :smallconfused:

Don't get me wrong, I think any good campaign requires a heavy amount of home brew to make it interesting. If you decide a group of quarter dragons have banded together to roam the land causing mayhem they don't have a mechanical bonus to be considered quarter dragons. They be, mechanically, identical to humans, but you've still created a new race called 'quarter dragon'.

Basically if you create an NPC using the rules provided you're not home brewing. Once you create NPCs using your own rules it's home brew.



Again, mechanics are not in-game constructs. Mechanics exist outside the game, even though they influence it.

Mechanics influence the game - that right there is the key to what I'm saying.

If you're playing a fighter and you think horses grant you power one of two things is happening.

1. They are - Horses are granting you power. You are mechanically identical to any other fighter, you're held to no different standards as any other fighter. If all horses were to die it wouldn't even affect you. But horses are, in fact, granting you power.
2. They aren't. You think they are. You really, really do. But you're just a strong guy.

If your power source *is* something that doesn't exist in the game then obviously that power source *does* exist, doesn't it? If it *does* exist as a power source and it's not part of the rules how is it not home brew?



The false dichotomy comes from assuming that if it is not part of the mechanics printed in a book, it must be part of homebrewed mechanics. This is false, because homebrew refers to mechanics. If something does not have mechanics, it cannot be homebrew. That's what you seem to ignore despite how many times I say it. Mechanics are homebrew. House-rules are mechanics too. Things that are not mechanics cannot be homebrew or house-rules because they do not fit in the definition of those words.


I disagree. Saying that just because something has no +/- attached to it has no bearing on whether or not it's home brew. It's something you added to the game.



In this, you are actually wrong, because you're applying a word (homebrew) to a situation that contradicts its very definition.


And again, I disagree. See what I've already written in this post, or in any of a bunch of different posts.



You talk about physics here and then below you tell me not to bring physics into D&D? Seriously?

You missed my point completely. The paper airplane example was real life. I wasn't trying to say "These physics are taking place in D&D" I was saying that mechanics are the physics of D&D. It doesn't matter if it lines up with our own, it just matters that the rules say it works.

You were trying to apply our real world physics to D&D.



Anyway, no. You are wrong. Some things have no mechanical correlation. I've given you examples. I can find more.

Some things have no +/-. Having no *modifiers* is not the same thing as having no mechanics.



Fluffwise, something is happening, yes. Mechanically, this need not be the case. Some things happen without having to be justified by mechanics. Or are you telling me that love cannot exist since there's no mechanic for it? Or that a character cannot be afraid without suffering a [Fear] effect?


Anything a character says or does is roleplaying. Having magic hair is not roleplaying. It's having magic hair. It may improve your role playing experience, but it, in of itself, is not roleplaying.



Unfortunately, there's no official definition of what homebrew is, exactly, so I can't prove you wrong. My definition of homebrew refers exclusively to mechanics created by an unofficial source. If it doesn't have mechanical effects, it's not homebrew. It's just refluffing.

And that is where we disagree and will most likely never see eye to eye. Introducing a new power source into a game is home brew to me, because it is a power source that someone is drawing power from.



No. Just because you don't know the source, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe neither the players nor the DM know the reason something exists. That's a mystery.

Do you want me to link every time in this thread I've said that I have no qualms with characters thinking something that's not true? Again (and again and again and again) I've nothing against in-game characters thinking whatever they're going to think. Anything at all.

Players may not know the reason, from what you're saying the DM may not even know the reason, but what you're saying is that there *is* a reason. Something *is* the source. If that source, whatever it may wind up being, isn't in the rules how is it not home brew? How? I honestly have no idea.



They are completely separate. A single event can have two completely different answers to "come from somewhere." Mechanically, they can come from a class (as in, a class feature). Fluffwise, they can come from ancestry, a specific event in the character's past, etc.

But what I'm saying is that having an in-game explanation for something is the same thing as home brewing it. Whether it's written down or causes a modifier of any type is not relevant.

"People who are supposed to fulfill a prophecy are born with golden skin" is a rule, isn't it? It's not fluff, because it's a statement about someone who matches a specific description. Not just anyone can be born with golden skin, you must be required to have a destiny involving prophecy. It's a rule in every sense of the word.



Purely for fluff means that it exists in the game but it has no mechanical correlation. It is as real as any other thing, but it has no actual mechanical explanation or effect. It is something that exists merely for the sake of RPing, or story, or whatever other reason the players want it to exist. If it's important for the player that his sword is made of magical ice (but it behaves exactly like normal steel), then why do I have to make him find a mechanical reason for it, when he's not gaining a mechanical effect from such a decision?
[quote]

I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it, I'm saying you have a house rule that says "Swords can be made out of ice".

Look at the list of special materials a weapon can be made out of. Is ice on there? No? Then weapons can't be made out of ice. If you allow a player to have a sword made out of ice then it's a house rule! Swords can be made out of ice - behaves exactly like steel.

[QUOTE=Shadowknight12;11406143]
And my group says that your fun comes first. If your fun hinges heavily on being a human with flaming hair, I'll darn sure let you play one, because I'm not going to get my boxers in a twist over a detail that doesn't matter. And if you're not getting a mechanical effect out of it, it doesn't matter. And if you are, sometimes it doesn't matter even then.

I'd gladly let my player have fire on top of his head if he wanted it, I'm just not going to pretend that the lack of any modifiers makes it any less of a house rule/home brew.



And I replied "the reason does not have to be mechanical." Which you're not answering to. Sure, things happen for a reason, but those reasons don't need to be written on a character sheet and include dice rolls, numbers or rules.


So if you make up a house rule, but don't write it down it's not really a rule? If your player said "My character wants fire instead of hair" and you think "Sure, I'll just pretend he's got dragon blood somewhere in his lineage", but say "Sure" then there is still a rule. There is a reason he has fire on his head. You writing it down or keeping it in the back of your mind doesn't make it any more or less of a home brew/house rule.



Yeah, that's about right. Only the thing is, what if the character does not want to be descended from Azir? What if they're a sorcerer playing up the fire theme? Picking fire spells and all that? And they want a character arc planned where the character flirts with the notion of embracing his fiery nature and letting go of his humanity, and to represent this, he starts taking up fiery characteristics, like flaming hair? Why does that have to be a homebrewed race?

I'd allow it. Saying that sorcerors who let go of their humanity while focusing on fire magic take on physical traits of fire seems like a perfectly fine, balanced house rule to me.



Or a barbarian that comes from the frozen north and was blessed by the ice faeries and now he's always cold to the touch? Why do I need a mechanical ruling for something cosmetic like that?

That is a mechanical ruling. You just created it. He was blessed by faeries - that is your home brew.



Have I actually done either of those two things? If I say "yes" why am I refluffing the entire race? Humans can be sorcerers, right? Why can't that sorcerer grow closer and closer to a certain element and start taking on some cosmetic characteristics?

With the sorceror example, as I understood it, you weren't born with human hair. In this particular example you're not refluffing the entire race, you're granting Sorcerors the ability to take on aspects of elements they use a lot. I have nothing against this either, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a ruling you made.



And if I say "no," why do I have to come up with a rule? Why can't I say "Okay, since this grants you no mechanical benefit, there's no need to create a rule for it" and be done with it?

Because 'justifications' are the same thing as rules. If there is not justification then how is it happening. If there is a justification how is it not a rule?

You have a few scenarios:

1. There are some humans who have blood in them from an ancient fiery source that sometimes causes them to be born with fire in place of hair - This is a house rule. The way this is phraised you have to meet a certain criteria to get the fiery hair. If this is not a rule, how not?
2. There are some humans who meddle in fire magic, giving themselves up to the fire and sometimes this causes their hair to be burned away, leaving a fire in its place - This is a house rule. The way this is phraised you have to meet a certain criteria to get the fiery hair. If this is not a rule, how not?
3. Sometimes, for reasons that are not known, humans are born with fire in place of hair - this is a house rule. The player is matching some criteria, though he may not know what it is.
4. Sometimes, for no reason, humans are born with fire in place of hair - this is ?

1-3 I'm fine with. In my opinion they're all house rules, maybe home brew to a certain degree, but 4 is that you're having a effect with no cause. Sometimes this just happens. Humans can be born with fire instead of hair just because.



Oh, that's fine. Sorry, I just get a bit defensive since there's a prevalent feeling among some people here that their way really is the one true way of playing and any other way of playing is wrong.

Nah, I don't care how other people play. I've said how I consider things to be, I've said what I think identifies something as a house rule or home brew. If you disagree with me I'm perfectly fine with that, I'm not going to try and hunt you down and force you to agree with my terminology. To me, this conversation has all been about my opinion. Some of the things you've said sound like house rules to me, and that's just my opinion.



Because mechanics don't govern everything that exists? I've cited examples already.

Having modifiers, to me, is not the determining factor on whether or not something is a mechanic.



No, I'm not, you've missed the entire point I was making. I'm talking about things that are MAGICAL to everyone who sees them, but which are not magical according to the rules. An angel's flight is magical, you cannot question that. But the rules say it's not magical. That right there is an example of mechanics disagreeing with the in-game reality, showing you that the in-game (or fluff) definition of magic is broader and more inclusive than the rules' definition of magic.

An angels flight is not magical because there are no physics in D&D. There are mechanics. You're saying that since it's not possible by *our* physics then it's magic - and I'm disagreeing. An angel flying doesn't contradict any mechanis so it's perfectly valid. If you have the winged template (savage species) and you put it on a 500 poind dwarf then it doesn't matter if physics say it doesn't work - the mechanics say it does. It's not any more or less magical for disagreeing with physics.



Wow. No, sorry, we don't agree at all here. At all. There are things that my characters do that the game has no rules for. My characters fall in love, they have children, they breathe and they blink without any rules for that.

"Having hair" is not the same thing as "having a personality". Love falls under that.

If your character is going to have a child does it just happen? In my group people who are 'doing it' have to roll d10s, and a child is conceived if they match. If characters are trying for a child we generally assume they essentially take 20, and it just happens eventually.

If your ruling is "People that have sex get babies" then that is a ruling. Since there are no mechanics for it it's a house rule.

Your character can blink all he wants, I'm not stopping you - I'm just pointing out that the game doesn't require you to do so, and if you say "Blinking is required" then it's a house rule. My group mandates breathing for characters even though there are no rules for it, but blinking has never come up. If it did, we'd probably agree that yes - our characters do have to blink - but that doesn't make it any more or less of a house rule.



And I'm saying that they're NOT the same. I'm saying that some things do not have to have mechanical explanations. They can exist without an official rule saying they are allowed to exist.

I agree, that's what home brew and house rules are for.



So... I have to make up a new rule every time a character blinks? Because there actually aren't rules for that.

See above.

More in depth - what would you do if someone was torturing your player by pinning his eyes open? Technically it wouldn't be a big deal because the rules don't say you blink. If you make it a big deal then it's a house rule. Like I said, my group requires breathing, but blinking has never come up. I would personally say that everyone in my group assumes that their characters are blinking, and if it ever came up "We do blink" would be the decided upon ruling.



The rules are a framework, they give structure to the game world. But it's the players and the DM who fill in that framework and make it into a complete experience. And I dare say for most groups that's going to involve filling in details around that framework, extrapolating things not explicitly described.

I agree completely. My current world is a complete home brew, made by me and the players. It's full of house rules, home brew, and refluffs.

Refluff: Dwarves are necromancers who also hire humans to be slave labor. Gnomes run the bureaucracy.
Home brew: Golems were granted sentience by one of the gods and started their own kingdom.
House rule: Astral projection works weird. Very weird.


EDIT:

That did it. So what's been going on lately? I've noticed in a few threads that new pages haven't been showing until the new page has 2 posts.

[The Glyphstone]

It's a known forum software bug.

No double-posting to see here. Move along, move along.

[TheGeckoKing]

Now, I don't like Craven as an example in all of this, because the fluff is literally nailed to the crunch. A penalty to fear effects is just about the best way to simulate being cowardly, and re-fluffing it probably won't work too well when the crunch is telling you, "You get scared easier".

Now, Ashbound is different. The fluff is so detached from the crunch you could even say "You're just THAT good at summoning critters".

Then there's crunchy things that sometimes gets lumped into fluff. Assassin for instance. No, I don't care how silly it is, the requirement is in the crunch and so it's the DM's call. Then again, I haven't seen anyone bring this up, so it seems like it doesn't happen much.

Then again, there is a handful of reasons why i'm sometimes against refluffing.
1. Refluffing because someone wants to get a powerful option, but doesn't want to deal with the fluff restrictions/effects it might have. If it's going to be inflammatory, by all means change it. However, if you want to dodge the character changing fluff on some broken feat from Dragon Magazine, firstly you're going to get it for bringing up the feat, and an extra beating (verbal or otherwise) for trying to dodge what little restrictions it had.
2. Defying what little logic there is in D&D. The sparkly Power Attack, for instance. Now, if you decide it's magic, you had better have a good reason why you can use it deep in the Outlands, because if you don't the DM might say "No Power Attack for you". And that's terrible. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle643yzv8u) Hell, even I can think of a reason for a sparkling PA that works in a Dead Magic Zone;
You're not channeling magic. You're channeling ANTI-Magic. It doesn't do anything special unless you channel it into your weapon, which increases the damage at the cost of the energy making the weapon vibrate and thus more unwieldy, increasing damage at the cost of accuracy. It's not an accurate process, so tiny amounts of anti-magic leak out, and react with the magic inherent in all things, creating a minuscule explosion, hence the sparkles. However, in an Anti-magic Field/Dead Magic Zone/The Outlands, there's no magic to react with, and the energies that normally nullifies Magic are just too different to effect Anti-Magic, so they do nothing to the Anti-Magic Channeling Technique, except stop the reactions that normally create sparks.
4. Trying to hide a broken build under the guise of good fluff. I don't care if it's got a 1200 page epic attached to it, it's going to break the game.

[ImperatorK]

The trick then becomes defining what is 'fluff heavy' on a feat. Personally, I don't think "hates arcane magic" is any more fluff heavy than "swings a weapon extra hard" - in fact, I'd call it less fluff-heavy, because the cause and effect are entirely unrelated. When you attack harder but less accuracy, you'll do more damage with a lower chance of hitting successfully...but hating arcane magic has nothing to do with how long your summoned animals hang around.
For you it's not that big of a deal. In your games players can take whatever they want and fluff it however they want. That's okay, it's your game and your fine with that, so there's nothing wrong with that.
Me? I will let my players change fluff. Why not. But if something is very good (Ashbound Summoning, or Planar Shepard, or something like that) and it doesn't have any (real) cost mechanic-wise, then it will have cost fluff-wise (restrictions and/or responsibilities), because otherwise there will be no reason to not take it.


1. Refluffing because someone wants to get a powerful option, but doesn't want to deal with the fluff restrictions/effects it might have. If it's going to be inflammatory, by all means change it. However, if you want to dodge the character changing fluff on some broken feat from Dragon Magazine, firstly you're going to get it for bringing up the feat, and an extra beating (verbal or otherwise) for trying to dodge what little restrictions it had.
Exactly that. I agree wholeheartedly.
WotC didn't make the fluff into crunch (like with Assassin for example)? So what. Doesn't mean you have to absolutely ignore fluff. As the DM I have my right to affect crunch based on fluff even if there's no fluffy-crunch. :smalltongue:
Call it homebrewing, houseruling or DM fiat. I don't care.

[Frozen_Feet]

WotC didn't make the fluff into crunch (like with Assassin for example)? So what. Doesn't mean you have to absolutely ignore fluff. As the DM I have my right to affect crunch based on fluff even if there's no fluffy-crunch. :smalltongue:
Call it homebrewing, houseruling or DM fiat. I don't care.

Or, in other words, a rule is a rule if it's enforced as such. It might not be a good rule or one you like, but it's one nonetheless.

[kharmakazy]

This thread is entirely semantics at this juncture.

[The Glyphstone]

For you it's not that big of a deal. In your games players can take whatever they want and fluff it however they want. That's okay, it's your game and your fine with that, so there's nothing wrong with that.
Me? I will let my players change fluff. Why not. But if something is very good (Ashbound Summoning, or Planar Shepard, or something like that) and it doesn't have any (real) cost mechanic-wise, then it will have cost fluff-wise (restrictions and/or responsibilities), because otherwise there will be no reason to not take it.



Which isn't really contradicting what I said, either. A good feat like Ashbound might deserve a fluff-based restriction/responsibility, but there's no reason it should be 'hates Arcane casters'.

[ImperatorK]

Which isn't really contradicting what I said, either. A good feat like Ashbound might deserve a fluff-based restriction/responsibility, but there's no reason it should be 'hates Arcane casters'.
Yes, because I wasn't contraditcing you, I was confirming that we're on the same page. :smallsmile:

[Rukia]

I agree ashbound could be changed fluff-wise as long as it was comparable. It's a RAI vs RAW. Ashbound never explicitly defines as a prerequisite that you were trained in the Ashbound sect, however it is heavily implied. Therefore hating arcane casters doesn't have any actual connection to your summons lasting longer directly, though it does suggest the fact that you trained with the Ashbound Druids and therefore would most likely follow their beliefs, ie; not like arcane magic. Saying "Well my dude trained with them but only pretended to hate wizards and stuff.." is just a total cop out.

Giving the feat and wiping out the fluff is allowing power without penalty. Changing the fluff to some other fluff that has a similar RP effect would be fine by me. The Dragon magazine is a good argument because there are some powerful options to be chosen though a lot have fluff attached. If you just let go of the fluff and allow the feat then it turns into power gaming over roleplaying. For some this is totally fine, for others it's not. It just comes down to play style. My DM likes to keep with the fluff when it makes sense so we don't cherry pick powers without penalty and while it's a little confining, I at least understand his thinking.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I agree ashbound could be changed fluff-wise as long as it was comparable. It's a RAI vs RAW. Ashbound never explicitly defines as a prerequisite that you were trained in the Ashbound sect, however it is heavily implied. Therefore hating arcane casters doesn't have any actual connection to your summons lasting longer directly, though it does suggest the fact that you trained with the Ashbound Druids and therefore would most likely follow their beliefs, ie; not like arcane magic. Saying "Well my dude trained with them but only pretended to hate wizards and stuff.." is just a total cop out.

Giving the feat and wiping out the fluff is allowing power without penalty. Changing the fluff to some other fluff that has a similar RP effect would be fine by me. The Dragon magazine is a good argument because there are some powerful options to be chosen though a lot have fluff attached. If you just let go of the fluff and allow the feat then it turns into power gaming over roleplaying. For some this is totally fine, for others it's not. It just comes down to play style. My DM likes to keep with the fluff when it makes sense so we don't cherry pick powers without penalty and while it's a little confining, I at least understand his thinking.

If you like the idea of Ashbound Summoning requiring working with a group of people, then just include that in the reflavoring of it. It's not mechanically required, but, it is an option.

[Thiyr]

Giving the feat and wiping out the fluff is allowing power without penalty. Changing the fluff to some other fluff that has a similar RP effect would be fine by me. The Dragon magazine is a good argument because there are some powerful options to be chosen though a lot have fluff attached. If you just let go of the fluff and allow the feat then it turns into power gaming over roleplaying. For some this is totally fine, for others it's not. It just comes down to play style. My DM likes to keep with the fluff when it makes sense so we don't cherry pick powers without penalty and while it's a little confining, I at least understand his thinking.

I think the big difference that I'm having with you here is that I don't like the fluff tied to feats like that. I do enjoy a fair bit of power behind my characters, I admit, but my char-gen process is very much one of using my mechanics to tell me what my fluff is, and then using that fluff to fill in whatever free stuff i have for my mechanics, to make it all feel like one unified whole. I almost never so much think in terms of "my character can do this, but it's powerful, so i'm gonna give myself restrictions", so much as I go "well, I can do this. Why would I be able to do that?" It's generally only when there's a mechanical prereq that I'll concern myself over that directly, and even then I tend to play very loose with it (A tibbit shadowcraft mage who learned it from an extremist terror-cell/cult she joined accidentally shortly before it was brutally dismembered, causing her to be the only surviving member (and considered to be a high-priority enemy of the state). That barely came up, and it may well have never come up considering the setting, but I tossed it in becuase i wasn't a gnome. But my previously mentioned swordsage/rogue/bloodclaw master? I didn't find a single bit of fluff to concern myself on at any point...aside from my weapons, but that was becuase I felt like that being a major function of my character's RP. the baggage on craven was explained but would likely never come up, and was mostly for my own benefit.

So actually, the more I think about it, my opinion is "the weirder something is in-universe, the more I expect at least some kind of explanation". It need not be very in depth, it need not impact play, but I expect some kind of explanation.

[Shadowknight12]

Inconsistency? If humans are *not* born with fire on their head, then playing a human who has fire on their head is *not* a human. He's a variant human.

In D&D you're playing in a universe of unlimited possibilities, but a possibility doesn't just cause oddities to spring up randomly. If Thor grants you fire on your head as a human then you are playing a human blessed by Thor. When things start to happen *for no reason* it doesn't make sense.

Why not? Where is it said that in a high-magic game, humans do not have oddities randomly? To me, all races can present random oddities for a multitude of reasons, without this meaning that they're another race or that I've modified the race in question. Just because in your games, all races are always the same and no oddities happen, ever, doesn't make that the default assumption. I mean, I'm not saying anything bizarre here. This is a game where magic literally permeates everything. We have active gods that can reshape reality on a whim. Then we have Tier 1 casters, who can do the same. Random oddities are not, as I see them, bizarre at all.


Because your rationale for having that flaming hair is that you're not human. The example you gave was that you had dragon blood in your veins. I believe the number of greats you mentioned was roughly equivalent to making you 1/32 Red dragon. That rationale is the reason you said you wanted fire instead of hair.

But ALL sorcerers are said to have dragon blood in their veins. Are ALL sorcerers not human, then? And what about campaign settings where sorcerers are not dragon descendants but instead people touched by the arcane? What's the mechanic for the flaming hair then? The fluff rationale is that the sorcerer is growing close to an element, taking cosmetic characteristic as he grows in power. There are literally no mechanics for that.


To answer your specific question though, from the SRD, under dwarf:

Hair color can be black, gray, or brown.

That's fluff, but it's presenting itself as a statement. That's not an opinion - that says "Hair color *can* be black, gray, or brown". Now, I believe that most people aren't going to argue if you play a dwarf with blonde hair. You are just 'refluffing' hair. Once you put something other than hair on your head you're not 'refluffing', you're just putting stuff on a dwarfs head.

The problem here is that you're refuting your own statements. If you say that you can ignore official fluff suggestions to include options that are not there, you can't just start being picky afterwards and say "NO! THAT ONE IS NOT HAIR!" because you're already admitting that ignoring official fluff is okay. Where do you draw the line? Why is "blond hair" more acceptable than "fire" or "a permanent conduit to the astral plane"?


As I said I have no idea how to argue your case for you. You're telling me all the things you can do, but when I point out the ways that doing so alters the game you don't respond beyond simply disagreeing.

You say you can, I say that "Yes you can, but it's home brew and here's why", and you say "You just don't get it. I can".

I think our problem here is in the definition of homebrew. I understand homebrew as it being exclusively mechanics. If you say that your definition of homebrew includes fluff, then you're right. I am using homebrew because (under that definition) refluffing IS homebrew. And since I'm refluffing, I am also homebrewing.

However, if we stick to my definition of homebrewing, then you're actually wrong, since I'm not creating any new mechanics for it, I am only changing fluff.


I honestly have no idea why you keep repeating yourself. Do you think that if you making new examples I'll start to agree with them? I don't agree with the examples you've given, and I've explained why. You're not disagreeing with my arguments, you're just providing new examples. The examples aren't new arguments, they're just the same argument over and over and over again - and I disagree with that argument.

I am disagreeing with your arguments, I just have NO idea what you want from me, or how to prove it to you, other than giving you more examples that it is possible. You're just saying, over and over, "Nope nope nope nope not listening nope nope!" and ignoring all the stuff I say. I honestly have no idea what else to tell you, if you don't listen.


Well, for clerics and the like that kind of thing wouldn't be unheard of. They essentially get their power from whatever ideal/source they want as I understand it.

For arguments sake, let's take this to a class who has no 'power source'. Fighter.

Fighters fight because they fight. That's about all their is to the class. If my player came to me and said "My character thinks he's strong because the noble spirit of the steed races through him" I would say that's fine. That's fluff. If my player came to me and said "My character has a mane because the noble spirit of the steed races through him" I would say that's home brew, because this 'noble spirit of the steed' is no longer just character interpretation. You are allowing a character to have a mane because of his chosen power source. The home brew power source "spirit steed" is causing an in game event (people are sometimes born with manes).

I think I've figured out what's the problem here. You have a very strict, very narrow and very limited definition of what a race and a class are supposed to look like, and any deviation from that concept MUST be a new race or a new class. A human CANNOT have a mane because humans do not have manes in your view. A fighter cannot have magic sparks flying out of his sword every time he power-attacks because fighters, in your view, are incapable of magic (regardless of whether this is rules!magic or fluff!magic, since to you, a fighter is capable of neither).

We'll always disagree here, since I do not hold myself to such strict restrictions. After all, if I did so, I'd be constantly homebrewing new races and classes! "I want to play an elf with blue hair!" "Homebrew a new elven subrace." It'd be madness. Much easier for me is to say that nothing is certain. Maybe some elves have blue hair. It could happen. Maybe some people are born with random oddities. That could also happen.


And you still seem to think that just because something doesn't have a mechanical effect it's free game, and I've already said I disagree with that.

If your fluff is "Horses are great so I have a mane" then you are not just refluffing a character - you are saying that because horses are great sometimes people are born with manes.

Your wizard example - you're not just saying "My character gains power from jokes" you're saying "Jokes are a valid path to arcane power". Introducing jokes as an alternative source of arcane power is introducing something into the world that wasn't there previously isn't it?

See above.

Also, who says that jokes is an alternative source of arcane power? Why am I introducing it? Why can't it have always been there? Simply because I have never played a character like that before? I have never played a monk, nor had a single monk NPC in my campaigns. So I'm introducing something new if I introduce a monk NPC? Why couldn't he have been always there? Am I supposed to pre-emptively know my own campaign world down to the last NPC? That curtails my options later on. If I want to keep things open to introduce new elements later on, I have a right to say "they have always existed."

What about stuff like Tome of Battle, before it appeared? If you know your own campaign world completely, you have to make up some excuse or reason to introduce Tome of Battle. If you leave some things vague and murky on purpose, you can say that they've always existed. Same for the "jokes as arcane magic" thing. When a player introduces that to me, I can just say it has always existed and come up with an organisation of jester mages and say that it has always existed, too.


I agree with you on the sword thing? What?

In character - people hear whispers around this guy. It's cool, mysterious. Woo - I got that.

Out of character - It's happening for a reason. No the reason isn't written down - but it's still a reason. You've still ruled that as this barbarian grows in power spirits flock to him. Why does whether or not it's written down make any difference?

Because if it's written down on a character sheet and has a mechanical effect, it's a mechanic. If it's not, it's not a mechanic. If it's not a mechanic, I don't have to justify it, because it doesn't affect the game. It's a cosmetic things that has no impact on whether the bad guy wins or my ally makes his save to escape a trap. If it won't have an actual impact on the game, I don't have to provide explanations for it, beyond whatever fluff explanation I give it.


Fair enough - you sometimes wait to make a ruling on why something is the way it is, but does that change the fact that there is a reason for something that is *odd* to be *odd*? If something has no source, it has no mystery - it just doesn't have a source and makes no sense. If it comes from an unknown source it is a mystery.

On the contrary, if something has no source, it IS a mystery, because it starts raising questions. "How can it exist? Where does it come from? What sustains it? How does it interact with reality?" and so on and so forth. Whether I answer those questions or not depends on the game in question, but for as long as those questions exist, there is a mystery.


Yes. I do that all the time. If your plot requires no additional rules beyond what exists in the game, then it's not home brew. If it requires a change to the game it is. Making decisions for NPCs is not home brew - it's playing a character.

Yeah, I was going to say how "glittery skin" is actually not an additional rule, but then I realised that to you, it would be, since that doesn't fit with the way you view humans. In your view, adding glittery skin to a human would necessitate a new rules.

I'll just say that that's not the case in my games because I don't have such a strict definition of races and classes.


Let's say you are playing in a D&D campaign setting and you create a storyline that revolves around thieves stealing from nobles. The thieves are humans and they're using standard rules to pull off their thefts. You as the DM essentially roleplay all the involved NPCs up to the point where the party joins.

Now let's say the same thing, but instead - for some unknown reason - whenever the party kills one of these thieves there is a crackle of energy. You, as the DM, know that the reason for the crackle of energy (maybe it's that you're heroes of prophecy, and killing these thieves is advancing said prophecy).

Scenario 1 is not home brew because you're doing everything within the rules. Scenario 2 is home brew because you've modified the way the game behaves (even if it is purely visual). An event is happening for a reason.

Again, if we go by the definition that ANY change from what is strictly official (whether it's fluff or crunch) is homebrewed, then yes, it's homebrew, because I'm refluffing something. If we go by the definition that homebrew is restricted solely to new/changed mechanics, then no, that's not homebrew.


In the 3.5 book there is a list of goods you can buy. You just added a new item to the list didn't you?

The PHB specifically states that the list is not exclusive. If I add sugar to the list of things to buy, am I homebrewing? Even though flour is right there as an example, too?


Don't get me wrong, I think any good campaign requires a heavy amount of home brew to make it interesting. If you decide a group of quarter dragons have banded together to roam the land causing mayhem they don't have a mechanical bonus to be considered quarter dragons. They be, mechanically, identical to humans, but you've still created a new race called 'quarter dragon'.

Basically if you create an NPC using the rules provided you're not home brewing. Once you create NPCs using your own rules it's home brew.

Again, we'll have to disagree here. As I see it, I don't need to create a new race if there is not a mechanical reason for me to do so. If the players are playing humans but they are quarter-dragons, then they're still human in their character sheets, even if in the world, they're called "quarter dragons."


Mechanics influence the game - that right there is the key to what I'm saying.

If you're playing a fighter and you think horses grant you power one of two things is happening.

1. They are - Horses are granting you power. You are mechanically identical to any other fighter, you're held to no different standards as any other fighter. If all horses were to die it wouldn't even affect you. But horses are, in fact, granting you power.
2. They aren't. You think they are. You really, really do. But you're just a strong guy.

If your power source *is* something that doesn't exist in the game then obviously that power source *does* exist, doesn't it? If it *does* exist as a power source and it's not part of the rules how is it not home brew?

Precisely because it's not a part of the rules. In my view, homebrew is a word that is only used to talk about rules (or campaign settings, but that's because pretty much all of them include new/modified rules). As I use the word, it does not apply to something that has no mechanical effect.


I disagree. Saying that just because something has no +/- attached to it has no bearing on whether or not it's home brew. It's something you added to the game.

Okay, so in your view, anything that changes ever is homebrew. Got it.


You missed my point completely. The paper airplane example was real life. I wasn't trying to say "These physics are taking place in D&D" I was saying that mechanics are the physics of D&D. It doesn't matter if it lines up with our own, it just matters that the rules say it works.

You were trying to apply our real world physics to D&D.

No, I wasn't. I was telling you that in D&D, an angel flies because of magic. An aboleth's slime changes your lungs because of magic. Yet the rules don't say they're magical because they're (Ex) abilities, so that makes them not magic according to mechanics. But if you asked any D&D character why angels fly, he'd say "magic." And he'd be right.


Anything a character says or does is roleplaying. Having magic hair is not roleplaying. It's having magic hair. It may improve your role playing experience, but it, in of itself, is not roleplaying.

We're really mincing words here, since interacting with the aforementioned magic hair IS roleplaying.


And that is where we disagree and will most likely never see eye to eye. Introducing a new power source into a game is home brew to me, because it is a power source that someone is drawing power from.

Yeah, I figured as much. It goes back to what I said about you having a very strict idea of how things are supposed to work. To you, there is a concrete list of power sources and any addition to that list is a change to the way things are that requires some sort of justification. In my view, this is not the case because I don't have a list of power sources. To me, any power source that a character comes up with has always existed and requires no change from the way things normally work.


Do you want me to link every time in this thread I've said that I have no qualms with characters thinking something that's not true? Again (and again and again and again) I've nothing against in-game characters thinking whatever they're going to think. Anything at all.

Players may not know the reason, from what you're saying the DM may not even know the reason, but what you're saying is that there *is* a reason. Something *is* the source. If that source, whatever it may wind up being, isn't in the rules how is it not home brew? How? I honestly have no idea.

Forgive me for getting philosophical here, but if nobody knows if there's a reason, you can't actually claim that there is a reason. Or that there isn't. Look up Schrödinger's Cat experiment. A reason's existence is only confirmed or denied with knowledge. If that knowledge does not exist, one cannot, in fact, say whether something exists or not.


But what I'm saying is that having an in-game explanation for something is the same thing as home brewing it. Whether it's written down or causes a modifier of any type is not relevant.

Okay, we're operating under different definitions of homebrew.


"People who are supposed to fulfill a prophecy are born with golden skin" is a rule, isn't it? It's not fluff, because it's a statement about someone who matches a specific description. Not just anyone can be born with golden skin, you must be required to have a destiny involving prophecy. It's a rule in every sense of the word.

Firstly, that rule didn't exist until the campaign was already halfway in. During character creation (and for the first half of the campaign) that rule did not exist. For a significant period of time, a character walked around with golden skin and the reason was unknown.

Secondly, we're also operating under different definitions of "rules." To me, rules (like homebrew) are exclusively relegated to the realm of mechanics. In terms of fluff, there are no rules, because if there were, they'd be riddled with exceptions and they would change whenever the players or the DM felt like it'd make for a better story or a more entertaining game. They don't have the "solidity" or "immutability" of the rules that govern mechanics.


I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it, I'm saying you have a house rule that says "Swords can be made out of ice".

Look at the list of special materials a weapon can be made out of. Is ice on there? No? Then weapons can't be made out of ice. If you allow a player to have a sword made out of ice then it's a house rule! Swords can be made out of ice - behaves exactly like steel.

Okay, that's actually a fallacy, since you're operating under the assumption that ice is a special material. If ice is not a special material, then your argument is invalid because ice would never appear in a list of special materials, thereby negating what you're saying.


I'd gladly let my player have fire on top of his head if he wanted it, I'm just not going to pretend that the lack of any modifiers makes it any less of a house rule/home brew.

Again, operating under different definitions of house rules and homebrew.


So if you make up a house rule, but don't write it down it's not really a rule? If your player said "My character wants fire instead of hair" and you think "Sure, I'll just pretend he's got dragon blood somewhere in his lineage", but say "Sure" then there is still a rule. There is a reason he has fire on his head. You writing it down or keeping it in the back of your mind doesn't make it any more or less of a home brew/house rule.

Yes, that's basically it. Only there's no "pretending." Whatever reason the player comes up for that, goes. If that's "homebrewing" to you, then again, we're operating under different definitions of the word. I would also object to calling it a "rule," since I wager that when the exceptions are more prevalent than the rule itself, it stops being much of a rule.


I'd allow it. Saying that sorcerors who let go of their humanity while focusing on fire magic take on physical traits of fire seems like a perfectly fine, balanced house rule to me.

And I believe that the term "house rule" only applies to mechanical rules. Different definitions again.


That is a mechanical ruling. You just created it. He was blessed by faeries - that is your home brew.

And how is that a mechanic, exactly? I'm rather tired of trying to defend points that you're not recognising. It's your turn now. Please, do explain how something without mechanical effects is a mechanical ruling. While you're at it, see if you can prove how things that don't follow logic are still governed by logical rules, since I see both things on the same level of impossibility.


With the sorceror example, as I understood it, you weren't born with human hair. In this particular example you're not refluffing the entire race, you're granting Sorcerors the ability to take on aspects of elements they use a lot. I have nothing against this either, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a ruling you made.

And why is it, exactly, a rule? One instance of occurrence does not a rule make.


Because 'justifications' are the same thing as rules. If there is not justification then how is it happening. If there is a justification how is it not a rule?

You have a few scenarios:

1. There are some humans who have blood in them from an ancient fiery source that sometimes causes them to be born with fire in place of hair - This is a house rule. The way this is phraised you have to meet a certain criteria to get the fiery hair. If this is not a rule, how not?
2. There are some humans who meddle in fire magic, giving themselves up to the fire and sometimes this causes their hair to be burned away, leaving a fire in its place - This is a house rule. The way this is phraised you have to meet a certain criteria to get the fiery hair. If this is not a rule, how not?
3. Sometimes, for reasons that are not known, humans are born with fire in place of hair - this is a house rule. The player is matching some criteria, though he may not know what it is.
4. Sometimes, for no reason, humans are born with fire in place of hair - this is ?

1-3 I'm fine with. In my opinion they're all house rules, maybe home brew to a certain degree, but 4 is that you're having a effect with no cause. Sometimes this just happens. Humans can be born with fire instead of hair just because.

We disagree. To me, a justification is not a rule. A justification is that, a justification. A rule is a rule. They're two completely different things. A rule, as I see it, is this:


noun
1.
a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc.: the rules of chess.
2.
the code of regulations observed by a religious order or congregation: the Franciscan rule.
3.
the customary or normal circumstance, occurrence, manner, practice, quality, etc.: the rule rather than the exception.

The second definition is right out. The first definition doesn't apply, since this does not govern anything here. It doesn't tell my player how to roleplay this cosmetic trait, and it doesn't say who can and cannot have the trait. The third definition is also out because there is no "customary" circumstance. A single case does not a custom make.

As for the cases you've delineated, 1-4 are all perfectly valid. 4 just happens to be a mystery. The cause right now, does not exist, but it may exist in the future, or it may remain forever a mystery.


Nah, I don't care how other people play. I've said how I consider things to be, I've said what I think identifies something as a house rule or home brew. If you disagree with me I'm perfectly fine with that, I'm not going to try and hunt you down and force you to agree with my terminology. To me, this conversation has all been about my opinion. Some of the things you've said sound like house rules to me, and that's just my opinion.

And likewise, none of the things I've said are house rules to me, because they're not mechanical and I reserve the term house rule for when they affect mechanics.


An angels flight is not magical because there are no physics in D&D. There are mechanics. You're saying that since it's not possible by *our* physics then it's magic - and I'm disagreeing. An angel flying doesn't contradict any mechanis so it's perfectly valid. If you have the winged template (savage species) and you put it on a 500 poind dwarf then it doesn't matter if physics say it doesn't work - the mechanics say it does. It's not any more or less magical for disagreeing with physics.

An angel's flight IS magic. It's not magic according to the rules, but it IS magic. There is no other explanation, in the universe, for why angels can fly. An angel cannot say "I fly because my statblock says I have a Fly speed." He says "I fly because the grace of the good gods sustains me." Which is a fancy way of saying "magic." An aboleth doesn't say "My slime will turn you into a water-breathing creature because that's what my statblock says," it says "my dark powers will cause you to breathe water!" and when pressed further, the answer will always be "magic."

If you put the winged template on a 500 lbs. dwarf, and it can fly, then that IS actually magic, since a 500 lbs. dwarf cannot fly on its own. It needs some way to do so, and save for a perfectly mundane flying artifact, any other means of flying will be magical, regardless of whether the rules recognise it as such or not.

Magic, in the game world, need not be magic according to the rules.


"Having hair" is not the same thing as "having a personality". Love falls under that.

If your character is going to have a child does it just happen? In my group people who are 'doing it' have to roll d10s, and a child is conceived if they match. If characters are trying for a child we generally assume they essentially take 20, and it just happens eventually.

That's actually a house rule. In my game worlds, if people want children, it just happens. A lot of things "just happen" because there are no mechanics for that. My characters blink. It just happens. I don't roll a d10 for every eye. Furthermore, my characters breathe. Unless a mechanical effect stops them from breathing, they breathe. It just happens.


If your ruling is "People that have sex get babies" then that is a ruling. Since there are no mechanics for it it's a house rule.

And I never said that either. I said that "if a player wants to have sex and get babies, that can happen." If that's a rule, that's the loosest rule I've heard of, since it does not delineate what must or mustn't happen, it forbids nothing and its "authority" is shaky at best. To me, that's not a rule.


Your character can blink all he wants, I'm not stopping you - I'm just pointing out that the game doesn't require you to do so, and if you say "Blinking is required" then it's a house rule. My group mandates breathing for characters even though there are no rules for it, but blinking has never come up. If it did, we'd probably agree that yes - our characters do have to blink - but that doesn't make it any more or less of a house rule.

I never said that blinking was required, only that it happens, and there's no rules for it. There tons of things that happen and do not require a rule. Characters eat and process their food, they sweat, they shake hands with others, they pat each other's backs, they walk and sleep, all without rules. Things just happen, they're not required or forbidden.


More in depth - what would you do if someone was torturing your player by pinning his eyes open? Technically it wouldn't be a big deal because the rules don't say you blink. If you make it a big deal then it's a house rule. Like I said, my group requires breathing, but blinking has never come up. I would personally say that everyone in my group assumes that their characters are blinking, and if it ever came up "We do blink" would be the decided upon ruling.

It's like breathing. There are no rules for breathing, sleeping and eating, but there are rules for when something's stopping you from doing that. Blinking would be similar.


I agree completely. My current world is a complete home brew, made by me and the players. It's full of house rules, home brew, and refluffs.

Refluff: Dwarves are necromancers who also hire humans to be slave labor. Gnomes run the bureaucracy.
Home brew: Golems were granted sentience by one of the gods and started their own kingdom.
House rule: Astral projection works weird. Very weird.

Sorry, I don't see the difference between the three, unless that in the house rule case, there were actual mechanical effects involved. If there are, then yes, that's a house rule. if there are no mechanical effects and the character only sees "weird things" but can project astrally normally, then no. To me all three things are just refluffing.

[ImperatorK]

Re: Jester Mages
How does a Jester Mage (refluffed Wizard) learn spells from other, normal Wizards, then? Or how does a normal Wizard learn his spells? (disclaimer: I have an answer, lets see if you have it as well :smallwink: [I've came up with it in the middle of writing this post; almost made a fool out of myself :smalltongue:])

Re: Flying (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0754.html)

[Shadowknight12]

Re: Jester Mages
How does a Jester Mage (refluffed Wizard) learn spells from other, normal Wizards, then? Or how does a normal Wizard learn his spells? (disclaimer: I have an answer, lets see if you have it as well :smallwink:)

That's what the Spellcraft check is for. He has to figure out what the arcane formulae means, then what it does, then how to achieve the same effect with a joke.

Example:

"Okay, so this guy says 'FLUFFAMAJACKY!' and he falls slowly. That's so boring. Hmmmm... how I can get the same effect...? Maybe a joke about geese? No, too obvious. Ooh, a joke about fat people! The irony will give me an extra boost, so the joke doesn't need to be that good either. Oh, but he can cast it quickly, too, it has to be a short joke. A punchline, almost!"

[ImperatorK]

That's what the Spellcraft check is for. He has to figure out what the arcane formulae means, then what it does, then how to achieve the same effect with a joke.
Or Read Magic.

[Pigkappa]

There are PEOPLE in the first camp? :smalleek:


I'm more or less in the first camp. However, the usual powerplaying approach to D&D 3.5 makes things really weird and I have to compromise a lot. But I still don't like the Cleric who has no connection with its church or the warmage who knows nothing about military organizations in the world.

[NNescio]

I'm more or less in the first camp. However, the usual powerplaying approach to D&D 3.5 makes things really weird and I have to compromise a lot. But I still don't like the Cleric who has no connection with its church or the warmage who knows nothing about military organizations in the world.

What about Dragon Shamans who don't know anything about dragons? And Favored Souls who don't know anything about their religion?

[Shadowknight12]

Or Read Magic.

Or that. The effect is still the same, though.

[Cerlis]

If your players are having fun, then fine, whatever. Go play how you want to. Just keep in mind that every last person in Camp 2 was in Camp 1 at some point (including me) and every last one of us is telling you without a shadow of doubt in our hearts that our games involve more fun than your games do. Take that advice how you will.

Does anything else actually need to be said on the matter?



you'd actually have to play in their games to know this. Further you'd have to also be every personality you are not, since liking something is a matter of personality. I could have fun by stabbing myself in the eye. If you told me all you other people have more fun not-stabbing yourself, it doesnt matter because you are a type of person who doesnt like stabbing and i am. so of COURSE you THINK you are having more fun.

But that doesnt mean you are. and it strikes me as the height of hubris to say so.



----------------
P.S. Fluff and crunch are no different other than that the former takes place in our heads and the other on our paper. whether or not you wish to change and homebrew it, Changing fluff is no different than changing Crunch. Just as the game suggests you can change fluff to better fit your character and campaign, it ALSO suggests you can change mechanics to do the same thing.

[Typewriter]

Why not? Where is it said that in a high-magic game, humans do not have oddities randomly? To me, all races can present random oddities for a multitude of reasons, without this meaning that they're another race or that I've modified the race in question. Just because in your games, all races are always the same and no oddities happen, ever, doesn't make that the default assumption. I mean, I'm not saying anything bizarre here. This is a game where magic literally permeates everything. We have active gods that can reshape reality on a whim. Then we have Tier 1 casters, who can do the same. Random oddities are not, as I see them, bizarre at all.

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



But ALL sorcerers are said to have dragon blood in their veins. Are ALL sorcerers not human, then? And what about campaign settings where sorcerers are not dragon descendants but instead people touched by the arcane? What's the mechanic for the flaming hair then? The fluff rationale is that the sorcerer is growing close to an element, taking cosmetic characteristic as he grows in power. There are literally no mechanics for that.


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 problem here is that you're refuting your own statements. If you say that you can ignore official fluff suggestions to include options that are not there, you can't just start being picky afterwards and say "NO! THAT ONE IS NOT HAIR!" because you're already admitting that ignoring official fluff is okay. Where do you draw the line? Why is "blond hair" more acceptable than "fire" or "a permanent conduit to the astral plane"?

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.



I think our problem here is in the definition of homebrew. I understand homebrew as it being exclusively mechanics. If you say that your definition of homebrew includes fluff, then you're right. I am using homebrew because (under that definition) refluffing IS homebrew. And since I'm refluffing, I am also homebrewing.

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.

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.



However, if we stick to my definition of homebrewing, then you're actually wrong, since I'm not creating any new mechanics for it, I am only changing fluff.

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.



I am disagreeing with your arguments, I just have NO idea what you want from me, or how to prove it to you, other than giving you more examples that it is possible. You're just saying, over and over, "Nope nope nope nope not listening nope nope!" and ignoring all the stuff I say. I honestly have no idea what else to tell you, if you don't listen.


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.

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.



I think I've figured out what's the problem here. You have a very strict, very narrow and very limited definition of what a race and a class are supposed to look like, and any deviation from that concept MUST be a new race or a new class. A human CANNOT have a mane because humans do not have manes in your view. A fighter cannot have magic sparks flying out of his sword every time he power-attacks because fighters, in your view, are incapable of magic (regardless of whether this is rules!magic or fluff!magic, since to you, a fighter is capable of neither).

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.

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.

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.



We'll always disagree here, since I do not hold myself to such strict restrictions. After all, if I did so, I'd be constantly homebrewing new races and classes! "I want to play an elf with blue hair!" "Homebrew a new elven subrace." It'd be madness. Much easier for me is to say that nothing is certain. Maybe some elves have blue hair. It could happen. Maybe some people are born with random oddities. That could also happen.


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?



Also, who says that jokes is an alternative source of arcane power? Why am I introducing it? Why can't it have always been there? Simply because I have never played a character like that before? I have never played a monk, nor had a single monk NPC in my campaigns. So I'm introducing something new if I introduce a monk NPC? Why couldn't he have been always there? Am I supposed to pre-emptively know my own campaign world down to the last NPC? That curtails my options later on. If I want to keep things open to introduce new elements later on, I have a right to say "they have always existed."

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



What about stuff like Tome of Battle, before it appeared? If you know your own campaign world completely, you have to make up some excuse or reason to introduce Tome of Battle. If you leave some things vague and murky on purpose, you can say that they've always existed. Same for the "jokes as arcane magic" thing. When a player introduces that to me, I can just say it has always existed and come up with an organisation of jester mages and say that it has always existed, too.

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.



Because if it's written down on a character sheet and has a mechanical effect, it's a mechanic. If it's not, it's not a mechanic. If it's not a mechanic, I don't have to justify it, because it doesn't affect the game. It's a cosmetic things that has no impact on whether the bad guy wins or my ally makes his save to escape a trap. If it won't have an actual impact on the game, I don't have to provide explanations for it, beyond whatever fluff explanation I give it.

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.



On the contrary, if something has no source, it IS a mystery, because it starts raising questions. "How can it exist? Where does it come from? What sustains it? How does it interact with reality?" and so on and so forth. Whether I answer those questions or not depends on the game in question, but for as long as those questions exist, there is a mystery.


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.



The PHB specifically states that the list is not exclusive. If I add sugar to the list of things to buy, am I homebrewing? Even though flour is right there as an example, too?

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".



Again, we'll have to disagree here. As I see it, I don't need to create a new race if there is not a mechanical reason for me to do so. If the players are playing humans but they are quarter-dragons, then they're still human in their character sheets, even if in the world, they're called "quarter dragons."

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?

[QUOTE=Shadowknight12;11410956]
Precisely because it's not a part of the rules. In my view, homebrew is a word that is only used to talk about rules (or campaign settings, but that's because pretty much all of them include new/modified rules). As I use the word, it does not apply to something that has no mechanical effect.


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.



Okay, so in your view, anything that changes ever is homebrew. Got it.


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.



No, I wasn't. I was telling you that in D&D, an angel flies because of magic. An aboleth's slime changes your lungs because of magic. Yet the rules don't say they're magical because they're (Ex) abilities, so that makes them not magic according to mechanics. But if you asked any D&D character why angels fly, he'd say "magic." And he'd be right.

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.



We're really mincing words here, since interacting with the aforementioned magic hair IS roleplaying.

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?



Yeah, I figured as much. It goes back to what I said about you having a very strict idea of how things are supposed to work. To you, there is a concrete list of power sources and any addition to that list is a change to the way things are that requires some sort of justification. In my view, this is not the case because I don't have a list of power sources. To me, any power source that a character comes up with has always existed and requires no change from the way things normally work.

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.



Forgive me for getting philosophical here, but if nobody knows if there's a reason, you can't actually claim that there is a reason. Or that there isn't. Look up Schrödinger's Cat experiment. A reason's existence is only confirmed or denied with knowledge. If that knowledge does not exist, one cannot, in fact, say whether something exists or not.


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.



Okay, that's actually a fallacy, since you're operating under the assumption that ice is a special material. If ice is not a special material, then your argument is invalid because ice would never appear in a list of special materials, thereby negating what you're saying.


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?



And how is that a mechanic, exactly? I'm rather tired of trying to defend points that you're not recognising. It's your turn now. Please, do explain how something without mechanical effects is a mechanical ruling. While you're at it, see if you can prove how things that don't follow logic are still governed by logical rules, since I see both things on the same level of impossibility.


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.

As for the second part of your post - what?



And why is it, exactly, a rule? One instance of occurrence does not a rule make.

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".



We disagree. To me, a justification is not a rule. A justification is that, a justification. A rule is a rule. They're two completely different things. A rule, as I see it, is this:

The second definition is right out. The first definition doesn't apply, since this does not govern anything here. It doesn't tell my player how to roleplay this cosmetic trait, and it doesn't say who can and cannot have the trait. The third definition is also out because there is no "customary" circumstance. A single case does not a custom make.

As for the cases you've delineated, 1-4 are all perfectly valid. 4 just happens to be a mystery. The cause right now, does not exist, but it may exist in the future, or it may remain forever a mystery.


"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.



An angel's flight IS magic. It's not magic according to the rules, but it IS magic. There is no other explanation, in the universe, for why angels can fly. An angel cannot say "I fly because my statblock says I have a Fly speed." He says "I fly because the grace of the good gods sustains me." Which is a fancy way of saying "magic." An aboleth doesn't say "My slime will turn you into a water-breathing creature because that's what my statblock says," it says "my dark powers will cause you to breathe water!" and when pressed further, the answer will always be "magic."

If you put the winged template on a 500 lbs. dwarf, and it can fly, then that IS actually magic, since a 500 lbs. dwarf cannot fly on its own. It needs some way to do so, and save for a perfectly mundane flying artifact, any other means of flying will be magical, regardless of whether the rules recognise it as such or not.

Magic, in the game world, need not be magic according to the rules.


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.



I never said that blinking was required, only that it happens, and there's no rules for it. There tons of things that happen and do not require a rule. Characters eat and process their food, they sweat, they shake hands with others, they pat each other's backs, they walk and sleep, all without rules. Things just happen, they're not required or forbidden.

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?



It's like breathing. There are no rules for breathing, sleeping and eating, but there are rules for when something's stopping you from doing that. Blinking would be similar.

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?



Sorry, I don't see the difference between the three, unless that in the house rule case, there were actual mechanical effects involved. If there are, then yes, that's a house rule. if there are no mechanical effects and the character only sees "weird things" but can project astrally normally, then no. To me all three things are just refluffing.

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.

[Thiyr]

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.

Just wanted to point out: in the DMG (I'm looking for the page at the moment) it actually explicitly states that by default, it is assumed that real-world physics are in effect unless contradicted by something else.

Edit: Page 136, the footer "How Real is Your Fantasy". Emphasis mine.

This sectoin on world-building assumes that your campaign is set in a fairly realistic world. That is to say that while wizards cast spells, deities channel power to clerics, and dragons raze villages, the world is round, the laws of physics are applicable and most people act like real people.

[ImperatorK]

One question to Typewriter: Where in the RULES does it state that a human can't have fire for hair?

[Kojiro]

Some note: I don't remember who said it, but I am pretty sure that not all sorcerers have dragon blood, in fact; it's just said that some do. Not important to the conversation as a whole I suppose, but just noting it because it wasn't a good example for... Whatever point it was used to make.

[ImperatorK]

Yeah. The "fire haired" sorcerer should be 1/32 fire elemental.

[Kojiro]

Indeed. Half-dragons aren't even on fire (excluding possibly some weird supplemental dragon breed I am not aware of), although some of them can breath it. Although, I think there is a race for part-elemental people, actually, albeit possibly not bread down that far.

And now on the topic of part-elemental/flame-headed people, I'm thinking of
Annie from Gunnerkrigg Court,
Chandra something from Magic: The Gathering, and redheads in general now. Hm.

[mootoall]

Are we still talking about magical fire-y hair winking out in AMFs? If so, then you should probably check out this from the text for AMFs:

"The spell has no effect on golems and other constructs that are imbued with magic during their creation process and are thereafter self-supporting"

Emphasis mine. If a character is naturally magical, and this bestows some sort of quality on them that is self-sustaining, then they retain this magical quality. Just like you can't dispel a golem, or dispel an undead creature, you can't dispel this guy's hair. Nor can you dispel his self-sustaining sparkles. Nor can you dispel his fighting abilities. There. Magical, flaming haired, sparkly, magical fighter who doesn't get disabled in an antimagic field.

And anyway, I'd like to point out the silliness of giving something an explanation being homebrewing. I mean, having a six foot tall halfling is an anomoly, but let's say it exists in your campaign. Have you just homebrewed? No. It's a Small sized, six foot tall halfling. His height has exceeded the "Random Height" table's limits, but that's for people who want to determine it randomly. So right now it's completely fluff. And then you give it an explanation and ... it's homebrew? What? That makes little sense to me.

[ImperatorK]

To be fair, a 6 foot halfling wouldn't be small. He would be medium and that WOULD be homebrewing because halflings are small. It's a mechanical change.

[mootoall]

To be fair, a 6 foot halfling wouldn't be small. He would be medium and that WOULD be homebrewing because halflings are small. It's a mechanical change.

No, he would be small. There are no guidelines for "And from 5-6 feet a character is Medium," there is only "This race is medium." A 2' tall Human child would be a Medium creature. Weird and quirky, but fact.

[ImperatorK]

No, he would be small. There are no guidelines for "And from 5-6 feet a character is Medium," there is only "This race is medium." A 2' tall Human child would be a Medium creature. Weird and quirky, but fact.
I don't think so. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#bigandLittleCreatu resInCombat)

[mootoall]

Specific always overrides general. The Halfling entry says that Halflings are Small creatures. QED, Halflings are always small, even if they're 6 feet tall.

Edit: It's just like having a 10 ft. long Bastard Sword doesn't give you reach. Weird, quirky fact.

[ImperatorK]

Specific always overrides general. The Halfling entry says that Halflings are Small creatures. QED, Halflings are always small, even if they're 6 feet tall.
You're joking.

[mootoall]

It's RAW. If you don't like it, then homebrew a change. However, until then, my refluffed 6' tall Small halfling is a completely fluff change.

[Typewriter]

Just wanted to point out: in the DMG (I'm looking for the page at the moment) it actually explicitly states that by default, it is assumed that real-world physics are in effect unless contradicted by something else.

Edit: Page 136, the footer "How Real is Your Fantasy". Emphasis mine.

Fair enough, but that doesn't actually change my argument. Angels can fly because they have wings, not because of magic. The winged template says that creatures with it can fly because they have the template.

If the game says "An angel can fly" and physics says "No he can't", then the book is contradicting physics.


Some note: I don't remember who said it, but I am pretty sure that not all sorcerers have dragon blood, in fact; it's just said that some do. Not important to the conversation as a whole I suppose, but just noting it because it wasn't a good example for... Whatever point it was used to make.

Yeah, I'd heard it before but I never seen it with my own eyes. I personally like it so I tend to use it a lot.


A note:
So apparently I was wrong about the physics thing, but I can't help but feel like that actually helps my argument. If physics are in play as a rule, then anything you do that contradicts physics is changing a rule isn't it? If it doesn't say anywhere "You can have fire on your head", and physics don't allow for non-magical, non burning, non light generating fires to rest on peoples heads, then making such a thing is a contradiction of that rule isn't it?

EDIT:
On the 6 foot tall haflings - this is exactly what I'm saying I have a problem with. From what I've seen so far this is how I would see the conversation going.

DM: Why are you 6 ft. tall? You're a halfling.
Player: Yeah, I'm just really tall.
DM: So is it a variant, or are you asking for some type of home brew halfling?
Player: No, no - nothing has changed mechanically. My character still behaves the same, but instead of his abilities coming from him being smaller than anyone else it's because he's limber. Or wiry. Or has dragon blood.
DM: So, you want to play a character who gets bonuses for being small, but you want him to be big, and you don't want a mechanical change, so you're saying that the reason you get those bonuses isn't because you're small but because of some other, vague reason?
Player: Yeah, it's just fluff after all.

[Thiyr]

Specific always overrides general. The Halfling entry says that Halflings are Small creatures. QED, Halflings are always small, even if they're 6 feet tall.

Edit: It's just like having a 10 ft. long Bastard Sword doesn't give you reach. Weird, quirky fact.

I don't think that fits under specific vs general here. That's similar to saying that you have a five-inch long bastard sword that does 1d10 damage because it's sized for a medium creature. It's "specific", but in this case, halflings being small is as general as the guidelines for size, and the specifics of them fitting the qualities of a medium sized creature would override the general of their racial smallness.


Edit: Type, the big problem I have with that argument is that the physics behind flight would mean an angel can't fly unless there is some kind of magic behind it. Both that and the flaming-head can very easily, as someone else already commented on, be similar to a golem. It is self-sustaining but started as magic.

[ImperatorK]

It's RAW. If you don't like it, then homebrew a change. However, until then, my refluffed 6' tall Small halfling is a completely fluff change.
Somehow I can't take you seriously. What Thiyr said. Specific vs. General comes into play when one source contradicts the other. There is no contradiction between the table and halflings statblock. Or rather, the table suplements the stats, because it says how small/big the halfling can be, mechanics-wise.

@ 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?

[mootoall]

I don't think that fits under specific vs general here. That's similar to saying that you have a five-inch long bastard sword that does 1d10 damage because it's sized for a medium creature. It's "specific", but in this case, halflings being small is as general as the guidelines for size, and the specifics of them fitting the qualities of a medium sized creature would override the general of their racial smallness.

And yet, the Huge Bastard Sword that's 15 feet long doesn't have any reach of its own when wielded by a Medium sized character (who is capable of doing so somehow).

You might be right about the halfling argument, because the Small size does refer back to that table, I suppose. So I'll concede that point, and we'll keep talking about the Bastard Sword, because I know I'm right about that.

You have a 15' long Bastard Sword, because you have the feats required to wield those sized weapons effectively. You can still only hit 5' around you. So the 15' part of having the Bastard Sword is completely fluff. However, once you explain "Oh, I can't hit people who are 10' away fromme with it because [explanation]," you're homebrewing? Again, doesn't make sense to me.


Somehow I can't take you seriously.


That's because it's a silly argument. Just like saying that fluff is set in stone.

[Thiyr]

And yet, the Huge Bastard Sword that's 15 feet long doesn't have any reach of its own when wielded by a Medium sized character (who is capable of doing so somehow).

You might be right about the halfling argument, because the Small size does refer back to that table, I suppose. So I'll concede that point, and we'll keep talking about the Bastard Sword, because I know I'm right about that.

You have a 15' long Bastard Sword, because you have the feats required to wield those sized weapons effectively. You can still only hit 5' around you. So the 15' part of having the Bastard Sword is completely fluff. However, once you explain "Oh, I can't hit people who are 10' away fromme with it because [explanation]," you're homebrewing? Again, doesn't make sense to me.



That's because it's a silly argument. Just like saying that fluff is set in stone.

I think I can agree with you on that being silly. Good ol' reach being a function of the weilder and not the weapon.

[ImperatorK]

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.

[Kojiro]

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.

[ImperatorK]

A fifteen foot long bastard sword would not in fact be sized for a Medium creature; it is in fact 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.
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.