When is refluffing too much? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

The Dark Fiddler

2012-06-15, 08:27 AM

The only problem I'd have with that personally would be the full-round action casting time - throwing a pokeball is usually quicker than that. Get that down to a standard or swift and I'd be on board.

Have you seen the show? It'd be so easy to bump it up to a full round action. Throw in jumping back, turning your hat around, and wildly gesticulating, and boom! Full round action!

Know tell me how "I choose you" (in Common, Elven or whatever language) can be identified by anyone with the Spellcraft skill.

Why does it need to be? There's other parts of the spell that can be identified.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said in the OP. It creates a fluff/crunch disconnect.

It's a species of dragon that doesn't fly, or its wings are too weak to carry its own weight at its current age, or it's been injured and is unable to fly. It doesn't eat oats; either just refluff what it eats, or let it eat something else. And what's wrong with dragons eating oats anyway? As for the Bane effects, that's a good point. All it really needs is saying "okay, since it's a dragon it's effected by Dragon stuff." A bit beyond refluffing, yes, but sometimes you need a slight rules change to go with changed fluff.

Anyway, you might get some mileage out of this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206955). It's 42 pages, though, so I wouldn't blame you at all for not reading it. Very similar topic, though, that ended up veering towards what you want to discuss.

Milo v3

2012-06-15, 08:28 AM

I don't allow it if the mechanic and fluff don't match. You can have a perfectly designed shortsword made out of crystal, treat it as a Masterwork longsword. You want a dragon instead of a horse, your going to have to give me a good explaination, then I'll allow it and add the Dragonblooded subtype to the horse. And even if I didn't add the subtype it would eat raw meat and had its wings torn off while a child, this trauma resulting in it being much dumber than most dragons, but its faster to just add the subtype and say its a dragon with horse similar biology.

I'm rather lenient when I comes to my players, but if I change something I try to make sure it is balanced.

Psyren

2012-06-15, 08:48 AM

You can have a perfectly designed shortsword made out of crystal, treat it as a Masterwork longsword.

This is an example of one that wouldn't work for me at all. Shortswords and Longswords have too many crunch differences to be fluff-interchangeable (unless there's a wielder size difference going on too.) Longswords have different penalties when TWF-ing for instance. Similarly, crystalline and masterwork have different implications under the rules as regards things like rust monsters or Shatter. So I wouldn't allow a change that big.

Milo v3

2012-06-15, 08:55 AM

This is an example of one that wouldn't work for me at all. Shortswords and Longswords have too many crunch differences to be fluff-interchangeable (unless there's a wielder size difference going on too.) Longswords have different penalties when TWF-ing for instance. Similarly, crystalline and masterwork have different implications under the rules as regards things like rust monsters or Shatter. So I wouldn't allow a change that big.

The TWF is because of the weight of the crystal weighing more than the metal, also I interchange the effects of it being metal (Such as Heat Metal) with the effects of being crystal (Shatter).

Also isn't there a creature that eats crystals in psionics book based off the Rust monster, one of my friends told me about something like that...

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-15, 08:58 AM

The TWF is because of the weight of the crystal weighing more than the metal, also I interchange the effects of it being metal (Such as Heat Metal) with the effects of being crystal (Shatter).

Also isn't there a creature that eats crystals in psionics book based off the Rust monster, one of my friends told me about something like that...

I think his point is that then you're no longer refluffing, you're homebrewing.
If you bought a masterwork longsword for 315 gp and then a rust monster can't rust because "I refluffed it as crystal"... that's not really refluffing, the crunch has changed.

Why does it need to be? There's other parts of the spell that can be identified.
Spellcraft specifically relies on verbal and somatic components to identify spells being cast. A silent still spell can't even be identified as it is casted.
Also, why can a druid counterspell your pokeball with his summon monster and why can a wizard do so with dispel magic and why is your pokemon vulnerable to banish and protection from X spells.
Too big.

It's a species of dragon that doesn't fly, or its wings are too weak to carry its own weight at its current age, or it's been injured and is unable to fly. It doesn't eat oats; either just refluff what it eats, or let it eat something else. And what's wrong with dragons eating oats anyway? As for the Bane effects, that's a good point. All it really needs is saying "okay, since it's a dragon it's effected by Dragon stuff." A bit beyond refluffing, yes, but sometimes you need a slight rules change to go with changed fluff.
That's exactly my point. You have to change the rules sometimes. At that point, why don't you just use one of the many dragon mounts available? The dragonne is basically just that.

Psyren

2012-06-15, 09:02 AM

Also isn't there a creature that eats crystals in psionics book based off the Rust monster, one of my friends told me about something like that...

While I do recall something like that, the fact is that they're different monsters.

And then you open another can of worms regarding spells like Heat Metal or Ironguard, druid vows etc. It's too big.

Griffith!

2012-06-15, 09:38 AM

If the refluff matches the internal logical consistency of the gameworld, I'm fine with it. To use the horse-as-dragon example, I would only allow it if it makes sense for that character in that world to ride a dragon. If the player wanted a dragon 'because it's cool', I probably wouldn't allow it.

And mechanically, I'd probably just give them a different dragon-like creature as a mount, refluffed as a dragon.

prufock

2012-06-15, 09:56 AM

Dienekes

2012-06-15, 10:09 AM

Somatic component:
I choose you _____ makes it pretty easy to identify really.

Also, why can a druid counterspell your pokeball with his summon monster

He throws his own pokeball capturing the pokeball and stopping the summon monster usage.

and why can a wizard do so with dispel magic

Disrupts the magic ball meaning the creature is gone.

why is your pokemon vulnerable to banish

Sends it back into the ball

and protection from X spells.

Obviously the magic ball screws with the creature a bit adding a base magic that allows protection spells to work against it.

It doesn't really seem that hard to me. Mind you if a player of mine tried it I'd probably throw something at him.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-15, 10:18 AM

Somatic component:
I choose you _____ makes it pretty easy to identify really.
That's a verbal component. Also, it's not supposed to be easy to identify. It requires someone specifically trained to do so and it is not dependent on language (while an actual sentence is). This creates a disconnection between fluff and crunch.

He throws his own pokeball capturing the pokeball and stopping the summon monster usage.
So your refluffing causes everyone else to be forced into using your gimmick. You're basically adding pokeballs to every spell component pouch ever. That is a clear example of going too far.

Disrupts the magic ball meaning the creature is gone.
Wait, now it's magic? It was an ordinary plastic ball seconds ago. So can I find your ball with detect magic?

Sends it back into the ball
This one at least makes sense internally... of course, it ignores why banishment works against something that is not technically from another plane.

Obviously the magic ball screws with the creature a bit adding a base magic that allows protection spells to work against it.
That is hardly a justification at all. You're basically saying it's magic so you don't have to explain it. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt)
http://i2.cpcache.com/product/208967637/tshirt.jpg?color=Black&height=350&width=350

It doesn't really seem that hard to me. Mind you if a player of mine tried it I'd probably throw something at him.
This was presented as an example of refluff going too far, I don't understand why you're trying so hard to defend if if you wouldn't even have allowed it.

While I argue against creating a fluff/crunch disconnect, I think a bit of creativity can handle most things. Ideally the DM should be working with the player to find ways to mesh the fluff and crunch, not picking holes in it and using that as an excuse to turn it down.
I missed this before, sorry.
I agree completely. But then that's beyond refluffing, that's homebrewing. Summon Monster is not a good analog for a pokemon trainer anyway. You can't have more than six with you at a time, they can carry items, each one is a particular individual with different stats... multiple animal companions/familiars/mounts would be the way to go.
If for some reason you really want to use Summon Monster for pokemon trainers, even knowing it does not fit as a base for either the 3.5 rules system or pokémon, you would have a lot of change.
My point is not "don't allow this", it's "this changes a lot - it's no longer simply refluffing". If it should be allowed or not, it should come down to each DM.

Ranting Fool

2012-06-15, 10:31 AM

Re-flavouring is too extreme if:

1) It has mechanical consequences. A "dragon" is a defined creature within the system, so calling your horse a "dragon" implies certain things mechanically.

2) It screws up the setting consistency. Your setting may not have dragons, therefore calling your horse a "dragon" is nonsensical.

Note that these don't say your character can't refer to his horse as a dragon. Other folk may look at you funny (if they know the difference between a horse and a dragon).

My 2 cents.

hehe now that I WOULD allow :smallbiggrin:

An example of a player of mine wanted to Re-fluff something which I allowed.
He was a Druid with a Wolf pet, when he leveled up he wanted to get a nice Direwolf but was rather attached to his faithful Mr Fluffy (I cannot for the life of me remember the wolf's name though it wasn't silly) and asked if he could do a "Druidic ritual to allow Mr Fluffy to become a Dire Animal" my first instinct was to say "nope that makes no sense" but since he had gone out of his way to save Mr Fluffy at the risk of his own life more then once and it made no macanical difference (Mr Fluffy would lose some tricks as the ritual would dull the memories of his old life) I allowed it.

As long as it doesn't ruin the flow of the game or is for some extra added advantage via cheese I normally allow things like that. But again this is just me and i'm sure there are some people who would bugged by random reluffing and it make the game less fun for them. :smalltongue:

sonofzeal

2012-06-15, 10:33 AM

That's a verbal component. Also, it's not supposed to be easy to identify. It requires someone specifically trained to do so. This creates a disconnection between fluff and crunch.

So your refluffing causes everyone else to be forced into using your gimmick. You're basically adding pokeballs to every spell component pouch ever. That is a clear exampel of going too far.

Now it's magic? It was an ordinary plastic ball seconds ago. So can I find your ball with detect magic?

This one at least makes sense internally... of course, it ignores why banishment works against something that is not technically from another plane.

That is hardly a justification at all. You're basically saying it's magic so you don't have to explain it.

This was presented as an example of refluff going too far, I don't understand why you're trying so hard to defend if if you wouldn't even have allowed it.
Remember what I said?

"Ideally the DM should be working with the player to find ways to mesh the fluff and crunch, not picking holes in it and using that as an excuse to turn it down."

For the first one, perhaps the "poke-name" is different than the general out-of-game term. Celestial Badger #17 could be "Grourouma" or something. The spellcraft is to figure out the correspondences - or as I already described, to anticipate based on the flash of light.

As for the rest, of course the pokeballs are magic. What else would they be? Seriously, the things violate physics like there's no tomorrow, which is pretty much the hallmark of magic.

Most of the situations in which it could create a disconnect are fairly marginal and unlikely to come up regularly, and can thus likely be handwaved with little cost. Or just houserule something, nothing says you have to stick 100% slavishly to the original rules. As long as the player isn't trying to use it as an excuse for more power, it should be fine.

Jarian

2012-06-15, 10:41 AM

Refluffing goes too far when it steps beyond the bounds of fluff and begins to impact the mechanical aspects of the game, or when it has a negative effect on the table's willing suspension of disbelief.

To take the pokeball example here, I personally wouldn't allow it, because I know it would break immersion every time it was used. Other games might already have magical capturing/teleportation devices in them, and it would be just fine in those. Picking at the details of the somatic components is just looking for an excuse to not allow the refluffing, which you don't need if it already negatively impacts party immersion.

Psyren

2012-06-15, 10:59 AM

Remember what I said?

As for the rest, of course the pokeballs are magic. What else would they be? Seriously, the things violate physics like there's no tomorrow, which is pretty much the hallmark of magic.

Not to mention biology. I'm pretty sure that Raticate I caught back in '99 hasn't eaten anything in over a decade at this point :smalltongue:

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-15, 11:03 AM

Remember what I said?

Yeah, I was editing a response into my last post while you were posting this, please check it out. :smallsmile:

Dienekes

2012-06-15, 11:15 AM

That's a verbal component. Also, it's not supposed to be easy to identify. It requires someone specifically trained to do so and it is not dependent on language (while an actual sentence is). This creates a disconnection between fluff and crunch.

Right, right. Though, honestly the whole picking ball and throwing movement would be a pretty good indicator for just about any spell guy.

So your refluffing causes everyone else to be forced into using your gimmick. You're basically adding pokeballs to every spell component pouch ever. That is a clear example of going too far.

Wait, now it's magic? It was an ordinary plastic ball seconds ago. So can I find your ball with detect magic?

This one at least makes sense internally... of course, it ignores why banishment works against something that is not technically from another plane.

[quote]That is hardly a justification at all. You're basically saying it's magic so you don't have to explain it. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt)
http://i2.cpcache.com/product/208967637/tshirt.jpg?color=Black&height=350&width=350

How is that different than bat guano becoming a fireball? Magic doesn't make sense. That's why it's magic. You can add rules to it, justifications for it, and explanations but at it's core it does not make sense. If we really wish to pick apart everything about the spell as presented here we'll find incongruities and refluff to make it work.

So far ultimately a guy refluffed a spell as throwing a pokeball. Fine. Well we're in the magic world so obviously that ball would either be magical, or channel magic through it, or something magical has to happen to call the monster through the use of the ball. If the player and I agree that the end result is the same as the spell for all instances, and we feel comfortable enough to handwave the inconsistencies here and there I don't see the problem.

Because honestly I have no clue why some other character casting summon monster would somehow negate my own casting. But whatever, I roll with it. If we're comfortable that this new form of summoning monster is some variant on the spell that can be negated the same way or if we feel like refluffing the whole world that way, seems fine by me.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-15, 11:25 AM

Right, right. Though, honestly the whole picking ball and throwing movement would be a pretty good indicator for just about any spell guy.
I'm guessing every wizard in your setting had GameBoy and watched Cartoon Network. :smallconfused:

How is that different than bat guano becoming a fireball?
Internal consistency.

Magic doesn't make sense. That's why it's magic.
Disagree completely. Magic is mostly internally consistent in D&D 3.5.

You can add rules to it, justifications for it, and explanations but at it's core it does not make sense. If we really wish to pick apart everything about the spell as presented here we'll find incongruities and refluff to make it work.
That's my whole point. At that point it's not refluffing anymore.

So far ultimately a guy refluffed a spell as throwing a pokeball. Fine. Well we're in the magic world so obviously that ball would either be magical, or channel magic through it, or something magical has to happen to call the monster through the use of the ball.
Material component focus are not magic, they are just part of the spell. That's what was presented here. Using Summon Monster for pokemon is just a bad example. Not all refluffing works well.

If the player and I agree that the end result is the same as the spell for all instances, and we feel comfortable enough to handwave the inconsistencies here and there I don't see the problem.
If you're handwaving stuff away, nothing is going to be a problem. The thing is there is a point where refluffing becomes homebrewing or it just creates a lot of fluff/crunch disconnects.

Because honestly I have no clue why some other character casting summon monster would somehow negate my own casting.
Because it's a counterspell. His magic counters yours. He readies an action, casts it at the same time you do and the spells negate each other. I don't see what you don't understand here.

If we're comfortable that this new form of summoning monster is some variant on the spell that can be negated the same way or if we feel like refluffing the whole world that way, seems fine by me.
Again, that's my entire point. Once you're changing mechanics, it's not refluffing anymore.

Dienekes

2012-06-15, 11:31 AM

I'm guessing every wizard in your setting had GameBoy and watched Cartoon Network. :smallconfused:

Internal consistency.

Disagree completely. Magic is mostly internally consistent in D&D 3.5.

That's my whole point. At that point it's not refluffing anymore.

Material component focus are not magic, they are just part of the spell. That's what was presented here. Using Summon Monster for pokemon is just a bad example. Not all refluffing works well.

If you're handwaving stuff away, nothing is going to be a problem. The thing is there is a point where refluffing becomes homebrewing or it just creates a lot of fluff/crunch disconnects.

Because it's a counterspell. His magic counters yours. He readies an action, casts it at the same time you do and the spells negate each other. I don't see what you don't understand here.

Again, that's my entire point. Once you're changing mechanics, it's not refluffing anymore.

But mechanics are not being changed so long as we shrug and say go with it, the minor oddities and all. Which is pretty much what I do. I long ago stopped caring about accurate depictions of things in my DnD after I learned how real weapons and armor work, or when I questioned why a man who could lift up a building in 1 hand had trouble running in armor that had a long time ago stopped being anywhere close to his carrying capacity.

That's just my limit on fluffing. No mechanics change, you take all the incongruities and try to fluff it as close to making sense. I'm ok if it requires squinting.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-15, 11:57 AM

But mechanics are not being changed so long as we shrug and say go with it, the minor oddities and all. Which is pretty much what I do. I long ago stopped caring about accurate depictions of things in my DnD after I learned how real weapons and armor work, or when I questioned why a man who could lift up a building in 1 hand had trouble running in armor that had a long time ago stopped being anywhere close to his carrying capacity.

That's just my limit on fluffing. No mechanics change, you take all the incongruities and try to fluff it as close to making sense. I'm ok if it requires squinting.

As long as you handwave stuff, nothing really matters. You can handwave away the d20, you can handwave away hit points, you can handwave away alignment and multiclass restrictions.
I'm happy it works for you, it sure as hell does not work for me. If I'm playing a rules-heavy game like 3.5, I want to actually use said rules instead of handwaving them away.

Dienekes

2012-06-15, 12:10 PM

As long as you handwave stuff, nothing really matters. You can handwave away the d20, you can handwave away hit points, you can handwave away alignment and multiclass restrictions.
I'm happy it works for you, it sure as hell does not work for me. If I'm playing a rules-heavy game like 3.5, I want to actually use said rules instead of handwaving them away.

But nothing of mechanics were being changed, such as handwaving away the d20, or hit points.

What was being handwaved was a bit of internal consistency of the fluff, admittedly. But, really, D&D hasn't exactly had the best track record in that juncture I really don't worry too much about it.

Tulya

2012-06-15, 12:16 PM

Went a bit off-topic there and missed the point. I guess yeah, when the new fluff feels like it needs mechanical changes to really fit, it's no longer merely refluffing.

Edit: Mind, I see no issue with accommodating the mechanics within reason to fit the new fluff, especially where legitimate options already exist in some form, such as the feat Spell Thematics.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-15, 12:36 PM

But nothing of mechanics were being changed, such as handwaving away the d20, or hit points.

What was being handwaved was a bit of internal consistency of the fluff, admittedly. But, really, D&D hasn't exactly had the best track record in that juncture I really don't worry too much about it.

You are changing mechanics. You just don't care that you're changing them or you're not using the mechanics you're changing.
To me, a handwaved refluff is the same as a bad homebrew. I'm glad they work for you. They don't work for me.

HeadlessMermaid

2012-06-15, 03:00 PM

Personally, I'm a fan of the "RAW is a suggestion" mindset. When I'm refluffing something, I'm more than willing to tweak the crunch, too, so that it makes sense and I don't actually need to handwave anything. I know that this is taboo for a lot of people, but I've found it suits me best. For some reason, it feels very rewarding when the mechanics fit perfectly the flavor and vice versa.

With this method, refluffing is never "too much".

Example:
George is building a swordsman. His character concept includes a lawful alignment, a monkish approach to combat (focus, concentration, meditation etc), a love for books, and a whirling sword style. George intends to take Warblade levels, but he begins at Level 1 with Lion Totem Barbarian, because he wants Pounce and the Whirling Frenzy ACF.

Method 1: Stick to RAW, but refluff it
George refluffs the Barbarian as a generic warrior. Whirling Frenzy becomes an effort to focus that he hasn't mastered yet (so he becomes faster, but can't concentrate on anything else). The love for books necessarily becomes love for book covers, since he can't read - but he wants to learn! His alignment must be chaotic, so basically he roleplays a confused young man who would LIKE to be lawful but really isn't. Later, when he doesn't need any more Barbarian levels, he'll try to gradually change his alignment until it fits his original idea.

Method 2: Refluff AND tweak
George refluffs the Barbarian as a generic warrior. The Rage limitations on Whirling Frenzy don't fit at all his concept, so, after consulting with the DM, he tweaks it. It allows him to use the Concentration skill for general purposes (and maneuvers later), but he can't cast, activate magic items, or use the Intimidate skill - which is irrelevant with the character he imagined. So now Whirling Frenzy is called "Whirling Meditation" or something. Illiteracy is ignored, George can read just fine, and the DM doesn't ask for anything in return because come on, it's a minor thing. He reshuffles his class skills: he gets a couple of Knowledge skills, and forgoes Handle Animal and Survival. Alignment restrictions are summarily ignored.

The second method is, IMHO, infinitely better, because you don't compromise your concept. But it has a few important prerequisites (which are entirely group-dependent) :

The whole procedure isn't misused to unbalance D&D even further (by building overpowered monstrosities), it's just a tool to customize things and bring your character to life exactly as you imagined him
The DM knows what he's doing, is able to predict potential complications from all this tweaking, and knows when to say "no".
Everyone has equal access to this method, there's trust between DM and players, and no one's trying to gain an unfair advantage.

I'll grant you that the combination of these three factors is a rare and precious thing. It's not something you'd ever try with a new group or an unknown DM. It's something that only groups that stay together for a long time can naturally evolve, and even then it's not a given.

So I'm not suggesting this for anyone. I'm just pointing out that it's possible, and that when it works, it rocks! :smallbiggrin:

navar100

2012-06-15, 03:06 PM

PersonMan

2012-06-15, 04:56 PM

Internal consistency.

Disagree completely. Magic is mostly internally consistent in D&D 3.5.

This is true.

What's also true is that there are a lot of different kinds of magic.

Guy shoots lasers at you? Obviously a wizard. He's wearing armor, so he can't cast spells as well-

Unless he's a Warlock. Or a Psion. Or a Wilder. Or a cleric. Or has an SLA...

There are so many ways to do things in 3.5 that internal consistency is kind of...in an unusual place. Almost every rule (you need gestures to cast spells, armor screws up arcane magic, etc.) has an exception somewhere. To the people in the setting, how is 'oh, he just summons things by throwing weird balls and shouting stuff' different from 'oh, he just shoots lasers by wiggling his fingers in really simple ways so the armor doesn't bother him' or 'yeah, I don't know where those gauntlets came from but suddenly lightning'?

Will adding an exception like this push you over the critical mass? Or will it be just another obscure form of magic like Incarnum/Shadowcasting/Truenaming/Psionics/Binding/Drift Magic/Blade Magic?

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-15, 05:15 PM

Will adding an exception like this push you over the critical mass? Or will it be just another obscure form of magic like Incarnum/Shadowcasting/Truenaming/Psionics/Binding/Drift Magic/Blade Magic?

Of course not and this is completely fine. Add 'pokemon magic' to your game or whatever. My point is that is not refluffing anymore, it's homebrewing.

killem2

2012-06-15, 05:23 PM

Refluffs depend a lot on what the player can come up with to make sense with it.

Mostly i consider it a reward for good role playing. There is level 2 character, that wanted to have a comp greatbow +6, with out a feat for it.

Two problems of course. 1, you have to have the feat, 2, how does a level 2 get the money for a greatbow (not magical mind you, just set at +6 str bonus).

So the player (17 years old) types up a three page back ground of how his father was capture in some onslaught of drow, and before captured he went into great detail the training that his father put him through.

I wouldn't let the feats slide (i usually don't), but the money eh, that's ok, he can start with it. Sure, he does a bit more average damage for the level than most, but it'll even out.

Then, another player wanted to start with an elven hound as a straight companion. at level 1 instead of 4. Gave me the back ground details, explain why it is this way, and he even agreed that it is just treated as an animal controlled by handle animal with no abilities of being an animal companion. (think of someone who bought a riding dog)

I let him. so what, he had a dog 3 levels earlier.

Not sure if that's what you are talking about though. :smallredface:

Milo v3

2012-06-15, 06:39 PM

May I ask what is wrong with the Pokemon refluffing? What mechanics does it go against?

So this in your opinion is refluffing too much?
When casting a summon monster spell "The Sanguine Mage" throws a crystal orb and says the name of the creature in the arcane tongue.

Also with the draconic horse,
The creature is known as a Forktongue (Because of its forked tongue obviously), it is a distant ancestor of true dragons but over the generations it has lost what was once inborn power. They are currently used as mounts for mortal races all across the world (Or if the DM would prefer a select few in the world). True Dragons hate the Forktongues as they serve as a reminder of what they could become if they are careless.

Dragons who have lost so much of their power they have become simple animals. Also since dragons are just animals infused with elemental power and macguffins, take away the magic and you get animals which can't grow too large (Square-cube law), secondly they're wings would eventually weak and become redundant (Because they can't use them without magic). This lack of flying added to the solitary long distance teritory nature of dragons means that it was hard to find mates, and when they did the generations were much more prone to inbreeding causing genetic mutations to become more common eventually resulting in the animalistic intelligence of the Forktongues.

Slipperychicken

2012-06-15, 06:43 PM

When breaks immersion, or has mechanical impact, or violates the internal consistency of the campaign setting.

"My Greatsword is reskinned as a Chicken" is not acceptable. It severely violates suspension of disbelief as well as the campaign's mood. In addition, there is no way a Chicken can reasonably do what a Greatsword does.

"My Barbarian's Rage is now a sort of combat trance, in which her muscles are extremely tensed, and her mind extremely focused" is acceptable. Although it breaks the standard Barbarian fluff of being a screaming, bloody idiot, there are people in the world who can concentrate to harden their muscles and resist physical damage easier. The skill restrictions still apply, because the Barbarian has focused her whole mind into the fight. The Barbarian would still be Fatigued at the end of her "rage", because her body will cramp quickly during such exertion as the trance requires. Calm Emotions would still work to end it, because the trance is very stressful, so the spell would move her emotions to neutrality, ending the trance.

Milo v3

2012-06-15, 06:49 PM

Although it breaks the standard Barbarian fluff of being a screaming, bloody idiot, there are people in the world who can concentrate to harden their muscles and resist physical damage easier.

So every single barbarian must be a screaming bloody idiot in your campaign. In my campaign they are warriors who can enter a state were they enter a rage (Whether it is Axecrazy or Traquil rage doesn't matter). You don't need to be an idiot just because you took levels in a class, it defies logic.

Ravens_cry

2012-06-15, 06:54 PM

To me, refluffing is too much when the kinesthetics of the crunch don't match those of the fluff, and, of course, when it doesn't fit the campaign.

Slipperychicken

2012-06-15, 07:26 PM

So every single barbarian must be a screaming bloody idiot in your campaign. In my campaign they are warriors who can enter a state were they enter a rage (Whether it is Axecrazy or Traquil rage doesn't matter). You don't need to be an idiot just because you took levels in a class, it defies logic.

By "standard" I mean what seems most obvious from reading the class itself, rather than what I personally use. Just to clarify, I agree completely with you about it making sense, and have lobbied my DMs to accept this interpretation a number of times. Were I to run a game myself, I would accept the "Tranquil" interpretation without a second thought.

Here's what I mean by the "standard barbarian fluff" (again, what WotC appears to have intended, not what I use myself): Rage is described as a "screaming blood frenzy", they get Illiteracy as a class feature, they are described as having trouble understanding Wizards "book magic" or a Monks combat style, and Krusk (the example Barbarian) possesses an Intellegence of 8.

Automatically-illiterate Barbarians does put a bad taste in my mouth, but if you really want to be angry about a class which requires you to be an idiot, crack open a copy of Miniatures Handbook and look at the War Hulk class, specifically its "No Time To Think" class feature. Yeah,. Even if you took ranks in Int-based skills before, you don't benefit from them.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-15, 11:42 PM

May I ask what is wrong with the Pokemon refluffing? What mechanics does it go against?
I mentioned this a thousand times in the previous pages.

So this in your opinion is refluffing too much?
When casting a summon monster spell "The Sanguine Mage" throws a crystal orb and says the name of the creature in the arcane tongue.
That's not the same thing suggested earlier. If you're actually casting a spell and the ball is just a frill, then there is no problem.

Also with the draconic horse,
The creature is known as a Forktongue (Because of its forked tongue obviously), it is a distant ancestor of true dragons but over the generations it has lost what was once inborn power. They are currently used as mounts for mortal races all across the world (Or if the DM would prefer a select few in the world). True Dragons hate the Forktongues as they serve as a reminder of what they could become if they are careless.
That's homebrewing, not refluffing, and that was my whole point.

moritheil

2012-06-15, 11:51 PM

Summon Monster line.
Material Focus (Changed to "Plastic ball")
Verbal Component (Changed to "I choose you, [monster name]!")
Somatic Component (Changed to "Throw the ball to where the monster will appear")

I think the Spell Thematics feat from FR explicitly gives this a nod, with a statement about how a possible theme is "spheres," with all summons appearing out of thrown spheres...

Milo v3

2012-06-15, 11:51 PM

That's not the same thing suggested earlier. If you're actually casting a spell and the ball is just a frill, then there is no problem.
Actually it was basically what was orginally suggested.
I did the following with my refluff:

Material Focus (Changed to "Crystal orb")
Verbal Component (Changed to "[monster name]")
Somatic Component (Changed to "Throw the orb to where the monster will appear")

The original pokemon thing was:

Material Focus (Changed to "Plastic ball")
Verbal Component (Changed to "I choose you, [monster name]!")
Somatic Component (Changed to "Throw the ball to where the monster will appear")

That's homebrewing, not refluffing, and that was my whole point.
So to you if I'm refluffing I'm not allowed to change the fluff..... :smallconfused:

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-16, 01:12 AM

Actually it was basically what was orginally suggested.
First of all, notice the original was pointed out as an example of refluffing going too far.
Then, please reread everything I've said before about how it actually changes mechanics.
Also, what you mentioned in the previous post was not changing the verbal component or somatic gestures or anything else. It was just saying stuff and throwing a ball aside from casting the spell. Please don't try to play 'gotcha' with me. It's rude, offensive and unnecessary.
Also, a different mechanical change I didn't notice before: throwing the orb would require an attack roll and line of effect, while summon monster only requires line of sight.
Sincerely, defending this specific refluff is completely missing the point. Like I mentioned before, it doesn't even work under pokemon fluff.

So to you if I'm refluffing I'm not allowed to change the fluff..... :smallconfused:
You're not allowed to change mechanics. That's a big difference.

I think the Spell Thematics feat from FR explicitly gives this a nod, with a statement about how a possible theme is "spheres," with all summons appearing out of thrown spheres...
And guess what that feat does? Makes your spells harder to idenfity. So it actually adresses mechanical changes the refluff ignores.

Milo v3

2012-06-16, 04:05 AM

First of all, notice the original was pointed out as an example of refluffing going too far.
I realise this, but I disagree with it being too much of a refluff.

Then, please reread everything I've said before about how it actually changes mechanics.
okay.

Know tell me how "I choose you" (in Common, Elven or whatever language) can be identified by anyone with the Spellcraft skill.
The spell could have been an illusion, a class ability, etc. The spellcraft check determines that it was a Summon Monster spell.

Also, what you mentioned in the previous post was not changing the verbal component or somatic gestures or anything else. It was just saying stuff and throwing a ball aside from casting the spell.
The Saying stuff is the Verbal component, the throwing the ball in a certain way is the Somatic Component.

Also, why can a druid counterspell your pokeball with his summon monster
Because the spells are similiar enough in an arcane sense in that they function the same to the multiverse, simply different ways to achieve the same spell effect. Thus from magics perspective they are the same spell and can be counterspelled by a druid casting summon monster.

can a wizard do so with dispel magic
Because magic is what placed it in the world.

why is your pokemon vulnerable to banish
Because magic is what placed it in the world.

protection from X spells
Its a summoned creature thus the spell affects it.

Summon Monster is not a good analog for a pokemon trainer anyway. Etc.
This we can agree on. The thing is the changes were simply changing the components that was all, it didn't need any other links to Pokemon for what was suggested.

Internal consistency.
How isn't it internally consistant.

The Please don't try to play 'gotcha' with me. It's rude, offensive and unnecessary.
I'm not I am simply attempting to state counter arguments.

Also, a different mechanical change I didn't notice before: throwing the orb would require an attack roll and line of effect, while summon monster only requires line of sight.
Why would it? That would be changing mechanics.

Sincerely, defending this specific refluff is completely missing the point. Like I mentioned before, it doesn't even work under pokemon fluff.
Does it need to work with the Pokemon fluff? All the refluff was did change the components.

You're not allowed to change mechanics. That's a big difference.
I didn't change the mechanics. I think I may have worded it wrong, but that fluff was the only change to the horse, this wasn't linked to my earlier mention of adding the Dragonblooded subtype to the horse.

Zombimode

2012-06-16, 05:22 AM

In line with what others have already said, my criteria for when refluffing is too much is when it creates a dissociation. Such occurs when the interaction of the refluffed game element with other elements creates effects that counteract the new description.

An example:
I've seen people on these boards to suggest playing a cleric as a mundane warrior. This refluffed cleric would only use certain spells and those would be refluffed as stances, strikes and the like.
This creates a dissociation since the game elements (spells) are still treated as magical by the rules and thus are effected by dispelling, anti-magic fields, SR and so on, which counteracts the description as a non-magical warrior.

So every single barbarian must be a screaming bloody idiot in your campaign.

How you can read this from his posting is beyond me. He just wrote a sentence before that a refluff of the iconic barb fluff was acceptable.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-16, 12:10 PM

I realise this, but I disagree with it being too much of a refluff.
Good for you.

The spell could have been an illusion, a class ability, etc. The spellcraft check determines that it was a Summon Monster spell.
You misunderstand. Tell me how saying "I choose you" in Common or Elven is suddenly understandable by anyone, even those that don't speak Common or Elven, because of the Spellcraft check.

The Saying stuff is the Verbal component, the throwing the ball in a certain way is the Somatic Component.
Verbal componentes are not language depandant. You're not actually saying a sentence when youc ast a spell, you're casting a spell. There is mechanics behind this (namely the Spellcraft check).
There are rules for throwing something at a specific place.
Also, something I didn't mention before: Summon Monster has a 1 round casting level. It means you spend all the time between the start of your round and the beginning of yoru next round saying three words and throwing a ball.
Now, before you say anything, read through 1 round casting time. It's not the same as a full-round action.

Because the spells are similiar enough in an arcane sense in that they function the same to the multiverse, simply different ways to achieve the same spell effect. Thus from magics perspective they are the same spell and can be counterspelled by a druid casting summon monster.
Also known as being the same spell. You're explanation says nothing.

This we can agree on. The thing is the changes were simply changing the components that was all, it didn't need any other links to Pokemon for what was suggested.
If you don't want pokemon, there's no need to refluff anything. Just take the Spell Thematics feat.

How isn't it internally consistant.
Spells are cast in the same way by everyone. That's why Spellcraft works. There is a feat for changing the appearance of a set of spells, with actual mechanical results.
Why are the refluffed character's spells easier to identify than someone who took the Spell Thematics feat?

Why would it? That would be changing mechanics.
Because that's how throwing stuff works in this system. You either change the mechanics or you end up with a fluff/crunch disconnect.

Does it need to work with the Pokemon fluff? All the refluff was did change the components.
Then why are you changing it? :smallconfused:
If you want to be somehow similar to a pokemon trainer, this is a bad example.
If you want your summons to come from balls or whatever, there is Spell Thematics.
If you use the refluff as suggested, it creates fluff/crunch disconnects.

I didn't change the mechanics. I think I may have worded it wrong, but that fluff was the only change to the horse, this wasn't linked to my earlier mention of adding the Dragonblooded subtype to the horse.
Then it's not a dragon at all, is it?

Milo v3

2012-06-16, 07:08 PM

You misunderstand. Tell me how saying "I choose you" in Common or Elven is suddenly understandable by anyone, even those that don't speak Common or Elven, because of the Spellcraft check.
Firstly I changed mine to the magic language or whatever magic sounds like in your setting. But regardless, say "Petisse" is the verbal component for Fireball. Now it doesn't matter what languages you can speak to cast it, that is just the word used when casting the spell. Now it turns out that Petisse is the draconic word for kobold. This doesn't make it any harder to cast if you don't speak draconic as your saying a singular word regardless of language. I doesn't make it easier to for the Spellcraft check as thats how it is for a huge amount of Spells verbal components, it turns out to be a word or words in another language.

There are rules for throwing something at a specific place.
This is just a way to give apperance to the spell reaching the target area, it doesn't even make contact with the square, orb is thrown towards the target area and the creature is summoned.

Also, something I didn't mention before: Summon Monster has a 1 round casting level. It means you spend all the time between the start of your round and the beginning of yoru next round saying three words and throwing a ball.
Now, before you say anything, read through 1 round casting time. It's not the same as a full-round action.
Its says you need to continue to concentrate, nothing about repeating the components.

Also known as being the same spell. You're explanation says nothing.
My point is that they have the exact same mechanics, just different fluff, so they are the same spell, cast differently.

If you don't want pokemon, there's no need to refluff anything. Just take the Spell Thematics feat.
You don't need to mimic something completely, if the person wants to choose what his verbal, somatic, and material components thats fine to me as long as it still makes sense.

Spells are cast in the same way by everyone. That's why Spellcraft works. There is a feat for changing the appearance of a set of spells, with actual mechanical results.
Why are the refluffed character's spells easier to identify than someone who took the Spell Thematics feat?
It also talks about changing the apperance of spells on page 34 of DMG, I see no mention of requiring a feat to change the apperance of the spell. It does say that these rules can't be used to make a spell look more powerful than it is, but throwing an orb doesn't brake this rule.

Because that's how throwing stuff works in this system. You either change the mechanics or you end up with a fluff/crunch disconnect.
The Fireball spell launches a bead at a specific square, you don't need to roll to get the bead to hit that square.

Then why are you changing it? :smallconfused:
Cause obviously someone wanted to be able to do it, I don't see any problem as long as it doesn't damage the flavour fo the setting.

If you want to be somehow similar to a pokemon trainer, this is a bad example.
That doesn't mean that people can't ask to to it.

If you want your summons to come from balls or whatever, there is Spell Thematics.
Or the rules in the DMG.

Then it's not a dragon at all, is it?
Mechanically it isn't a dragon, but in the game world it is, except in regard to certain scholars who believe that the lack of elemental infusion makes it not count as a dragon thus explaining how it isn't affected by Knowledge in the same way as true dragons. The fact ix that in the campaign world, the horse is replaced with a type dragon which is an animal because of the species history.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-16, 07:52 PM

Firstly I changed mine to the magic language or whatever magic sounds like in your setting. But regardless, say "Petisse" is the verbal component for Fireball. Now it doesn't matter what languages you can speak to cast it, that is just the word used when casting the spell. Now it turns out that Petisse is the draconic word for kobold. This doesn't make it any harder to cast if you don't speak draconic as your saying a singular word regardless of language. I doesn't make it easier to for the Spellcraft check as thats how it is for a huge amount of Spells verbal components, it turns out to be a word or words in another language.
You're refluffing is going from 'I want to say this when I cast this spell' to 'look, this is how verbal components work in this game'. You can't really blame a DM for saying no to this.

This is just a way to give apperance to the spell reaching the target area, it doesn't even make contact with the square, orb is thrown towards the target area and the creature is summoned.
It hurts internal consistency. Many spells involve thrown objects - they use attack rolls.

Its says you need to continue to concentrate, nothing about repeating the components.
So you throw the ball, someone hits you and then it doesn't work. It's kinda weird. I never said it repated verbal components - it's just that casting the spell takes that long. All that time you're spending performing the somatic and verbal components.

My point is that they have the exact same mechanics, just different fluff, so they are the same spell, cast differently.
And my point is that this doesn't happen in the RAW. It breaks internal consistency, yet again.

You don't need to mimic something completely, if the person wants to choose what his verbal, somatic, and material components thats fine to me as long as it still makes sense.
My point is that it does not make sense. It breaks several rules unless you change (i.e., homebrew) then.

It also talks about changing the apperance of spells on page 34 of DMG, I see no mention of requiring a feat to change the apperance of the spell. It does say that these rules can't be used to make a spell look more powerful than it is, but throwing an orb doesn't brake this rule.
The appearance of a spell is not a verbal or material component.

The Fireball spell launches a bead at a specific square, you don't need to roll to get the bead to hit that square.
Fireball has specific rules such as bursting upon hitting barriers and you do need to roll if you want to throw it through a narrow passage.

Cause obviously someone wanted to be able to do it, I don't see any problem as long as it doesn't damage the flavour fo the setting.
Maybe if you don't care about the spell being inconsistent. Let's review?
1) You spend a whole round throwing a ball.
2) Spell component pouches everywhere now include a plastic ball.
3) You dictate how verbal components work, changing the current fluff.
4) Your thrown ball can somehow go through glass without breaking it.

That doesn't mean that people can't ask to to it.
It also means they can be told "this is a bad idea". Because it is.

Or the rules in the DMG.
No problem. But you don't get to change the components.

Mechanically it isn't a dragon, but in the game world it is, except in regard to certain scholars who believe that the lack of elemental infusion makes it not count as a dragon thus explaining how it isn't affected by Knowledge in the same way as true dragons. The fact ix that in the campaign world, the horse is replaced with a type dragon which is an animal because of the species history.
This is a fluff/crunch disconnect. If you want to create a new creature, than it's homebrewing, not refluffing.

Milo v3

2012-06-16, 08:24 PM

You're refluffing is going from 'I want to say this when I cast this spell' to 'look, this is how verbal components work in this game'. You can't really blame a DM for saying no to this.
I wasn't changing how verbal components work, merely trying to explain why verbal components can be words yet still verbal components which work under the rules.

The magic word might be "Spain" it means something to us, but regardless that might be the world for the spell, their is no rule stating that you must use a word or words which doesn't exist in language. You don't need to understand the language to identify the spell.

It hurts internal consistency. Many spells involve thrown objects - they use attack rolls.
Those are targeting things for effect though, this is deciding where the creature might appear. It doesn't need to even hit the target area as it doesn't need to hit. If it doesn't matter if it misses or hits then it doesn't require an attack roll.

So you throw the ball, someone hits you and then it doesn't work. It's kinda weird. I never said it repated verbal components - it's just that casting the spell takes that long. All that time you're spending performing the somatic and verbal components.
Perhaps you are concentrating the whole time to make sure you select the correct creature, then throw the orb.

And my point is that this doesn't happen in the RAW. It breaks internal consistency, yet again.
Its the same spell. It just looks different....
I really don't see why it brakes internal consistancy when a spell counterspells a spell which is the same spell....

It isn't a new seperate spell simply because your using different components.

My point is that it does not make sense. It breaks several rules unless you change (i.e., homebrew) then.
The only actual change is the material component which is fluff. The somatic and verbal components aren't specifically defined and could actually be "The name of the creature in magic language" and "Throwing the orb".

The appearance of a spell is not a verbal or material component.
No but the orb launching out of your hand and reaching the target area is.

Maybe if you don't care about the spell being inconsistent. Let's review?
When did I say I'm fine it being inconsistent? I simply don't see how it is inconsistent.

1) You spend a whole round throwing a ball.
That was never stated, throwing the ball could happen at the end of the cast time.

2) Spell component pouches everywhere now include a plastic ball.
I changed mine to a crystal orb, but I don't see the problem with having a plastic ball in Spell Component pouches. It has wool, and amber rods why not a ball.

3) You dictate how verbal components work, changing the current fluff.
Firstly, refluffing is about changing fluff... Thats kind of the point. And secondly I didn't change how they work, I said that several verbal components might mean words in other languages.

4) Your thrown ball can somehow go through glass without breaking it.
This is the first arguement I actually agree with.

This is a fluff/crunch disconnect. If you want to create a new creature, than it's homebrewing, not refluffing.
So you can't ever refluff anything as thats making something new and would count as homebrewing. So basically refluffing is homebrew to you.

Also its the same creature, just different fluff.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-16, 09:15 PM

I wasn't changing how verbal components work, merely trying to explain why verbal components can be words yet still verbal components which work under the rules.
Yes, and that changes the fluff of verbal components which is what I said.

Those are targeting things for effect though, this is deciding where the creature might appear. It doesn't need to even hit the target area as it doesn't need to hit. If it doesn't matter if it misses or hits then it doesn't require an attack roll.
See fireball.

Perhaps you are concentrating the whole time to make sure you select the correct creature, then throw the orb.
That makes a bit more sense but it also means the somatic component is not only throwing the orb.

Its the same spell. It just looks different....
I really don't see why it brakes internal consistancy when a spell counterspells a spell which is the same spell....
It's not the same spell if the components are different.

It isn't a new seperate spell simply because your using different components.
Yes, that makes it a different spell, Spellcraft checks depend on the components to identify a spell.

The only actual change is the material component which is fluff. The somatic and verbal components aren't specifically defined and could actually be "The name of the creature in magic language" and "Throwing the orb".
My point is that you're then changing the fluff of the spell for everyone, which is something any DM might shoot down. I don't want Khelben Blackstaff shouting "I choose you" and throwing plastic balls.

No but the orb launching out of your hand and reaching the target area is.
If it is not a material component, sure.

When did I say I'm fine it being inconsistent? I simply don't see how it is inconsistent.
I've pointed it out time and time again. :smallconfused:

That was never stated, throwing the ball could happen at the end of the cast time.
Then it's not a somatic component or at least not the only somatic component.

I changed mine to a crystal orb, but I don't see the problem with having a plastic ball in Spell Component pouches. It has wool, and amber rods why not a ball.
My problem is it affecting the whole world.

Firstly, refluffing is about changing fluff... Thats kind of the point. And secondly I didn't change how they work, I said that several verbal components might mean words in other languages.
Which is going from changing the fluff from the spell your character casts to changing the fluff on how everyone casts spells. That's kind of a big step.

This is the first arguement I actually agree with.
Finally.

So you can't ever refluff anything as thats making something new and would count as homebrewing. So basically refluffing is homebrew to you.
No, not really.
Barbarian -> Street brawler is a perfectly fine refluff. No mechanics are affected.
Power Attack being a martial arts kiai is a perfectly fine refluff. No mechanics are affected.
A spellbook being refluffed as a bonsai that needs to be taken care of using the same costs as a spellbook is a perfectly fine refluff.
Fireball exploding in a skull of fire is a perfectly fine refluff.
I could go on and on.

Also its the same creature, just different fluff.
If it does not have the dragon type or the dragonblood subtype, it's not a dragon. The character just calls it as such.
If you call it a dragon by fluff and actually consider it a dragon by fluff while it is not a dragon by crunch, that is the very definition of a fluff/crunch disconnect.

Milo v3

2012-06-16, 11:33 PM

Yes, and that changes the fluff of verbal components which is what I said.
No it doesn't.

A verbal component is a spoken incantation. To provide a verbal component, you must be able to speak in a strong voice. A silence spell or a gag spoils the incantation (and thus the spell). A spellcaster who has been deafened has a 20% chance to spoil any spell with a verbal component that he or she tries to cast.
Where does it say that it can't be word in a language. Also chances are that a verbal component is a word in some language or another simply accidently.

See fireball.
Okay how about this:
Once the ball leaves your hands the arcane energy is imbued into the crystal orb. This actually causes the ball to be turned into part of the spell. This causes it to be much more mobile and able to pass through certain objects, as long as it remains in sight. This magical energy also results in the orb returning to the caster upon the summoning occuring.

That makes a bit more sense but it also means the somatic component is not only throwing the orb.
Could you expand upon this please? The rules state that the concentration will have to go for one round and the start of the next one, but it doesn't say you have to be doing the somatic component for the duration of the casting time.

It's not the same spell if the components are different.
While the components have changed, mechanically even the components are the same. The exact material for the focus is the only difference, and most consider material components and focus's fluff.

Spellcraft checks depend on the components to identify a spell.
Yes and anyone who makes the Spellcraft DC can tell that the spell is a summon monster from the "Monster name in arcane tongue" and "Throws the orb".

My point is that you're then changing the fluff of the spell for everyone, which is something any DM might shoot down. I don't want Khelben Blackstaff shouting "I choose you" and throwing plastic balls.
This is why I changed it slightly so it doesn't damage the setting. Instead it would be Khelben Blackstaff saying "Crovus" and launching a Crystal Orb from his hand, summoning a Fiendish Raven.

I've pointed it out time and time again. :smallconfused:
Actually you've said what you thought were inconsistancies, and I've said a rebuttal.

Then it's not a somatic component or at least not the only somatic component.
A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. If you throw the orb the right way then it should function as the somatic component.

My problem is it affecting the whole world. Which is going from changing the fluff from the spell your character casts to changing the fluff on how everyone casts spells. That's kind of a big step.

That doesn't mean that it is a bad refluff. And do you think that none of the spell components ever mean anything in any language, even accidently. That is ridiculous.

A spellbook being refluffed as a bonsai that needs to be taken care of using the same costs as a spellbook is a perfectly fine refluff.
But this would require changes to the whole world. Which you are against. As you shouldn't be able to add spells from scrolls to the Bonsai which wizards can do.

If it does not have the dragon type or the dragonblood subtype, it's not a dragon. The character just calls it as such.
Its a dragon in-verse, it is covered in scales, it has wings, it has serpent eyes, it has a lizards tail. Its a large-sized dragon which has lost is magical power. It is a dragon, but its more animal than dragon thus having animal type.

If you call it a dragon by fluff and actually consider it a dragon by fluff while it is not a dragon by crunch, that is the very definition of a fluff/crunch disconnect.
It simply is more of an animal than a dragon in type. Also even if it doesn't have the Dragon Type, what is wrong with Fluffing it as a dragon I described. What makes that Too much of a refluff.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-17, 12:40 AM

No it doesn't.

Where does it say that it can't be word in a language. Also chances are that a verbal component is a word in some language or another simply accidently.
Where does it say it is? :smallconfused:
Since you can identify the spell with Spellcraft, it can't be language dependent. Since you can't identify a creature with Spellcraft, it can't be the name of a creature, even fi it was language dependant.
Since Spellcraft identifies all Summon Monster spells as Summon Monster spells, the components must be the same every time the spell is cast, as well.

Okay how about this:
Once the ball leaves your hands the arcane energy is imbued into the crystal orb. This actually causes the ball to be turned into part of the spell. This causes it to be much more mobile and able to pass through certain objects, as long as it remains in sight. This magical energy also results in the orb returning to the caster upon the summoning occuring.
Again... what is the point? You're engaging in pointless refluffing to defend a position you don't even care about. If someone actually wanted to do this, it could simply use the "monsters pops out of a ball" appearance, keep the components and keep the internal consistency.
At that point you're simply refluffing for no reason.

Could you expand upon this please? The rules state that the concentration will have to go for one round and the start of the next one, but it doesn't say you have to be doing the somatic component for the duration of the casting time.
The somatic component happens throughout the casting of the spell. By your reasoning, you would be able to start casting Summmon Monster while grappled, then slip free at the beginning of the second round and only then use the somatic component. This disagrees with the rules.

While the components have changed, mechanically even the components are the same. The exact material for the focus is the only difference, and most consider material components and focus's fluff.
"Most" meaning you. Focuses and components are a important part of the rules and are the way to keep many powerful spells in check.

Yes and anyone who makes the Spellcraft DC can tell that the spell is a summon monster from the "Monster name in arcane tongue" and "Throws the orb".
This creates even more questions, like I said beforehand. Spellcraft does not identify creatures and the verbal component would be changing depending on the casting, which is not in agreement with the rules.

This is why I changed it slightly so it doesn't damage the setting. Instead it would be Khelben Blackstaff saying "Crovus" and launching a Crystal Orb from his hand, summoning a Fiendish Raven.
And why does a player get to choose how everyone in the setting casts a spell?

Actually you've said what you thought were inconsistancies, and I've said a rebuttal.
No, you have just been changing your refluff each time an inconsistency arises or denying there is an inconsistency.

A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. If you throw the orb the right way then it should function as the somatic component.
Again, my point is that throwing a ball does not take that long. It can't be the only somatic component.

That doesn't mean that it is a bad refluff.
A bad refluff to me is one that creates situations that don't make sense. This one does.

And do you think that none of the spell components ever mean anything in any language, even accidently. That is ridiculous.
That is not what you were saying. You said it was the name of the creature. If the verbal component for Summon Monster was accidentaly the Dwarven word for 'banana', that would make no difference (verbal components are not a word long, except in the Power Word only, but let's not get into that). But since it is specifically the name of the creature you're summoning, it creates some problems that I've already mentioned twice in this very post.

But this would require changes to the whole world. Which you are against. As you shouldn't be able to add spells from scrolls to the Bonsai which wizards can do.
It wouldn't. It's just an alternate spellbook. This wizard learned from books like everyone else but then discovered a way to make a bonsai his spellbook.
There are plenty of other official aternate spellbooks, even.

Its a dragon in-verse, it is covered in scales, it has wings, it has serpent eyes, it has a lizards tail. Its a large-sized dragon which has lost is magical power. It is a dragon, but its more animal than dragon thus having animal type.
So it looks like a dragon, but it's not a dragon. If it's more animal than dragon, it's not a dragon. If it has a touch of dragon in it, it should have the dragonblooded subtype.
There is an official dragon-horse creature - the drakkensteed. If someone wanted to have a dragon-horse mount, I'd tell them to use that. You don't buy a dragon for 50 gp.

It simply is more of an animal than a dragon in type. Also even if it doesn't have the Dragon Type, what is wrong with Fluffing it as a dragon I described. What makes that Too much of a refluff.
If it looks just like a dragon, it could be mistaken for a dragon and the character would be a lot more impressive than if he was riding just a horse. Characters with favored enemy (dragon) would target the monster and get no bonus. Items and spells that work on dragons wouldn't work on something that is supposed to be a dragon. A merchant could want to buy it and pay dragon-price, not horse-price.
If you can tell just by looking it's not a dragon... then, well, it is not a dragon.

TuggyNE

2012-06-17, 01:54 AM

I'm not going to get into this much, but I did want to note something.

Your thrown ball can somehow go through glass without breaking it.

Surprisingly, summon spells cannot do this. They require line of effect to the spot the effect (summoned creature) appears in, which glass breaks. Therefore this is not an inconsistency that this particular refluffing creates.

Milo v3

2012-06-17, 03:16 AM

Where does it say it is? :smallconfused:
Since you can identify the spell with Spellcraft, it can't be language dependent. Since you can't identify a creature with Spellcraft, it can't be the name of a creature, even fi it was language dependant.
Since Spellcraft identifies all Summon Monster spells as Summon Monster spells, the components must be the same every time the spell is cast, as well.
It isn't language dependent, you don't need to know the language to understand the spell.

Again... what is the point? You're engaging in pointless refluffing to defend a position you don't even care about. At that point you're simply refluffing for no reason.
I guess your right. I wont continue this further because you don't seem to understand.

It wouldn't. It's just an alternate spellbook. This wizard learned from books like everyone else but then discovered a way to make a bonsai his spellbook.

One question, is it covered in runes or inscriptions. If not then its more powerful than a standard spellbook, as it would be immune to Read Magic.

If it looks just like a dragon, it could be mistaken for a dragon and the character would be a lot more impressive than if he was riding just a horse.
So.....

Characters with favored enemy (dragon) would target the monster and get no bonus.
Same thing happens with the Bone Golem.

Items and spells that work on dragons wouldn't work on something that is supposed to be a dragon.
Because it no longer has the elemental energy within it.

A merchant could want to buy it and pay dragon-price, not horse-price.
A merchant could want to buy a horse and pay dragon-price. Doesn't matter as it costs Horse-Price.

Hecuba

2012-06-17, 03:20 AM

I'm not the biggest fan of a lot of refluffing I encounter (I usually just consent to lie back and think of England), but I feel the need to play devil's advocate here.

"Most" meaning you. Focuses and components are a important part of the rules and are the way to keep many powerful spells in check.

In all the various "fluff"/"crunch" debates I've seen on this board, I think this is the first time, I've seen the specific implementation of a component without explicit cost considered "crunch" instead of "fluff." Heck, the spell component pouch essentially runs on handwavium.

Moreover, the specific item in question-- a spherical crystal-- is almost literally already present in your component pouch: one of the 2 material components of Resilient Sphere is a hemispherical crystal. Having some that haven't been cut in half yet doesn't seem like a far reach.

If it looks just like a dragon, it could be mistaken for a dragon and the character would be a lot more impressive than if he was riding just a horse. Characters with favored enemy (dragon) would target the monster and get no bonus. Items and spells that work on dragons wouldn't work on something that is supposed to be a dragon. A merchant could want to buy it and pay dragon-price, not horse-price.
If you can tell just by looking it's not a dragon... then, well, it is not a dragon.

Not that I particularly like that example of refluffing, but...

How is a dragon [description] that's not a dragon [rule] (which you specifically take issue with) different than a barbarian [rule] that is not a barbarian [description] (which you explicitly do not)?

HeadlessMermaid

2012-06-17, 03:57 AM

How is a dragon [rule] that's not a dragon [description] (which you specifically take issue with) different than a barbarian [rule] that is not a barbarian [description] (which you explicitly do not)?
I can't answer for ThiagoMartell, but here's how I see it.

A dragon is a dragon both in game terms, Out Of Character (because the players and the DM have read it in a rulebook), and within that fictional world, In Character (because all the PCs and NPCs recognize a dragon as such).

On the other hand, a Barbarian is a Player Class in game terms (so say the rulebooks), but IC, what is it exactly? As far as the characters are concerned, a barbarian tribe will consist of warriors and craftsmen and shamans and civilians - they have no concept of "class levels". The players may know that these people have indeed levels in Barbarian, or Warrior, or Expert, or Spirit Shaman, or Commoner or whatever, but their characters don't.

And now, suppose the PCs meet a bar brawler, a city kid with no "Conan" flavor whatsoever, who gets exceptionally angry at times and bursts with adrenaline and smacks people with chairs while frothing in the mouth and shouting incoherently. That's what the characters know and understand. But the players will know that it's a refluffed Barbarian.

Does that make sense?

Thiyr

2012-06-17, 03:58 AM

a few things I feel like commenting on.

Where does it say it is?
Since you can identify the spell with Spellcraft, it can't be language dependent. Since you can't identify a creature with Spellcraft, it can't be the name of a creature, even fi it was language dependant.
Since Spellcraft identifies all Summon Monster spells as Summon Monster spells, the components must be the same every time the spell is cast, as well.

This just seems...silly. Language dependency has nothing to do with spellcraft, as far as I can tell (Suggestion can still be spellcraft'd, far as I can tell), and someone understanding what you're saying is irrelevant to the mechanics of the spell on either side of the fluff. Identifying what is summoned is similarly irrelevant. It's just as relevant as saying "BLARGAGAGAGG" to summon a badger. or "Fiendish Centipide". or "Fuzzy Pickles". But by your logic saying "Celestial Badger" is right out, even if it's long dead, or even if that's the entire reason the creature is called a celestial badger? Spellcraft won't let you understand the word, just identify the spell cast, kinda like how when two guys I know at work are speaking in...i think it was Arabic, obviously I don't know, and I hear one (the other's son) call his father what sounded like "Abu", I can assume it's a term of endearment, likely meaning Dad. I'm not sure on the specifics, and everything contained therein, but upon hearing it, I could identify what the word being used was -for-, if not the precise meaning, in much the same way.

And if the components must always be the same, what about spells with variable components? and how would the decision be made as to what is summoned? Heck, even the material component for summon monster has room for variation built in. How small is a small candle? Does that mean a giant needs to find a candle sized for a halfling? And it says it can be lit or not, so it can work either way, presumably. As verbal components are rarely spelled out (I'd say never, but I'm sure there's somewhere that it's exact), it is likely that they work in similar ways, meaning there can be variation there as well. Perhaps the verbal component works like the material component for plane shift, wherein there is some variation based on the effect of the spell?

Spells are cast in the same way by everyone. That's why Spellcraft works.

Where does it say that spells are cast the same way by everyone? Heck, I thought the standard was that they -aren't- cast the same by everyone, which is why you can't just look at any ol' spellbook and cast a spell. They may have similar bits and bobs, but there is already some built-in variation. Spell thematics isn't something that disagrees with this, imo, so much as it's a feat which lets you get a benefit by disguising the important bits of casting a spell by tweaking them just so. It's no different from the "tranquil fury" version of rage still causing you to not be able to make certain skill checks even if you're not still frothing at the mouth (and still letting you qualify for things like, say, mad foam rager, even if you will neither foam nor be mad whilst doing it necessarily).

My problem is it affecting the whole world. Which is going from changing the fluff from the spell your character casts to changing the fluff on how everyone casts spells. That's kind of a big step.

similar to the above, why is it that this refluff has to affect everyone? I mean, in a sense any refluff is refluffing the whole world, as you are changing an aspect of the world and how people will relate to it (people will react differently to standard rage and tranquil fury, etc). Even outside of this technicality, though, spellcraft doesn't necessarily have to be "oh he's using guano and saying fuego, clearly he's casting fireball". Actually, it makes less sense for that, because you should realistically be capable of just knowing what the spell is by having your character read a book beforehand, even with no ranks in spellcraft.

Again... what is the point? You're engaging in pointless refluffing to defend a position you don't even care about. At that point you're simply refluffing for no reason.

or you're refluffing to explain holes that someone felt like poking into your otherwise functional refluff that made your character work the way you want your character to.

"Most" meaning you. Focuses and components are a important part of the rules and are the way to keep many powerful spells in check.

I disagree. Expensive foci and components do that, but that's the cost rather than the content of the foci themselves. But most people I know of don't bother with the tedium of such minute book keeping as the precise contents of their component pouches for all the non-expensive stuff. I mean, when was the last time you stopped and said "Oh, wait, I can't cast this second fireball, that last one used up the last few grams of guano I had"?

JellyPooga

2012-06-17, 04:12 AM

And why does a player get to choose how everyone in the setting casts a spell?

I just had to put my 2p in here. Different magi cast spells in different ways; that's why you have to use Spellcraft to identify a spell as it's being cast, even if you know the spell in question (e.g. a wizard that knows Magic Missile still has to roll Spellcraft to identify another mage casting a Magic Missile). Thus the current fluff even implies (if not outright stipulates), by this, that verbal and somatic components are different for different magi, so why not material components? The only crunch to material components is when it's costly, otherwise the 'TARDIS spell component pouch' wouldn't exist.

edit: swordsage'd in length!

Hecuba

2012-06-17, 04:57 AM

On the other hand, a Barbarian is a Player Class in game terms (so say the rulebooks), but IC, what is it exactly? If we go by the presented description, they are "brave, even reckless, warriors [. . .] from uncivilized lands or barbarian tribes on the outskirts of civilizations."

While the term "barbarian" may have a slightly wider connotation for the characters, there is still an specific idea that the characters could understand and identify (just as they can identify various creatures as draconic) .

And now, suppose the PCs meet a bar brawler, a city kid with no "Conan" flavor whatsoever, who gets exceptionally angry at times and bursts with adrenaline and smacks people with chairs while frothing in the mouth and shouting incoherently. That's what the characters know and understand. But the players will know that it's a refluffed Barbarian.

It makes perfect sense, but what's to prevent the players from knowing that something is a refluffed horse when the characters see a scale-covered, 4-legged mount that moves at ~5.7 miles per hour and has all the other qualities of a heavy horse?

Edit: To be clear, I'm still playing devil's advocate here. I don't particularly like the dragon-horse idea and would probably try to politely redirect it to another avenue, but ultimately it is based on the same goals and principles as the barbarian refluff.

The only difference (to my eye) is that the barbarian example has been in use long an widely enough that it is de facto accepted, where the dragon-horse is a less common request.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-17, 07:42 AM

If we go by the presented description, they are "brave, even reckless, warriors [. . .] from uncivilized lands or barbarian tribes on the outskirts of civilizations."

While the term "barbarian" may have a slightly wider connotation for the characters, there is still an specific idea that the characters could understand and identify (just as they can identify various creatures as draconic) .
No problem here and this is only changing fluff. There are no "barbarian specific" spells or items to be affected by this change. It's really just fluff. No problem changing it.

It makes perfect sense, but what's to prevent the players from knowing that something is a refluffed horse when the characters see a scale-covered, 4-legged mount that moves at ~5.7 miles per hour and has all the other qualities of a heavy horse?

Edit: To be clear, I'm still playing devil's advocate here. I don't particularly like the dragon-horse idea and would probably try to politely redirect it to another avenue, but ultimately it is based on the same goals and principles as the barbarian refluff.

The only difference (to my eye) is that the barbarian example has been in use long an widely enough that it is de facto accepted, where the dragon-horse is a less common request.
The difference is that a dragon-horse messes up the mechanics. Why isn't this "dragon" affected by a dragonbane weapon? Can it get dragon eggs? Why is this "dragon" affected by spells that only target animals?
There's also the issue of the fluff implications of having a dragon. A level 1 character with a Large dragon mount would face very few problems -all level-apropriate challenges would simply bolt at sight of a dragon. I specifically adressed this before.

I'm not the biggest fan of a lot of refluffing I encounter (I usually just consent to lie back and think of England), but I feel the need to play devil's advocate here.

In all the various "fluff"/"crunch" debates I've seen on this board, I think this is the first time, I've seen the specific implementation of a component without explicit cost considered "crunch" instead of "fluff." Heck, the spell component pouch essentially runs on handwavium.

Moreover, the specific item in question-- a spherical crystal-- is almost literally already present in your component pouch: one of the 2 material components of Resilient Sphere is a hemispherical crystal. Having some that haven't been cut in half yet doesn't seem like a far reach.
This specific component is fine. My point is that components in general include costly material components - and that is crunch.

Milo v3

2012-06-17, 07:56 AM

The difference is that a dragon-horse messes up the mechanics. Why isn't this "dragon" affected by a dragonbane weapon?
Cause it isn't infused with the elemental energy standard Dragon Type creatures are, and thus falls under the radar.

Can it get dragon eggs?
It can lay Forktongue eggs.

Why is this "dragon" affected by spells that only target animals?
Because of its simple animalistic mind for most spells (Awaken, Calm Animals, and such). For others your going to have to be more specific.

There's also the issue of the fluff implications of having a dragon. A level 1 character with a Large dragon mount would face very few problems -all level-apropriate challenges would simply bolt at sight of a dragon. I specifically adressed this before.
This is a species of creatures, known as Forktongues, not a unique creature. It would be treated as dangerous as horses are in standard D&D as people have noticed that how dangerous they are.

This specific component is fine.
That specific component (spherical crystal = Crystal Orb) was the component I wrote for the Pokemon thing, which you had a problem with...

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-17, 08:05 AM

Cause it isn't infused with the elemental energy standard Dragon Type creatures are, and thus falls under the radar.
Dude, seriously, read Races of the Dragon, Draconomicon and then we can argue about this. There is no such thing as this in D&D 3.5.

Because of its simple animalistic mind for most spells (Awaken, Calm Animals, and such). For others your going to have to be more specific.
It has nothing to do with minds, it deals with types. Animal spells don't work on magical beasts with Int 1.

This is a species of creatures, known as Forktongues, not a unique creature. It would be treated as dangerous as horses are in standard D&D as people have noticed that how dangerous they are.
Hello, homebrew.
Forktongue would have the dragonblood subtype.

That specific component (spherical crystal = Crystal Orb) was the component I wrote for the Pokemon thing, which you had a problem with...
No, I had a problem with your blanket statement that components are fluff.

Milo v3

2012-06-17, 08:16 AM

Dude, seriously, read Races of the Dragon, Draconomicon and then we can argue about this. There is no such thing as this in D&D 3.5.
That was my fluff explaination. I wasn't mentioning a rule. This is fluff, mechanics aren't part of it. And FYI I have Races of the Dragon and read it regularly.

It has nothing to do with minds, it deals with types. Animal spells don't work on magical beasts with Int 1.
Strangely Forktongues fit the animal type:

An animal is a living, nonhuman creature, usually a vertebrate with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture.
So I see no reason why it can't be counted as the type it mechanically is.

Hello, homebrew.
Forktongue would have the dragonblood subtype.
No it is refluffing it as a new creature. Giving it the Dragonblood Subtype would be homebrew. Also in Races of the Dragon it mentions somewhere that some dragon related creatures don't have the Dragonblood subtype.

No, I had a problem with your blanket statement that components are fluff.
Verbal components: No specific words = I could say basically whatever I want for the Verbal Components
Somatic Components: No specific gestures = I could make basically whatever gesture I want for the Somatic Component
Material Components: Complete fluff, unless their is a GP cost.

Hecuba

2012-06-17, 09:26 AM

No problem here and this is only changing fluff. There are no "barbarian specific" spells or items to be affected by this change. It's really just fluff. No problem changing it.

The difference is that a dragon-horse messes up the mechanics. Why isn't this "dragon" affected by a dragonbane weapon? Can it get dragon eggs? Why is this "dragon" affected by spells that only target animals?
There's also the issue of the fluff implications of having a dragon. A level 1 character with a Large dragon mount would face very few problems -all level-apropriate challenges would simply bolt at sight of a dragon. I specifically adressed this before.

There is at least one item that deals with rage (Prayer of Rage, IIRC). If you call rage something different for your refluffed barbarian, would they still benefit from the extra round if they still pick up one of these swords?

Likewise, there are fluff (and mechanical) implications of being a Barbarian. You are illiterate, uncivilized, threatening. If you change the character to be, say, a city slicker with extreme anger management issues, these do not necessarily logically hold.

That is not to say that they cannot be made to hold: for both the dragon-that-isn't-a-dragon and the barbarian-that-isn't-a-barbarian there are going to be logical inconsistencies that must either be worked around (either mechanically or by re-tailoring the fluff) or ignored.

Ultimately, these both involve working around an intentional fluff-crunch disconnect to allow a desired result.

What in particular makes you willing to work around it for the Barbarian (by making not-rage work as rage despite any inconsistencies, or by finding a way to explain his illiteracy despite coming from a generally literate society) but not for the Horse (by making it an animal with distant relation to dragons and/or making them common enough that people would recognize the dragon-horse for what it is and not react)?

This specific component is fine. My point is that components in general include costly material components - and that is crunch.

And you can maintain the cost while changing the component in question. The mechanical impact of 500gp worth of precious metal X and the mechanical effect of 500gp worth of rare incense Y is exactly the same-- 500gp.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-17, 10:16 AM

That was my fluff explaination. I wasn't mentioning a rule. This is fluff, mechanics aren't part of it. And FYI I have Races of the Dragon and read it regularly.
And when your refluff changes rules it is not refluffing anymore, it's homwbrewing.

No it is refluffing it as a new creature. Giving it the Dragonblood Subtype would be homebrew. Also in Races of the Dragon it mentions somewhere that some dragon related creatures don't have the Dragonblood subtype.
And if you don't give it the dragonblood subtype, it doesn't make sense.
Yes, there are some creatures related to dragons without the dragonblood subtype. They have the dragon type.
I just reread Races of the Dragon during the whole dragonwrought kobold debate and I couldn't remember anywhere anything similat to what you claim. But I didn't want to be unfair, so I just checked through the whole book once again. I couldn't find a mention anywhere of a dragon-related creature that does not have either the dragonblood subtype or the dragon type. If you could point out where it says that, maybe we could continue the discussion.

dextercorvia

2012-06-17, 10:38 AM

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-17, 10:44 AM

When a DM works with me like this, I really appreciate it. It also means I don't try as hard to break the system through optimization just to get the character concept that I want. I had an Oracle of Istus character whose magic was all fluffed as weaving/spinning whatever. She was from a low magic island, and her Rod of Extend Spell was one of the more powerful magic items, so she treated it as a (small a) artifact that she called the Distaff of Istus.

Furthermore the DM worked with me like Headless Mermaid -- She was a CloisteredCleric5/DivineOracle2/FatespinnerX (X because I forget what level this was exactly). Even though fatespinner normally requires arcane casting and gambling -- the cloistered cleric casting was just as good of a fit. And, while I took the ranks of profession gambler, rather than substituting for something else, in my head I rationalized it as her understanding how to cast lots and read tarot cards, along with an intuitive understanding of "chance".

It's good to see such good cooperation between players and DM. It must have been a pretty cool game.

Thiyr

2012-06-17, 04:21 PM

No problem here and this is only changing fluff. There are no "barbarian specific" spells or items to be affected by this change. It's really just fluff. No problem changing it.

the aforementioned item, the aforementioned feat, plenty of other feats, frenzied berserker.

The difference is that a dragon-horse messes up the mechanics. Why isn't this "dragon" affected by a dragonbane weapon? Can it get dragon eggs? Why is this "dragon" affected by spells that only target animals?
There's also the issue of the fluff implications of having a dragon. A level 1 character with a Large dragon mount would face very few problems -all level-apropriate challenges would simply bolt at sight of a dragon. I specifically adressed this before.

of course it can carry dragon "eggs". What can't? Dragons can breed with things that don't reproduce sexually! :smalltongue: everything else is addressed in the next point

And if you don't give it the dragonblood subtype, it doesn't make sense.
Yes, there are some creatures related to dragons without the dragonblood subtype. They have the dragon type.
I just reread Races of the Dragon during the whole dragonwrought kobold debate and I couldn't remember anywhere anything similat to what you claim. But I didn't want to be unfair, so I just checked through the whole book once again.

I find that it makes perfect sense. Strangely, I don't even need a rulebook to explain why. Just wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komodo_dragon). It's scaly, dragonlike, and people call it a dragon, but either way it wouldn't be affected by dragonbane.

and I'd like to point out that Milo is in no way changing rules. He isn't insisting on dragonblooded being added. He mentioned he'd probably require it, but added stipulations for what to do if he didn't. But let's pretend for a moment it was me arguing this Forktongue bit, just without ever myself mentioning the dragonblooded subtype. I am not trying to change mechanics. I am, in fact, trying quite hard NOT to do so. it is not so out there to have a quadrupedal pack animal decended from dragons (perhaps with horses) that is so diluted as to only visually resemble dragons somewhat. Outside of the very first (very vague) post, it doesn't seem to suggest that these look just like a normal dragon (vaguely), nor would I expect them to.

I couldn't find a mention anywhere of a dragon-related creature that does not have either the dragonblood subtype or the dragon type. If you could point out where it says that, maybe we could continue the discussion.

Default sorcerer fluff.

Wyntonian

2012-06-17, 04:57 PM

One thing that I've notice with refluffing, is that if it doesn't come up, it doesn't matter.

Remember that crystal shortsword? If I was a DM and I didn't plan to throw any rust monsters at the party, I'd say yeah, go for it. Why? The one big rub, the "What happens if suddenly rust monster", is utterly irrelevant for all purposes but counterarguments in internet debates. Likewise with weird interactions with heat metal and magnetism. If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter :smalltongue:.

In general, though, I think of it like a car. Refluffing would be changing the oil or the paint job. Put paint where paint goes, and the car looks prettier. Put oil where oil goes and it runs smoother. Put paint where windshield fluid goes and oil in the gas, and your car will break down. So, keep your refluffing in the fluff, and don't use "refluffing" as a power-grab, and you're golden.

Hell, I can't remember the last time I made a character where I didn't refluff something. There was a game where I got a free +1 LA, so I became catfolk for the stats. My character was a human, but had a +4 to dex and whatever. Refluffing didn't hurt anything.

My current binder//incarnumwarriorhomebrewthing binds nature spirits. They account for both Savnok's Armor and the Airstep Sandals. Neither Savnok nor the Sandals are derived from spirits of the storm, but it actually made my character a better fit for the setting, a more interesting and compelling character and more fun to do so.

Milo v3

2012-06-17, 07:05 PM

And when your refluff changes rules it is not refluffing anymore, it's homwbrewing.
I didn't change any mechanics... :smallannoyed:

And if you don't give it the dragonblood subtype, it doesn't make sense.
Yes, there are some creatures related to dragons without the dragonblood subtype. They have the dragon type.
I just reread Races of the Dragon during the whole dragonwrought kobold debate and I couldn't remember anywhere anything similat to what you claim. But I didn't want to be unfair, so I just checked through the whole book once again. I couldn't find a mention anywhere of a dragon-related creature that does not have either the dragonblood subtype or the dragon type. If you could point out where it says that, maybe we could continue the discussion.
I believe it in the sidebar which gives details on the Dragonblood Subtype. I'm currently at school so I don't have a copy with me.

HeadlessMermaid

2012-06-18, 08:11 AM

Fatebreaker

2012-06-18, 08:25 AM

Umm... I didn't understand the question. :smallredface: (Sorry, I didn't follow closely the horse/dragon example, so I'm not even sure how it's supposed to work - or not work, or what's the point of it.)

I believe the horse/dragon thing is supposed to represent a player who wants his character to ride a dragon-like beast, but for whatever reason, is unable to acquire one (perhaps they're all level 1?). So, you take horse stats, re-skin it to look like a dragon, and then write a fluffy background about some dragon-offshoot species which lost the elemental/magical powers which make dragons able to do things like breath fire (and other stuff), be super-intelligent, grow huge, etc. The creature is so removed from its original dragon ancestry that it no longer has the dragon or dragonblooded subtype, in the same vein as a sorcerer.

So you'd end up with something that looks like a small (well, horse-sized) dragon, the same abilities as a horse, and a backstory which means people will treat it roughly the same way we treat horses today. No mechanical changes, no increase or decrease in power, just a player who's happy because they get to visually portray their character as on a draconic mount.

*shrug* Honestly, I'm not sure what the problem is. Seems legit to me.

Hecuba

2012-06-18, 09:02 AM

I don't disagree. It's entirely possible to stick to the printed flavor for everything, and still have a great game! But sometimes the printed flavor doesn't cover your needs. This is most obvious in Classes, which supposedly codify an archetype. Maybe the players want to build a character whose flavor isn't truly compatible with any existing archetype. (Or the DM, since NPCs are characters, too.) In that case, they have exactly three options:

1) homebrew something from scratch
2) refluff and/or tweak something that exists already
3) compromise their concept and pick the closest match, while keeping fluff and crunch as written

I'm not disagreeing with that. My point is that the difference between re-fluffing that and re-fluffing the the mount under discussion is that the former happens to have been done more often. To my eye, the only other potential differences between the two examples is personal distaste for the dragon-horse.

Xiander

2012-06-18, 09:18 AM

I believe the horse/dragon thing is supposed to represent a player who wants his character to ride a dragon-like beast, but for whatever reason, is unable to acquire one (perhaps they're all level 1?). So, you take horse stats, re-skin it to look like a dragon, and then write a fluffy background about some dragon-offshoot species which lost the elemental/magical powers which make dragons able to do things like breath fire (and other stuff), be super-intelligent, grow huge, etc. The creature is so removed from its original dragon ancestry that it no longer has the dragon or dragonblooded subtype, in the same vein as a sorcerer.

So you'd end up with something that looks like a small (well, horse-sized) dragon, the same abilities as a horse, and a backstory which means people will treat it roughly the same way we treat horses today. No mechanical changes, no increase or decrease in power, just a player who's happy because they get to visually portray their character as on a draconic mount.

*shrug* Honestly, I'm not sure what the problem is. Seems legit to me.

In my book, the only reason to forbid a player from using this refluff is if the setting simply cannot contain such creatures.
Forexample, a setting with no dragons or dragonlike creatures, could not contain a creature descended from dragons.
In a setting that contains pretty much everything already, like forgotten realms, i wouldn't even blink, if the player had a believable story for how he got the beast.

About the whole poke-ball thing.

If a player wanted to play a character who grew up in a place with no bats, and thus learned to cast fireball using pidgeon droppings instead of the traditional guanno, I would have no problem with this.
This makes no mechanical difference as the game does not encourage players to spend gaming time procuring the droppings anyways.

How does this relate to the poke-ball example?
To me it's the same thing. As long as there is no real mechanical change it is a perfectly functional refluff.

That said I would probably disallow it in any seerious campaign, because it would be a massive moodbreaker to have the party druid flinging pokeballs everywhere.

HeadlessMermaid

2012-06-18, 09:34 AM

So you'd end up with something that looks like a small (well, horse-sized) dragon, the same abilities as a horse, and a backstory which means people will treat it roughly the same way we treat horses today. No mechanical changes, no increase or decrease in power, just a player who's happy because they get to visually portray their character as on a draconic mount.

*shrug* Honestly, I'm not sure what the problem is. Seems legit to me.
Oh, I see, thanks.
Yeah, I'd allow it too, and have loads of fun with NPC reactions. :)

I'm not disagreeing with that. My point is that the difference between re-fluffing that and re-fluffing the the mount under discussion is that the former happens to have been done more often. To my eye, the only other potential differences between the two examples is personal distaste for the dragon-horse.
I agree, and as I said, I'd have no problem with the dragon-horse either - unless it clashed with the flavor of the setting for some reason. For example, maybe the DM wants no dragon off-shoot species in the world whatsoever. Or maybe anything dragon-related is too revered/feared to be a mount. Or maybe the surrounding area is too mundane to include such a wondrous creature. Etc.

In short, I don't think it's unacceptable - as in "too much refluffing". But the player must pass it by the DM first, and the DM must judge if such a creature could plausibly exist, be found, be captured, and be trained as a mount. The "plausible" part is setting and story-dependent.

By the way, I'd have no problem with a DM who says "no" simply on grounds of distaste. Or says "it's not impossible, but it's SILLY and I'm not having it!" :smalltongue: Something distasteful can easily ruin everyone's fun even if it's mechanically sound. But taste is, of course, subjective. :)

Lord_Gareth

2012-06-18, 09:38 AM

Fatebreaker

2012-06-18, 12:27 PM

In my book, the only reason to forbid a player from using this refluff is if the setting simply cannot contain such creatures.
Forexample, a setting with no dragons or dragonlike creatures, could not contain a creature descended from dragons.
In a setting that contains pretty much everything already, like forgotten realms, i wouldn't even blink, if the player had a believable story for how he got the beast.

I agree, and as I said, I'd have no problem with the dragon-horse either - unless it clashed with the flavor of the setting for some reason. For example, maybe the DM wants no dragon off-shoot species in the world whatsoever. Or maybe anything dragon-related is too revered/feared to be a mount. Or maybe the surrounding area is too mundane to include such a wondrous creature. Etc.

Oh, totally. If the objection is based on fluff, then refluffing can easily run into problems. No dragons means no dragon-horses. Of course, if your player is SUPER EXCITED! about dragons, throwing a "no dragons" campaign at them probably warrants an entirely different and very necessary conversation.

Or, if dragons are the Evil Overlords of the realm, I doubt they'd appreciate anyone breeding, training, and using dragon-horses, since it really undermines the whole "dragons are better" vibe. If I wanted to use a dragon-horse, and my DM gave me that explanation, I'd probably be okay with it. Heck, it would make my character growth all the better when I finally broke and rode an actual dragon (or died trying).

If it doesn't hurt the campaign world, and it makes the player happy, I'm not sure how it's a bad thing. Let the player enjoy their game their way. But if you're discounting a refluff based on fluff, you might run into other problems, which segueways nicely into...

By the way, I'd have no problem with a DM who says "no" simply on grounds of distaste. Or says "it's not impossible, but it's SILLY and I'm not having it!" :smalltongue: Something distasteful can easily ruin everyone's fun even if it's mechanically sound. But taste is, of course, subjective. :)

I'm all in favor of DM's running a game which plays up certain themes and ideas. Heck, a major reason I have so many different games is that each one supports and encourages different styles of play, different worlds, and different emotions. Still, I like to keep track of how often DM's and players disagree on what kind of world they want to play in, and too much disagreement is usually a sign that somebody is not only on the wrong page, but in the wrong book entirely!

The point is that a DM's reaction to refluffing can be a good indicator of what direction your DM wants to take things, and if he objects to too much of your personal story, you're probably not going to enjoy his group story. And if you, as the DM, find yourself having to veto one player and their zany desires over and over, you might want to have a serious look at whether you've really been clear about the kind of game you're running.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-18, 01:48 PM

Do you see the quote link in my sig? It's to the original version of this thread. We already had this argument on this forum, and it ended in nothing but horror and pain. Please, stop asking this question. Neither side is ever going to convince the other and in the meantime the question only causes INCREDIBLE RAGE in both.

I don't see anyone raging here.

About the infamous dragon-horse, I wouldn't allow it. Id say "use a drakkensteed". The creature exists for this purpose. Instead of breaking all rules regarding dragon-descended creatures or creating nonsensical situations (such as road bandits charging a dragon) or giving unfair advantages (such as road bandits not charging a character because he is mounted on a refluffed horse), I'd just say "us the rules we have".
Unnecessary changes are unnecessary. :smalltongue:

GnomeGninjas

2012-06-18, 02:10 PM

I don't see anyone raging here.

About the infamous dragon-horse, I wouldn't allow it. Id say "use a drakkensteed". The creature exists for this purpose. Instead of breaking all rules regarding dragon-descended creatures or creating nonsensical situations (such as road bandits charging a dragon) or giving unfair advantages (such as road bandits not charging a character because he is mounted on a refluffed horse), I'd just say "us the rules we have".
Unnecessary changes are unnecessary. :smalltongue:

Its not breaking any rules, it just might break a few patterns in the rules, and it might require a few fluff changes but it doesn't change any mechanics. Some people (you) think that the fluff doesn't work and you can't change the existing fluff to make it work. Others (everyone else in the thread) think that it is cool to ride a dragon, it doesn't change much, and adding some extra detail to the setting is nice. You trying to make it seem like refluffing changes mechanics is pointless. You have your beliefs about how silly a refluff can be and that's fine. Other people have there own and that's also fine. You think changing some fluff and violating some patterns in mechanics with the changed fluff is bad. Other people believe it doesn't affect much and with some extra refluffage you can make it work (slightly changing what should count as dragon blood subtype or letting stuff like dragons losing the elemental energy stuff and regressing into dragon horses happen.)

Fatebreaker

2012-06-18, 02:41 PM

About the infamous dragon-horse, I wouldn't allow it. Id say "use a drakkensteed".

Heavy Warhorse vs. Drakkensteed, the Drakkensteed has...

...better AC.
...better attack.
...better damage.
...better ability scores.
...trample vs. no special attacks for the horse.
...oh, right, and it can fly.

For what it's worth, it's also a higher challenge rating, not that challenge rating is a reliable indicator of anything. The heavy warhorse does have scent (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#scent), so that's something. Oh, and why heavy warhorse? Because, aside from light horses being faster, they have the best stats and thus compare more favorably to the drakkensteed. But even they come up short, and the difference between them only grows as you go from heavy to light and war to not-war.

If the drakkensteed was an option, the character would likely take it, because it's a mechanically better option. The entire point of refluffing is that you want these mechanics, but with different flavor.

Unless you're saying you'd let a level one character take a drakkensteed. Y'know, 'cause a level one character can take a horse. And maybe the player likes the visual image of riding a draconic horse. 'cause it's cool.

Of course, now you've got the entirely new problem of how the cool mount overshadows other members of the party...

I mean, let's be honest. From our end, the stats assigned to any given chunk of fluff are fairly arbitrary. Some guy made them up, and most of them are for creatures or spells or things which we have no way to judge or test in our world. Saying, "Sorry, my hands are tied, these stats are for horses and nothing else, and no, we cannot pretend that your horse is a dragon-horse in our game of pretend..."

...well, that's just a pretty sad claim for a DM to make.

Instead of breaking all rules regarding dragon-descended creatures or creating nonsensical situations (such as road bandits charging a dragon) or giving unfair advantages (such as road bandits not charging a character because he is mounted on a refluffed horse), I'd just say "us the rules we have".

The funny thing is, I haven't seen anyone advocate for breaking rules.

Sorcerers are dragon descendents without the dragon-blooded or dragon subtype, which is a precedent for things which are dragon descendents without associated type-change. So that's not a concern.

The creature has identical stats to a horse, so that's not a concern.

The backstory of the Forktongue/dragon-horse makes it treated just like a horse, so bandits charging or not charging it is as believable or unbelievable as charging or not charging a horse. So that's not a concern.

Oddly enough, the only one looking for rules to break is you, and it seems like you're creating these non-problems just so you can object to the thing. If it's just a visual change, with a backstory which justifies how and why such a creature exists and is treated suspiciously similar to regular horses, well, I'm at a loss as to what mechanics are being violated if the mechanics remain unchanged.

Unnecessary changes restrictions are unnecessary. :smalltongue:

Fixed that for you.

---

Edit:

For anyone who enjoys good fantasy fiction, the Riftwar Saga and its spinoffs involve a culture known as the Tsurani, who have never seen horses, until they stumble through a portal to another world which looks suspiciously like ours. To them, horses are monsters, and cavalry are terrifying. Their superior infantry and numbers are held in check only by our badass knights.

Tsurani: "H0rsez iz teh h4x nerf plz lololrofl!"

Later on, at least one of the noble families of the Tsurani captures horses, and attempts to breed them and train up Tsurani cavalry of their own. Of course, the stats of horses never changed, and mechanically they remained the same, so... take from this what you will.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-18, 03:21 PM

Its not breaking any rules, it just might break a few patterns in the rules, and it might require a few fluff changes but it doesn't change any mechanics. Some people (you) think that the fluff doesn't work and you can't change the existing fluff to make it work. Others (everyone else in the thread) think that it is cool to ride a dragon, it doesn't change much, and adding some extra detail to the setting is nice. You trying to make it seem like refluffing changes mechanics is pointless. You have your beliefs about how silly a refluff can be and that's fine. Other people have there own and that's also fine. You think changing some fluff and violating some patterns in mechanics with the changed fluff is bad. Other people believe it doesn't affect much and with some extra refluffage you can make it work (slightly changing what should count as dragon blood subtype or letting stuff like dragons losing the elemental energy stuff and regressing into dragon horses happen.)
First of all, other people have already posted saying they would not allow the dragon-horse.
I've pointed out and time and time again everything in the draconic fluff that makes this not work. All I've gotten back is 'this is an exception', 'Sorcerers don't follow the fluff' (not all are dragonblooded, they don't have to follow that fluff), 'I don't care' and 'I think the book says otherwise' (I checked the whole book - it does not).
Of course some people are going to disagree. In my game, if a player wants to buy a dragon for 50 gp, I'm not going to allow it. If a level 1 no one wants to ride a dragon, I'm not going to allow it.
Can you please tell me why would goblins and bandits attack a Large dragon instead of running away?
The thing is not internally consistent. You want to ride a giant lizard creature? That's fine. There are plenty of them around. You want to ride a dragon? That's very specific. Why is the drakkensteed not an option, anyway? A drakkensteed is a horse with dragonblood. It gets scales, wings, the whole package. Why instead of using the tools the system gives you, you want to refluff and create potential problems? :smallconfused:

Anyway, this example has proved itself as not being a good point of 'too much refluff', obviously some people are going to allow this (I simply can't see why, but it's none of my business anyway).
Now, do you guys have actual examples of refluffs being actually used in a game (everything up to know was simply theoretical)?

These are the refluffs I remember from games I DMed:
- Mystic Ranger being refluffed as knights of the Order of the Shooting Star, servants of Celestrian
- a kobold that is actually a cursed red dragon
- Blade Dancer/Fighter/Swashbuckler refluffed as 'swordmaster' (that is, the player ignored class fluff)
- Otherwordly feat refluffed as being the result of being the son of an aasimar and a human (it's also not a regional feat, which is changing mechanics somewhat, but since it's not Faerun, it would need a change anyway)
- Refluffing a dorje of fusion as a Rider Belt and a wendigo blink dog as a zecter. Player was trying to emulate Kamen Rider Kabuto.
- Sun Blades actually looking like short swords while sheathed (player wanted an InuYasha feel to her character)
- Rage being refluffed as a battle trance

These are examples of refluff that actually became homebrew from games I DMed:
- Synthesist Summoner being refluffed as the Black Kamen Rider transformation. Changes included loss of the Summon Monster ability (traded away for the Monk's Unarmed Damage progression) and trading the Summoner spell list for the Magus spell list. All of the spells could only be cast in Rider form and included a Material Focus (the kingstone). Transformation was a move action. Shouting "Henshin!" was not necessary, but the player did that anyway. (Yeah, I have a player that really likes Kamen Rider)
- Exotic Weapon Proficiency (gnome quickrazor) being refluffed as quickly sheathing a sword. I eventually simply allowed the character to use actual katana stats, because the low base damage bothered me. We then renamed it to Notojutsu.
- Ki frenzy (Sohei) being refluffed as taking a special pill (character was an Artificer). It started as simply refluffing, then we noticed the problems behind it (he could do it even if he was naked, he spent zero time making the pills, that kind of stuff). We eventually came up with 15 minutes prep time for a single pill - to balance it out, he got an extra round in the pill's duration. The character had Quick Draw, so getting the pill quickly was never an issue.
- Crescent Knife being refluffed as the Grieve Edge from Soul Calibur. After the first session, all the problems became apparent. Initially we had refluffed the hands being free when one of them should not as a battle stance thing, but it become increasingly sillier (so you're able to keep your battle stance grappled? :smallconfused:). We eventually decided we'd need two feats for the thing to work correctly (Crescent Knife is very powerful by itself, add free hands to it...)

That's all I can remember for now.

GnomeGninjas

2012-06-18, 04:01 PM

First of all, other people have already posted saying they would not allow the dragon-horse.
I've pointed out and time and time again everything in the draconic fluff that makes this not work. All I've gotten back is 'this is an exception', 'Sorcerers don't follow the fluff' (not all are dragonblooded, they don't have to follow that fluff), 'I don't care' and 'I think the book says otherwise' (I checked the whole book - it does not).
Then change the fluff.
Of course some people are going to disagree. In my game, if a player wants to buy a dragon for 50 gp, I'm not going to allow it. If a level 1 no one wants to ride a dragon, I'm not going to allow it.
Can you please tell me why would goblins and bandits attack a Large dragon instead of running away?
Because they know it is just the dragon horse thing that was added to the setting or because I doesn't look to tough and dragon skin is valueble.
The thing is not internally consistent. You want to ride a giant lizard creature? That's fine. There are plenty of them around. You want to ride a dragon? That's very specific. Why is the drakkensteed not an option, anyway? A drakkensteed is a horse with dragonblood. It gets scales, wings, the whole package. Why instead of using the tools the system gives you, you want to refluff and create potential problems? :smallconfused:

Anyway, this example has proved itself as not being a good point of 'too much refluff', obviously some people are going to allow this (I simply can't see why, but it's none of my business anyway).
Now, do you guys have actual examples of refluffs being actually used in a game (everything up to know was simply theoretical)?
I don't.

What I'm getting from you is that you think a refluff is to much when you believe it would have to come with a rule change, yes? Probably many people agree with you though they are arguing with you because they disagree on what demands a rule change.

BRC

2012-06-18, 04:18 PM

I am very generous with my Refluffing. Personally, I draw the line at one of two places.

1: The Refluff would require a significant alteration to the rules.
2: The Refluff does not fit the feel of the setting.

The first rule. I like to think of myself as a Cinematic DM, frequently I'll get an image in my head. If my PC's don't usually use Disarms or sunders, I have no qualms about refluffing a big monster with a sword into "A big guy who punches really well". It means changing the rules (He now deals bludgeoning instead of slashing damage, and he's now immune to disarms and sunders), but because those changes are unlikely to ever come up, it rarely happens. DnD is not a house of cards, changing a monster's stats to fit the encounter you want to build rarely leads to massive balance issues.

The "My Horse is a Dragon" thing I would personally veto, simply because "Dragon" has so much baggage attached to it. A dragon is intelligent, a Dragon can fly, a Dragon has a breath weapon, ect. Also, Dragons are rare, dragons willing to serve as a steed even rarer. If you want to ride your dragonhorse, you better have a very good explanation for it.

The second rule is more important. Refluffing is a tool to help create a certain feel. If that means turning a giant that can throw exploding spikes into a huge robot that fires grenades, then that's what it means. However, if something is refluffed.
Lets go back to the Dragonhorse. If, in my setting, Dragons serve as the rulers of nations, then having some low-level adventurer ride around on one dosn't work.

HeadlessMermaid

2012-06-18, 05:47 PM

A final note about the dragon-horse.

In my game, if a player wants to buy a dragon for 50 gp, I'm not going to allow it. If a level 1 no one wants to ride a dragon, I'm not going to allow it.
I understand that. If I felt that way (which, depending on the setting, I might), I'd make it a quest for the party. So you've heard about the fabled dragon-horse and the hero destined to ride it? Find the creature, capture it and train it! It'd actually make a nice introductory adventure, the player would feel rewarded, and hey, he would have earned it. :)

Now, do you guys have actual examples of refluffs being actually used in a game?
Almost all my examples include some tweaking apart from refluffing, but here goes.

A small race PC (halfling, I think) refluffed as an adult human who was cursed to "never grow up" when he was a child. Some amazing RPing ensued.
A Chaos Monk (Dragon Magazine variant, chaotic alignment, and the number of attacks during flurry is random, 1d4+X) refluffed as a hysterical Mom who got into adventuring to rescue her kids, and did unarmed combat by flailing wildly and randomly smacking people ("BAD zombies! Shoo!") It was hilarious.
An Eternal Blade's Blade Guide refluffed as the ghost of the demented great-great-grandfather of the player ("you are a disgrace to the family name!"). This idea needed some fine tuning to keep it from becoming annoying, but it was fun in the end.
NPCs in a Celtic setting: bards refluffed as Bards (providing entertainment AND education for the masses, battling Clerics for spiritual superiority, not necessarily chaotic), and druids refluffed as Druids (sages protecting their area and their community, but not that concerned about nature in general, and not necessarily neutral).
A Swordsage archer (with a homebrew discipline for bows) refluffed as a barbarian who talks to the spirits, which in turn make her arrows spit fire and thunderbolts and stuff.
I wasn't present, but I've heard about this one: the DM describes a monster that sounds very much like a beholder. No one rolls a Knowledge check. The first PC charges it, thinking it's a beholder. It turns out it's a refluffed hydra. Nine AoOs later, PC down. :smalltongue:

Milo v3

2012-06-18, 06:53 PM

?
What fluff does it go against? You say that it should have Dragonblooded Subtype, where does it say every single creature who has dragon blood must have the subtype in fluff or mechanic. Also you can't discount sorcerer's being a exception as a pointless arguement for no reason, what makes the sorcerer's fluff lack importance.

Can you please tell me why would goblins and bandits attack a Large dragon instead of running away?
Because everyone knows Forktongues aren't dangerous. Do humans think horses are dangerous...

The thing is not internally consistent. You want to ride a giant lizard creature? That's fine. There are plenty of them around. You want to ride a dragon? That's very specific. Why is the drakkensteed not an option, anyway? A drakkensteed is a horse with dragonblood. It gets scales, wings, the whole package. Why instead of using the tools the system gives you, you want to refluff and create potential problems? :smallconfused:
Well firstly, I don't have stats for Drakkensteed. I'm pretty sure not every person who wants to ride a dragon will have whatever book has its stats.
Secondly, it doesn't create problems. You're making problems which don't exist. Thirdly, Drakkensteed wouldn't be able to be bought by a first level character. Fourthly, Drakkensteed's mechanic's might not fit the fluff I want.

Anyway, this example has proved itself as not being a good point of 'too much refluff',
And we disagree that it is 'too much refluff'.

Now, do you guys have actual examples of refluffs being actually used in a game (everything up to know was simply theoretical)?

Those were some in my last game session.

Horses as Dunelizards
Studded Leather reflavoured as thick desert robes.
Demons being ancient elven souls who were heretics
Night being caused by a god enveloping the world
A druid having to make a pack with an elemental spirit.
The druids animal companion being an elemental sealed in the flesh of an eagle.
The spells someone was casting was flavoured as being Badass Normal, who defies physics through pure force of will. Dispel Magic returns physics to the target, disrupting his magic.
Fire elementals's looking like fires in animal form (Birds and Serpents appeared in the adventure).

erikun

2012-06-18, 07:19 PM

There are two big problems for me in refluffing. The first is mechanical inconsistency - as others have mentioned throughout the thread, when the implied fluff doesn't match the implied mechanics, it becomes inconsistent. The other big problem is if people forget what mechanics are involved. If your Wizard player forgot if "Rary's Rampaging Goblin Horde" is supposed to be Fireball or Black Tentacles, then it causes problems in the game when they try to use it.

To use the pokeball example from earlier, it would be fine for the spellcaster to be shouting "I choose you!" and throwing a magic-ball to summon a creature. It causes problems when they say they're throwing actual physical balls to do so, though - questions like "where did my pokeball go when the summon was counterspelled" start causing problems, not to mention what happens if someone attempts to steal the 'pokeballs' or take control of the 'pokemon'.

Jarian

2012-06-18, 07:25 PM

It causes problems when they say they're throwing actual physical balls to do so, though - questions like "where did my pokeball go when the summon was counterspelled"

Material components are consumed in the casting of a spell, no? Problem solved. Flash of light, crystal ball goes poof, everyone's happy.

not to mention what happens if someone attempts to steal the 'pokeballs' or take control of the 'pokemon'.

Re: "pokemon": I don't think anyone is actually suggesting using pokemon, but rather the general concept behind summoning them. If someone dominates one of your summons without the whole pokemon angle, does that make the spell somehow inconsistent?

erikun

2012-06-18, 07:57 PM

Re: "pokemon": I don't think anyone is actually suggesting using pokemon, but rather the general concept behind summoning them. If someone dominates one of your summons without the whole pokemon angle, does that make the spell somehow inconsistent?
True, but this is assuming you are just substituting unspecific spell elements for more specific spell elements. Heck, I'm even fine with throwing a pokesummonball 100 feet even if the character couldn't throw a rock that far. If you want to name your summoned monsters and shout special phrases in doing so, there's no problem in that. (One of my current players always summons three fire elementals, calling them Spitfire, Hotshot, and Sparky. I'm fine with just saying they're the same three elementals each time.)

I'd consider the refluffing too much if the people at the table start attaching too much to the example, though - if the character is actually supposed to be Ash Ketchup and he is actually supposed to be throwing pokeballs, then we run into a few mechanical problems and questions that occasionally need to be cleared up.

Jarian

2012-06-18, 08:12 PM

I'd consider the refluffing too much if the people at the table start attaching too much to the example, though - if the character is actually supposed to be Ash Ketchup and he is actually supposed to be throwing pokeballs, then we run into a few mechanical problems and questions that occasionally need to be cleared up.

Well, I agree (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13401657&postcount=21) with you on that point. That just doesn't seem to be what your previous post was saying - though I've been accused of misunderstanding intent on more than one occasion.

Milo v3

2012-06-18, 08:13 PM

Material components are consumed in the casting of a spell, no? Problem solved. Flash of light, crystal ball goes poof, everyone's happy.

Actually its a material focus. So the crystal orb returns to your hand.

Jarian

2012-06-18, 08:15 PM

Actually its a material focus. So the crystal orb returns to your hand.

Right you are. Even better then.

dspeyer

2012-06-18, 09:42 PM

I was going to stay out of this, but the whole somatic component thing reminded me of an awesome scene from The Dresden Files:

She started quoting poetry to me, and I started writing it down. It wasn't in the first poem or the second, but in the third one I recognized the rhythms and patterns of a phrase of summoning, each line innocent on its own, but each building on the ones preceding it. With the proper focus, intent, and strength of will, the simple poem could reach out beyond the borders of the mortal world and draw the notice of the deadly faerie hunter known as the ErIking, the lord of goblins.

...

I stared at the notepad for a moment, trying to absorb the summoning, to remember its rhythm, the rolling sound of consonant and verb that were only incidentally related to language. This wasn't a poem-it was simply a frequency, a signal of sound and timing, and I committed it with methodical precision to memory, the same way I stored the precise inflections required to call upon a spirit being using its true name. In a sense, the poem was a name for the Erlking. He would respond to it in the same way.

And I believe the poem is in German, a language Harry doesn't speak.

As long as I'm sticking my nose in, I'll point out that any NPC who has ever worked in the military or a stable should recognize that the forktongue isn't really a dragon. We're pretty much into "call my horse a dragon and be mocked by commoners" territory here.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-19, 05:14 AM

What fluff does it go against? You say that it should have Dragonblooded Subtype, where does it say every single creature who has dragon blood must have the subtype in fluff or mechanic. Also you can't discount sorcerer's being a exception as a pointless arguement for no reason, what makes the sorcerer's fluff lack importance.
It says so in the dragonblood subtype description.

Because everyone knows Forktongues aren't dangerous. Do humans think horses are dangerous...
Oh, so they are as common as horses now? :smallconfused: They don't require Knowledge checks to identify now?

Well firstly, I don't have stats for Drakkensteed. I'm pretty sure not every person who wants to ride a dragon will have whatever book has its stats.
Secondly, it doesn't create problems. You're making problems which don't exist. Thirdly, Drakkensteed wouldn't be able to be bought by a first level character. Fourthly, Drakkensteed's mechanic's might not fit the fluff I want.
Dude, you just claimed you read Draconomicon and Races of the Dragon a thousand times. How the hell don't you have the stats for Drakkensteed? Did you rip those pages out of your book?

The spells someone was casting was flavoured as being Badass Normal, who defies physics through pure force of will. Dispel Magic returns physics to the target, disrupting his magic.

Well, that needs a lot of tweaks to work, doesn't it. Attacks of opportunity, Concentration, anti-magic fields, none of this should affect a badass normal dude.

Well, I agree (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13401657&postcount=21) with you on that point. That just doesn't seem to be what your previous post was saying - though I've been accused of misunderstanding intent on more than one occasion.
Well, the poster who mentioned this first specifically said it was supposed to be a pokemon trainer and specifically used it as an example of refluff going too far.
People trying to make it seem acceptable have been toning it down with every post after that, basically proving the dude's point.

I was going to stay out of this, but the whole somatic component thing reminded me of an awesome scene from The Dresden Files:

And I believe the poem is in German, a language Harry doesn't speak.

As long as I'm sticking my nose in, I'll point out that any NPC who has ever worked in the military or a stable should recognize that the forktongue isn't really a dragon. We're pretty much into "call my horse a dragon and be mocked by commoners" territory here.

Again, forktongue or whatever was something someone came up with. It was not my original example. My original example was refluffing a horse as a dragon. It was supposed to look like a Large dragon. That is too much for plenty of reasons. Then Milo took offense for some reason and toned it down so much it simply wasn't my example anymore - to a point where you should simply be using the drakkensteed instead. If your level one player simply can'd handle not having a horse mount yet, give him a young drakkensteed. Remove a few hit dice, say he's too scares to fly, something like that. That's what I'd do.

sonofzeal

2012-06-19, 05:38 AM

It says so in the dragonblood subtype description.
I don't see any notes about gaining the dragonblood subtype here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/bloodlines.htm#dragonBlack)....

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-19, 06:07 AM

I don't see any notes about gaining the dragonblood subtype here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/races/bloodlines.htm#dragonBlack)....

Unearthed Arcana predates the dragonblood subtype and it's not referenced in other books.

Milo v3

2012-06-19, 06:16 AM

It says so in the dragonblood subtype description.
No it doesn't I'm looking at it now. It says:

If a race posses the dragonblood subtype, it has a strong affinity to dragons.
This is an explaination for why a creature which has this subtype has the subtype. It doesn't say every creature with an affinity to dragons must have this subtype.

Oh, so they are as common as horses now? :smallconfused: They don't require Knowledge checks to identify now?
They are horses. Just given different fluff.

Dude, you just claimed you read Draconomicon and Races of the Dragon a thousand times. How the hell don't you have the stats for Drakkensteed? Did you rip those pages out of your book?
I said I read and have Races of the Dragon. I never gave any indication I have Draconomicon.

Well, that needs a lot of tweaks to work, doesn't it.
Let see.
Attacks of opportunity: You can attack people while they are getting ready for a strike, especially if they aren't moving.
Concentration: He does it through force of will, he needs to concentrate to do it.
anti-magic fields: As Dispel Magic.

Well, the poster who mentioned this first specifically said it was supposed to be a pokemon trainer and specifically used it as an example of refluff going too far.

People trying to make it seem acceptable have been toning it down with every post after that, basically proving the dude's point.

No. He doesn't say anything about being a pokemon trainer, doesn't even mention the word pokemon. This is the post:

Material Focus (Changed to "Plastic ball")
Verbal Component (Changed to "I choose you, [monster name]!")
Somatic Component (Changed to "Throw the ball to where the monster will appear")

Again, forktongue or whatever was something someone came up with. It was not my original example. My original example was refluffing a horse as a dragon. It was supposed to look like a Large dragon. That is too much for plenty of reasons. Then Milo took offense for some reason and toned it down so much it simply wasn't my example anymore.
Actually I simply gave fluff to it so it explains the mechanics.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-19, 06:29 AM

No it doesn't I'm looking at it now. It says:

This is an explaination for why a creature which has this subtype has the subtype. It doesn't say every creature with an affinity to dragons must have this subtype.
Show me one creature that has a strong affinity to dragons that does not have this subtype or the dragon subtype, please.

They are horses. Just given different fluff.
This is ridiculous. So people look at the dragon and say "oh, it's just a refluffed horse". Everyone simply knows this? Sincerely, this makes no sense. You even gave these things a name a few posts ago, now everyone looks at them, sees they looks like dragons but they also have a supernatural sense that "oh, no, they are not dangerous, they are refluffed horses". :smallconfused:

I said I read and have Races of the Dragon. I never gave any indication I have Draconomicon.
Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe if you don't have any books then refluffing stuff looks more reasonable.

Let see.
Attacks of opportunity: You can attack people while they are getting ready for a strike, especially if they aren't moving.
Except this only happens with this guy. I mean, not even ToB strikes suffer from this.

Concentration: He does it through force of will, he needs to concentrate to do it.
A weak explanation if I ever saw one, but whatever. Your game.

anti-magic fields: As Dispel Magic.
Then he is not a badass normal. At best he is a badass supernatural.

No. He doesn't say anything about being a pokemon trainer, doesn't even mention the word pokemon.
Yeah, sure. Like the posts after that don't create a clear context. I'm done discussing this with you. Thanks for proving my point.

Actually I simply gave fluff to it so it explains the mechanics.
Yeah, by toning it down. Which is exactly what I said.

Milo v3

2012-06-19, 06:46 AM

Show me one creature that has a strong affinity to dragons that does not have this subtype or the dragon subtype, please.
A Human Sorcerer is one, but as you don't count that for an unknown reason: Ravid. Its a form of dragonkind, buts it lacks the Dragon type and the Dragonblooded Subtype.

This is ridiculous. So people look at the dragon and say "oh, it's just a refluffed horse". Everyone simply knows this? Sincerely, this makes no sense. You even gave these things a name a few posts ago, now everyone looks at them, sees they looks like dragons but they also have a supernatural sense that "oh, no, they are not dangerous, they are refluffed horses". :smallconfused:
No I'm saying they are treated as horses are in Real Life.

Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe if you don't have any books then refluffing stuff looks more reasonable.
I have 35, counting 3.0 edition books. Don't patronise me. :smallmad:

Except this only happens with this guy. I mean, not even ToB strikes suffer from this.
Another book I lack. Also not every combatant in the world functions the same way as Warblades.

A weak explanation if I ever saw one, but whatever. Your game.
So concentration being required when focusing your mind into a perfect strike doesn't make sense to you?

Then he is not a badass normal. At best he is a badass supernatural.
I guess that's true.

Thanks for proving my point.
:smallconfused: What? You were completing wrong in saying "the poster who mentioned this first specifically said it was supposed to be a pokemon trainer".
I was pointing out that you were mistaken.

Yeah, by toning it down. Which is exactly what I said.
You didn't put in any context. Your refluff lacked any context at all, I added in information which caused it to make sense. I didn't tone it down. I gave a logical explaination to explain the mechanics.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-19, 07:10 AM

A Human Sorcerer is one, but as you don't count that for an unknown reason: Ravid. Its a form of dragonkind, buts it lacks the Dragon type and the Dragonblooded Subtype.
Is it? I don't remember it being in the dragonkind list in Races of the Dragon.

No I'm saying they are treated as horses are in Real Life.
And what I'm asking is how this happens. How do people look at this animal and simply know such?

Another book I lack. Also not every combatant in the world functions the same way as Warblades.
Of course not. My point is that it's not supernatural.

So concentration being required when focusing your mind into a perfect strike doesn't make sense to you?
It makes perfect sense. Then again, there are plenty of other mechanics around for this. You're explanation is just pretty shallow, that's what I meant.

I guess that's true.
Finally.

:smallconfused: What? You were completing wrong in saying "the poster who mentioned this first specifically said it was supposed to be a pokemon trainer".
I was pointing out that you were mistaken.
Please, reread the first few posts.

You didn't put in any context. Your refluff lacked any context at all, I added in information which caused it to make sense. I didn't tone it down. I gave a logical explaination to explain the mechanics.
it had all the conext it needed: horse refluffed as a dragon. All the time, you kept saying stuff and I kept saying "then it's not a dragon" and you kept ignoring it. How could you not understand such a simple context? :smallconfused: By toning down so that it's not a dragon, you proved my point yet again.

sonofzeal

2012-06-19, 07:11 AM

Unearthed Arcana predates the dragonblood subtype and it's not referenced in other books.
...................so? Alright, fine: the PHB suggests Sorcerers might have Draconic ancestry, and MM1 suggests that Kobolds do have draconic ancestry, but neither has the subtype.

DM #311 has the "Draconic Bloodline" feat which neither gives nor requires type or subtype.

Dragonblooded requires draconic ancestry. The reverse, however, is not always true.

Milo v3

2012-06-19, 07:13 AM

MM1 suggests that Kobolds do have draconic ancestry, but neither has the subtype.

Kobolds do have it, pg. 39 of Races of the Dragon. They restated kobolds when they made the Subtype.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-19, 07:16 AM

...................so? Alright, fine: the PHB suggests Sorcerers might have Draconic ancestry, and MM1 suggests that Kobolds do have draconic ancestry, but neither has the subtype.
Races of the Dragon gives kobolds the dragonblood subtype. It also says not all sorcerers are dragon-related and gives you an option to get the dragonblooded subtype on all dragons.

DM #311 has the "Draconic Bloodline" feat which neither gives nor requires type or subtype.
311 was published before Races of the Dragon. I don't think Races of the Dragon counts Dragon Magazines as well.
Kinda weird, actually, since Draconomicon does count them.

Dragonblooded requires draconic ancestry. The reverse, however, is not always true.
I don't believe so, but I don't want to argue. It's not the example anyway - a horse that looks like a dragon.

Actually its a material focus. So the crystal orb returns to your hand.
That's not how material focuses work. If you throw something, you would have to walk up to it and pick it up. Nothing in the rules suggest it comes back to your hand.
Of course, material focuses are not usually thrown by RAW.

sonofzeal

2012-06-19, 07:18 AM

Kobolds do have it, pg. 39 of Races of the Dragon. They restated kobolds when they made the Subtype.
My mistake. Still, unless you're going to houserule that subtype on to every feat or race or variant whose listed fluff is draconic, then it's not going to be categorical. And if you are going to slap the subtype around freely like that, just slap it on the Forktongue and be done with it!

Either way, I don't see a problem. It's only if you decide that everything draconic must have the subtype, but then refuse to add it if it's not RAW, that you get any problems. But then you're either being inconsistent or hypocritical or both........ :smallconfused:

Milo v3

2012-06-19, 07:20 AM

Is it? I don't remember it being in the dragonkind list in Races of the Dragon.
Its between Psuedodragons and Wyvern.

And what I'm asking is how this happens. How do people look at this animal and simply know such?
As I stated before, this isn't a singular individual it is a species one implied by fluff to have existed for a while among humanoids.

Please, reread the first few posts.
You specifically where talking about Acanous though, the first post even mentioning the word pokemon is Sonofzeal's.

it had all the conext it needed: horse refluffed as a dragon. All the time, you kept saying stuff and I kept saying "then it's not a dragon" and you kept ignoring it. How could you not understand such a simple context? :smallconfused: By toning down so that it's not a dragon, you proved my point yet again.
Mechanically it isn't. Fluff wise it is.

EDIT:

That's not how material focuses work. If you throw something, you would have to walk up to it and pick it up. Nothing in the rules suggest it comes back to your hand.
Of course, material focuses are not usually thrown by RAW.

Material Focuses aren't used up in the spel, thus you keep it in your possession mechanically. So fluffwise I think of the crystal orb returning to your hand.

SiuiS

2012-06-19, 07:29 AM

While I do recall something like that, the fact is that they're different monsters.

And then you open another can of worms regarding spells like Heat Metal or Ironguard, druid vows etc. It's too big.

This one here caught my eye.

There already exists crystal as a weapon material which is considered metal (and this while workable like metal, cannot be worn by Druids). Saying 'my longsword is crystal' doesn't really change anything all that much. It's accounted for. Check the XPH and see if crystal can be 'rusted'. If not, it's not exactly a refluff, so much as they got a different, equally available material for their equipment.

Unless it costs more. Arguing is easier when I have my books XD

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-19, 07:30 AM

My mistake. Still, unless you're going to houserule that subtype on to every feat or race or variant whose listed fluff is draconic, then it's not going to be categorical. And if you are going to slap the subtype around freely like that, just slap it on the Forktongue and be done with it!

Either way, I don't see a problem. It's only if you decide that everything draconic must have the subtype, but then refuse to add it if it's not RAW, that you get any problems. But then you're either being inconsistent or hypocritical or both........ :smallconfused:

But that's what I've been saying, just give the damn Forktongue the goddamned dragonblooded subtype and be done with it! Milo objects for some reason.

Unless it costs more. Arguing is easier when I have my books XD

It costs more.

sonofzeal

2012-06-19, 07:35 AM

But that's what I've been saying, just give the damn Forktongue the goddamned dragonblooded subtype and be done with it! Milo objects for some reason.
Eh, I think either way is fine as long as you accept it. I can understand why some groups would toss it around wherever appropriate, and I can understand why other groups might not. My group wouldn't; we rarely use Dragon Magic and the subtype rules aren't really relevant to us as a result. For us, it would be perfectly fine to have the Forktongue sans subtype. For you, if Dragon Magic has been more fully incorporated into your game, hey use it. But either way's fine as long as you accept that it works that way at your table.

ThiagoMartell

2012-06-19, 07:44 AM

Its between Psuedodragons and Wyvern.
I don't have my books on me, so I'll take your word for it. I stand corrected.

As I stated before, this isn't a singular individual it is a species one implied by fluff to have existed for a while among humanoids.
So because someone can't wait until 3rd level to get a dragon mount you're going to change your so everyone rides forktongues instead of horses? :smallconfused:
I'm sorry, that IS too much of a refluff. Even if the character came from a region where everyone rode forktongues, they would seem exotic in most places. That's not even necessarily a bad thing if the forktongue does not look impressive. I think that's what someone wants when they say they want an exotic mount - that it is exotic.

You specifically where talking about Acanous though, the first post even mentioning the word pokemon is Sonofzeal's.
Now you're reading my mind?

Mechanically it isn't. Fluff wise it is.
:smallsigh:
Which creates a fluff/crunch disconnect, which I find to be a bad thing.
I see you disagree and you keep fluff and crunch separated.

Material Focuses aren't used up in the spel, thus you keep it in your possession mechanically. So fluffwise I think of the crystal orb returning to your hand.
They aren't used up, I never said they were. They are not thrown. But I see you don't care about internal consistency. If you want your fluff and crunch to be separated, that is none of my business.

Eh, I think either way is fine as long as you accept it. I can understand why some groups would toss it around wherever appropriate, and I can understand why other groups might not. My group wouldn't; we rarely use Dragon Magic and the subtype rules aren't really relevant to us as a result. For us, it would be perfectly fine to have the Forktongue sans subtype. For you, if Dragon Magic has been more fully incorporated into your game, hey use it. But either way's fine as long as you accept that it works that way at your table.
The subtype is introduced in Draconomicon, not in Dragon Magic.
But yeah, everything is fine as long as you accept it works that way in your table. In my game, I would simply say "you don't get a dragon at level 1".

Xiander

2012-06-19, 08:47 AM

But that's what I've been saying, just give the damn Forktongue the goddamned dragonblooded subtype and be done with it! Milo objects for some reason.

Interestingly, the moment you add a bloodline to the creature, it is no longer a creature with the same stat-line as a horse, but different looks.
This would by the definition of the majority of posters on this thread make it no longer a refluff, but rather a slight homebrew.
This is probably the reason you cannot agree with Milo.

GnomeGninjas

2012-06-19, 08:58 AM

But that's what I've been saying, just give the damn Forktongue the goddamned dragonblooded subtype and be done with it! Milo objects for some reason.

I think Milo objects because he doesn't think homebrewing the dragon blood subtype onto a horse is needed when refluffing the horse to Forktongue works just as well.

Lady Serpentine

2012-06-19, 09:13 AM

So because someone can't wait until 3rd level to get a dragon mount you're going to change your so everyone rides forktongues instead of horses? :smallconfused:
I'm sorry, that IS too much of a refluff. Even if the character came from a region where everyone rode forktongues, they would seem exotic in most places. That's not even necessarily a bad thing if the forktongue does not look impressive. I think that's what someone wants when they say they want an exotic mount - that it is exotic.

Depends. Forktongues could be exotic, in that most people have never actually seen one, but still known.

To use something I was messing around with as an example:

Nightsteeds are grey-and-black piebalds, with several other distinctive traits involving body shape, bred by the followers of Savorla (commonly known as 'The Ghost Lover's Children') for extraordinary endurance and speed in a wide variety of conditions and terrains. Most people have never seen one, as few people have business dealings of the sort involving buying goods with the Children, and their agents and messengers rarely deal with non-nobles, and even then usually take care to avoid being seen by anyone it isn't strictly necessary they deal with, as the vast majority of their work is highly clandestine.

Certainly, that means that someone owning one is going to be unusual, but most people will still know that funny looking horse you're riding on is a Nightsteed.

Apply the same sort of thing to Forktongues (whether because they're bred by a specific group, come from a distant region, or what have you), and the character still has an exotic mount, but people are going to be able to tell what it is, and know that it's not really any more dangerous than a horse would be.