Refluff, can it go too far?

[Dudewithknives]

We all like a little refluffing every once in a while to make this seem a little more unique.

Ex.
A raven queen warlock whose eldritch blasts look like screeching energy ravens flying at the enemy.

A barbarian with his great axe that is a huge club with a razor sharp claw of a huge beast in it.

Any caster changing the color of their spells, want purple lightning bolts, green fireballs, or brown acid, sure whatever.

The question is though, can it go too far.

Of course refluffing should never change a mechanical effect of an ability. If it did slashing it still has to do slashjng, you may want an ice based version of green flexible blade but that would be a whole new spell not a refluff.

It is much easier to refluff spells because well, they can look like just about anything.

What about a martial based attack?

Much harder to refluff someone swinging a longsword at an enemy into much more than swinging a longsword.

An example I came up with that might be ok, what do you think?

Say I am playing someone built to grapple, like a Battle Eager Barbarian, I grapple someone to the ground like they usually do, now I am going to start using unarmed strikes to attack them.

Unarmed strike as a punch, sure, nobody would agree that.

Unarmed strike as a kick, headbutt, elbow, or chop? As long as it still does bludgeoning, I would think those are ok?

What about an unarmed strike in the form of a slam, assuming you have the strength to lift the enemy?
Or, what about just squeezing them really hard or having them in a submission hold like a choke. Still bludgeoning and no added effects or anything, still ok, or refluffed too far.

[Thrudd]

Refluffing has gone too far if the refluffed version of the thing would logically have effects different from what the game mechanics describe.

An unarmed strike is an attack that does damage, but does not result in the target going prone, being immobilized, or being pushed anywhere (unless a special ability is used that does this on top of the strike). If they are already grappled and immobilized and you perform an unarmed attack against them, then squeezing them really hard makes sense, although it is still doing bludgeoning damage and not suffocation damage. I don't see why slamming them would be inappropriate, either, so long as you understand that there aren't any extra effects to what you're doing besides what a normal unarmed strike can do. Remember not to get too specific - unless you already know your damage has dropped them to 0 and the DM is asking you "how you want to do this" - usually you won't know the full effect of any given attack.

You would be going too far to say that your unarmed attack involves tickling a guy until he hurts himself laughing, or that instead of an unarmed strike you have a psychic power that smacks people with a range equal to the length of your arms. Both of those things generate problems from one angle or another.

[solidork]

My Barbarian/Rogue(Scout) explains his suddenly acquired skills as a Boy Scout Handbook and a Lockpicking Merit Badge book that he references whenever he uses those skills. They appear to be blank to anyone else who tries to read them.

[JAL_1138]

Longsword cuts could be several different types/styles/maneuvers of cuts as depicted in historical longsword-combat treatises, depending on the situation in the particular combat, maybe? Would make sense.

Unarmed strikes as kicks, knees, elbows, karate chops, headbutts, etc. all stand to reason. No reason at all they should exclusively be punches. D&D combat doesn't use Marquess of Queensberry rules.

The slam could seem a bit off, since that seems more like a maneuver that should by rights leave an enemy prone. It would depend on the circumstances, though; say for instance you rolled successfully to knock prone, then successfully hit (or in reverse order, hit then succeed on prone), and afterward describe the knockdown and the unarmed strike together as a slam, it would totally fit with what's happening in the fight, so in that case why not?

Likewise, the squeeze could seem a little off unless they're already grappled, and D&D doesn't really have a model for a chokehold...but if they're already grappled and pinned, then why not? Right circumstances it could make complete sense.

As long as it makes sense given what you're actually doing mechanically at the moment, and given that your examples for unarmed attacks all have a solid grounding in verisimilitude, I say go for it. I'd say to be wary of going into detail so much or so often it bogs down the combat, or is too out-of-place with the general tone of the table (if nobody else is flavoring their attacks that way, it could for instance start a trend and get the rest of the table doing that, or it could go over poorly, with people wanting to just get on with it. Pay attention to how your group responds and don't go overboard, and you'll be fine).

[Drackolus]

The PH errata defines unarmed attacks are strikes using some sort of body part. Using your fists is the most common, but not the default. It is not refluffing to any degree to make an unarmed attack with your foot or head.
I tend to allow murder strikes and half-swording for bludgeoning and piercing damage, respectively. The same effect could generally be achieved by swapping weapons anyway, and virtually no effect or creature has resistance or vulnerability to one but not the other damage types anyway. Besides, the imagery is really cool and gives martials some much-needed screentime. Also makes using a versatile longsword worthwhile.
Come to think of it, there really should be a versatile fighting style that allows you to do bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing when using both hands.

[Knaight]

You can go too far with refluffing. None of your examples approach that - "unarmed strike" is phrased that way because kicks, knees, elbows, etc. are all included there; that's not refluffing at all. The rest are minor cosmetic changes to spells, also a non issue.

Trying to refluff D&D to represent tank combat, where the classes are different types of tank and the ranged weapons are different tank guns? That's going too far, because the rules just fundamentally don't work there.

[JAL_1138]

I tend to allow murder strikes and half-swording for bludgeoning and piercing damage, respectively. The same effect could generally be achieved by swapping weapons anyway, and virtually no effect or creature has resistance or vulnerability to one but not the other damage types anyway. Besides, the imagery is really cool and gives martials some much-needed screentime. Also makes using a versatile longsword worthwhile.
Come to think of it, there really should be a versatile fighting style that allows you to do bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing when using both hands.

Hear hear. Limiting all weapons to one and only one damage type is one of my pet peeves with this edition; it's somewhat ahistorical and verisimilitude-breaking. Particularly longswords, which were often specifically designed to be able to stab through gaps in plate, or halberds, which always include a large spearpoint or spike, or warhammers, which also have a spike (or two).

On the other hand, it can get really fiddly to go through and figure up how good each weapon is at each type of damage--a longsword, even with a two-handed mordhau (striking with the pommel or quillions while holding the sword by the blade), shouldn't outbludgeon a proper mace, and while a rapier can technically cut, it's not very good at it and shouldn't be outcutting a shamshir scimitar. Chucking damage type out altogether, the simple solution (and the one I usually go for), has its own issues with verisimilitude as a result, and does affect attacks against certain monster types.

I may end up going through the weapon list one day and trying to rework it for how each weapon does with each damage type one day, just to see if it'd be worthwhile to implement. I have a feeling it'd get too fiddly too fast.

[Lombra]

To refluff unarmed strikes as strangling someone feels ok, he won't die of suffocation until at least one minute.

Whaaat? Suffocation and strangulation are two different things? So you want to strangle someone to death, it would likely take 3-4 Rounds worth of athletics contests and constitution saving throws, but there's nothing wrong in refluffing unarmed strikes as strangulation, the ettercap' garrote does HP damage too, and it is strangulating you.

[Contrast]

Of course refluffing should never change a mechanical effect of an ability. If it did slashing it still has to do slashjng, you may want an ice based version of green flexible blade but that would be a whole new spell not a refluff.

Not really sure I agree here. If a character wants a green ice blade rather than a green flame blade does that really matter that much? If they can justify it, aren't trying to gain significant advantage (so no green force blade) and they remain consistent (so no swapping back to fire just because now you're fighting cold resistant enemies) who cares?



Refluffing has gone too far if the refluffed version of the thing would logically have effects different from what the game mechanics describe.

An unarmed strike is an attack that does damage, but does not result in the target going prone, being immobilized, or being pushed anywhere (unless a special ability is used that does this on top of the strike). If they are already grappled and immobilized and you perform an unarmed attack against them, then squeezing them really hard makes sense, although it is still doing bludgeoning damage and not suffocation damage. I don't see why slamming them would be inappropriate, either, so long as you understand that there aren't any extra effects to what you're doing besides what a normal unarmed strike can do. Remember not to get too specific - unless you already know your damage has dropped them to 0 and the DM is asking you "how you want to do this" - usually you won't know the full effect of any given attack.

This is really something the DM has to try and work in rather than the player. A shove to knock someone prone is a concerted effort to knock someone over a keep them down. This doesn't mean no-one ever falls over except when shoved it just means they manage to recover themselves before anyone could feasibly take advantage of it.

Player: I'm going to move round behind him - can I try to slash at the back of his legs?
DM: Attack or are you trying to knock him over?
Player: Attack.
DM: OK cool, you nimbly feint from side to side and catch him off guard, slipping past his defence to the side. As you dodge past you leave a long gash up the back of his leg. He stumbles down to one knee for a second before righting himself and spinning around to face you.

[xroads]

I think refluffing becomes too much when it ventures off completely into another genre or wrecks everyone's suspension of disbelief.

For example, having your wizard refluff his fireball as a mortar strike is probably a bit much.

As for martials, there is always the possibility of Calling Your Attacks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CallingYourAttacks). However, you do risk wrecking people's suspension of disbelief. Really depends on the game & the group.

[Drackolus]

Not really sure I agree here. If a character wants a green ice blade rather than a green flame blade does that really matter that much? If they can justify it, aren't trying to gain significant advantage (so no green force blade) and they remain consistent (so no swapping back to fire just because now you're fighting cold resistant enemies) who cares?

The main issue here is draconic sorcerers, as it opens up spell options they didn't have before. Like giving lightning based sorcs a ranged cantrip. True that fire has all the toys, but fire is also the most resisted damage type.
You might consider that all a feature rather than a bug, which is totally a legitimate assessment. I sort of think a fire draconic sorc is perfectly balanced, and allowing this just brings everything else up to it. Theoretically.

[Waterdeep Merch]

The only time I ever had a problem with refluffing was a dragonborn player that tried to explain that he looked mostly human and could easily pass as one, just because he knew the setting had serious intolerance for dragonborn.

We told him no, he ignored us, kept playing, and then when the racism we warned him about came up and he tried to say he looked so human you couldn't even tell he was a dragonborn...

The whole table was exasperated. It took him another two sessions to accept the situation.

The tiefling player who'd had it worse since day one was amused, at least.

[Contrast]

The main issue here is draconic sorcerers, as it opens up spell options they didn't have before. Like giving lightning based sorcs a ranged cantrip. True that fire has all the toys, but fire is also the most resisted damage type.
You might consider that all a feature rather than a bug, which is totally a legitimate assessment. I sort of think a fire draconic sorc is perfectly balanced, and allowing this just brings everything else up to it. Theoretically.

I'd have no problem with a sorceror trying to focus on a particular element getting altered versions of some spells on discussion. I would be more dubious if, having a lightning spell, they asked for the next spell to be necrotic damage because at that point they may just be trying to cheese their way into better coverage... Cantrips in particular though, sure do whatever elemental damage type you like in my opinion as long as you choose one and stick to it.

[Gtdead]

Refluffing is actually a great way to rebalance some stuff in the game. Cleric always comes to mind. He has to mc or get magic initiate to gain access into decent and thematically fitting cantrips for some domains. Necrotic Blade instead of Booming Blade for death cleric, or Sacred Thunder for tempest could work wonders.

[Dudewithknives]

Refluffing is actually a great way to rebalance some stuff in the game. Cleric always comes to mind. He has to mc or get magic initiate to gain access into decent and thematically fitting cantrips for some domains. Necrotic Blade instead of Booming Blade for death cleric, or Sacred Thunder for tempest could work wonders.

That is changing the mechanics of the spell by changing the element , that is one of the main issues I have with refluffing, that opens new doors that were never there.

Not nearly the same as simply changing the visuals.

I would not be ok with changing the damage type of weapons or abilities.

[MasterMercury]

My players can fluff their characters however they want, as long as there is not numbered difference. Same thing with abilities. Rogue wants to jump from person to person stabbing them? Sure, but the enemy still get AoO.

I do excuse dragon sorcerers sometimes, particularly acid, poison, & sometimes lighting based ones. I'll let them use their element for a fireball or searing strike. But they have to stick to it.

[Talionis]

Yes and the DM decides. Every table is different some games it would be terrible to refluff fireball into a mortar but for a steampunk refluffed game it might make perfect sense, all spells might be refluffed in a similar way. I could see that being a fun game trying to refluff spells for a very different world.

A lot of it depends on the other players and what will cause those other players to stop having fun.

Even refunding that your Eldritch Blast looks like energy ravens has a small in game effect in that other magic users might. It be able to accurately identify your Eldritch Blasts, which could end up a small mechanical advantage.

I'd pray that each DM thoughtfully examine the refluff request starting from the thought that if the change is minor and helps to develop a players character they aught to work with the player as possible and try to accommodate the request.

This thread has veered off a little by talking about home brew and house rules that do things like changing a spells energy type. These can have significant change and aught to consider these but still careful eye towards not creating an imbalance or advantage not designed.

[Knaight]

Yes and the DM decides. Every table is different some games it would be terrible to refluff fireball into a mortar but for a steampunk refluffed game it might make perfect sense, all spells might be refluffed in a similar way.

The problem with doing this is that eventually the mechanics just stop fitting. Take the fireball being a mortar shell - what exactly is with the range then? 150' is way off for a mortar shell. If you're just refluffing into some sort of tech that's an easy fix (it is now a grenade), if you're trying to make a particular setting happen and you need a mortar shell you're out of luck. Systems have a limited range intrinsic to their mechanics, and refluffing doesn't get past that range. For systems which aren't deliberately generic, the range is often not that big.