Is it possible to take refluffing too far?

[frogglesmash]

Basically what the title says. At what point, if any, does refluffing stray too far from the source material.

One thing I personally dislike refluffing too much, is casting systems. I like specific types of magic to follow distinct sets of laws, so something like refluffing psionics to look like arcane magic rubs me the wrong way, especially if the mechanical difference isn't in some way acknowledged.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Basically what the title says. At what point, if any, does refluffing stray too far from the source material.

One thing I personally dislike refluffing too much, is casting systems. I like specific types of magic to follow distinct sets of laws, so something like refluffing psionics to look like arcane magic rubs me the wrong way, especially if the mechanical difference isn't in some way acknowledged.It goes too far when the fluff doesn't describe what's actually happening numerically or logically.

Take, for instance, people who claim that they hate any type of optimization and insist that their completely unoptimized characters who can't actually hit even minimum numerical benchmarks for minimal competence (and can't bypass the numbers system altogether) is a "great tank," for example. The fact that their VoP monk might only hit with an attack once every other session (and deal a mere 1d6-1 damage when they do hit) is supposedly a "master martial artist" just doesn't make any sense at all, and the fact that he can somehow "tank" is silly, when his AC and HP are abysmal, and he has no way to make enemies actually pay attention to him to the exclusion of his far more competent and dangerous party members.

[MichielHagen]

I don't see much of a problem with refluffing a Psion to have the fluff of say a Sorcerer.


Take, for instance, people who claim that they hate any type of optimization and insist that their completely unoptimized characters who can't actually hit even minimum numerical benchmarks for minimal competence (and can't bypass the numbers system altogether) is a "great tank," for example. The fact that their VoP monk might only hit with an attack once every other session (and deal a mere 1d6-1 damage when they do hit) is supposedly a "master martial artist" just doesn't make any sense at all, and the fact that he can somehow "tank" is silly, when his AC and HP are abysmal, and he has no way to make enemies actually pay attention to him to the exclusion of his far more competent and dangerous party members.

What you are saying has nothing to do with fluff in my opinion.
Being a "Tank" is not fluff, "Tank" is an out of character definition.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I don't see much of a problem with refluffing a Psion to have the fluff of say a Sorcerer.Yep.

Which class does this describe?

"I concentrate, pushing my mental energies out into the world, and a white-hot ball of searing flames blooms in the distance, the fortified tower blasting apart in a shower of rubble."

Can you tell? I can't either, and I wrote it.

[MichielHagen]

Yep.

Which class does this describe?

"I concentrate, pushing my mental energies out into the world, and a white-hall ball of searing flames blooms in the distance, the fortified tower blasting apart in a shower of rubble."

Can you tell? I can't either, and I wrote it.

This is true

[MaxiDuRaritry]

What you are saying has nothing to do with fluff in my opinion.
Being a "Tank" is not fluff, "Tank" is an out of character definition.Trying to alter the fluff of your character to say he is great at something that he actually isn't makes no sense.

"I take a licking and keep on ticking, even when they can hit my AC on a 6 and deal more damage than I have HP" does not work at all.

[Deophaun]

I'll second MaxiDuRaritry. When your fluff is simply flat out contradicted by in-game reality, it's gone too far.

"I'm the greatest singer ever born, with my -2 Perform(sing) modifier" doesn't work. "I was the greatesst singer ever born until a jealous witch cursed me, giving me a -2 Perform(sing) modifier" is fine.

The other time it goes too far is when it creates confusion: "OK, is that an axe that looks like a sword? And it's two handed but there are actually two of them and it looks like your two-weapon fighting? But if they're the same weapon, one is flaming and the other is wrapped in the crying souls of the damned, how does that work? Wait, that's supposed to be cold damage. Ok, I think I got this. Now, let's talk about your mount. What is the turret, again?"

[Fouredged Sword]

I hate it when someone tries to refluff something and then use that refluff for the basis of some mechanical change. Refluffing a psion as a sort of sorcerer is fine. Asking to apply an arcane casting feat to your psionics is a bridge too far.

[Zanos]

Yep.

Which class does this describe?

"I concentrate, pushing my mental energies out into the world, and a white-hot ball of searing flames blooms in the distance, the fortified tower blasting apart in a shower of rubble."

Can you tell? I can't either, and I wrote it.

<Nitpick>Would have to be a psion, because the energy for Arcane magic is technically external, even for sorcerers.</Nitpick>

I generally agree but would add that any fluff that would cause a reasonable person to respond in an illogical way would be no-go. I wouldn't let a caster refluff their fireball to shoot blue flames in a setting where coldfire or whatever other such blue fire nonsense existed, since it would be misleading. Similarly a probably wouldn't let someone refluff psion/sorcerer if I was running without transparency, since that actually messes with dispels and such.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

<Nitpick>Would have to be a psion, because the energy for Arcane magic is technically external, even for sorcerers.</Nitpick>How do they affect anything outside of themselves if they don't extend anything outside of themselves to manipulate those outside forces?

It'd be like trying to make noise in a vacuum.

[Sian]

"I'm the greatest singer ever born, with my -2 Perform(sing) modifier" doesn't work. "I was the greatesst singer ever born until a jealous witch cursed me, giving me a -2 Perform(sing) modifier" is fine.

Eh, I had a Dwarven Battlerager (FR prestige class) that were convinced he was the greatest singer ever known, even through he had a -5 modifier

[digiman619]

Eh, I had a Dwarven Battlerager (FR prestige class) that were convinced he was the greatest singer ever known, even through he had a -5 modifier

Yeah, "Not as <X> as they think they are" can be a valid concept, but there needs to be some player/character separation to happen. All to often the type of players that make the kind of character Maxi is railing against can't get meta enough to separate the two.

[icefractal]

Refluffing casting as not-casting generally causes issues, IME. Like casting a bunch of buff spells but saying the flavor is just "being lucky" and you never IC cast anything. Either the GM basically ignores that and has enemies react as normal, or else your casting gets a massive unneeded boost by never having counter-measures taken.

[Mehangel]

In games where Tome of Battle was banned or otherwise not available, I have played with people who played martial warriors (melee and ranged) refluffing the wizard class. Melee touch spells were now refluffed as melee strikes augmented with various alchemical items such as acid flasks or alchemist's fire (depending upon damage type). Ranged touch spells were refluffed to be arrows with special ammunition similarly augmented with alchemical items. As the character ran out of spells it was refluffed that he instead was running low on alchemical items or was getting fatigued from combat. The player had fun, and worked hard to maintain the fluff and RP of the character.

EDIT: I would like to note that said character purposefully avoided spells which did not fit his character. For example, the character stayed away from most conjuration spells (such as Summon Monster), illusion spells (such as Minor Image), and other spells which did not make much sense fluff-wise (such as Animate Dead, Enlarge Person, or Polymorph).

[digiman619]

In games where Tome of Battle was banned or otherwise not available, I have played with people who played martial warriors (melee and ranged) refluffing the wizard class. Melee touch spells were now refluffed as melee strikes augmented with various alchemical items such as acid flasks or alchemist's fire (depending upon damage type). Ranged touch spells were refluffed to be arrows with special ammunition similarly augmented with alchemical items. As the character ran out of spells it was refluffed that he instead was running low on alchemical items or was getting fatigued from combat. The player had fun, and worked hard to maintain the fluff and RP of the character.

I've done that with a PF Magus chassis to be a "Elemental Monk"

[Falontani]

Refluffing casting as not-casting generally causes issues, IME. Like casting a bunch of buff spells but saying the flavor is just "being lucky" and you never IC cast anything. Either the GM basically ignores that and has enemies react as normal, or else your casting gets a massive unneeded boost by never having counter-measures taken.

I'm actually DMing a campaign where we have one such character. A Warforged named Lucky is a favored soul, he has actively taken the feat "Wordly Focus" which allows divine spellcasters to use the world itself as their divine focus. The player still does the same thing to cast spells as any other spellcasters, but describes it as him falling, tripping, or some other fumble, and then I allow everyone (PCs and NPCs) to roll spellcraft as normal for viewing a spell being cast. Others have identified that Lucky uses magic, but the character adamantly denies that he is a spell caster. The only benefit that I give him is that he does not need to roll bluff checks when saying "I am not a spellcaster."

[Zanos]

I don't have a problem with a character thinking they're something other than what they are. You don't have to roll bluff to convince yourself of something that isn't true.

[icefractal]

The case I run into is: Why don't your "martial strikes" work on things with too-high SR? Why can someone dispel your "being tough"? It's not so much an issue with something like an "elemental monk", because the conceptual space between spells and supernatural abilities isn't very large.

Although obviously YMMV. I've played a Swordsage whose maneuvers were flavored as a mix of alchemy and being part-ghost, which I'm sure would be over the line at some tables.

There's definitely no problem with the /character/ thinking that they have a different source of abilities than they do. I played a Elan Thrallherd once who claimed (and probably believed) that they were a minor god, but for anyone able to detect psionics, it was clear that's what was being used.

[Mehangel]

The case I run into is: Why don't your "martial strikes" work on things with too-high SR? Why can someone dispel your "being tough"? It's not so much an issue with something like an "elemental monk", because the conceptual space between spells and supernatural abilities isn't very large.

In regards to the character's "martial strikes" not working on things with too-high SR, it was described similarly as Damage Reduction. As for someone dispelling any active buffs on the martial character, it was described as being debuffed (such as with a curse). It really isn't all that difficult to explain these things if you just take two seconds to think about it.

[Zanos]

In regards to the character's "martial strikes" not working on things with too-high SR, it was described similarly as Damage Reduction. As for someone dispelling any active buffs on the martial character, it was described as being debuffed (such as with a curse). It really isn't all that difficult to explain these things if you just take two seconds to think about it.
A wizard drops an area of effect dispel, removing 3 buffs from 3 members of the party, and somehow "cursing" the 4th. A member of the party identified the spell as dispel magic, and is really damn confused.

I guess it depends on what level you separate "meta" knowledge, but this seems to involve a lot of headaches. If someone can't look at your character and roll spellcraft and go "he's using magic so I should use dispel magic" even though you're using magic, something's a bit weird.

[Psyren]

Yes - if it's illogical, far-fetched or runs counter to mechanics, I consider that fluff to be invalid. The problem is that everyone has their own definition for the second (and possibly even the first) one, and for the third the mechanics aren't always clear. So where that line gets drawn depends on each table and even each person.

[Mehangel]

A wizard drops an area of effect dispel, removing 3 buffs from 3 members of the party, and somehow "cursing" the 4th. A member of the party identified the spell as dispel magic, and is really damn confused.

I guess it depends on what level you separate "meta" knowledge, but this seems to involve a lot of headaches. If someone can't look at your character and roll spellcraft and go "he's using magic so I should use dispel magic" even though you're using magic, something's a bit weird.

All the player's knew that the individual player was using a refluffed wizard, and agreed to play along. Detect Magic revealed what steroids the character was under or what alchemical items the character used. Since alchemy is often described as more magical than mundane (D&D 3.5 required that a character be a spellcaster to take ranks in the skill), we agreed that using dispel magic to destroy alchemical items was not out of the question, resolving that potential problem.

Again, since all the players were in on it and agreed to have their characters play along, the only one that need to remember was the DM and any NPC's they controlled.

[icefractal]

I think it also depends on campaign style. If the PCs are going to be staying in the same area (large or small) and developing a reputation, then kicking ass in a mysterious way is an important strategic advantage, and I'm not going to give it out for free. If they're mostly running into new people/creatures that have never heard of them, then it's not such a big deal.

Like for example, something I'd veto in the first case but allow in the second - playing a terrifying juggernaut monster (Stone Lolth-touched Half-Minotaur Water Orc, for instance), and flavoring it as just a very brawny human.

Although even in the second case, it only works if the rest of the group is operating that way too. If someone played an /actual/ human warrior next to that thing, they would look like a chump.

[Telok]

4e had really vocal refluffing advocates. Right up until 'Bobo the poo flinging monkey' appeared. It was a standard 'lazylord' build, a martial buffer/healer setup that used abilities on allies to make them get extra attacks. All the powers were refluffed as 'flings poo at you'.

Nobody ever actually admitted that there were things that shouldn't really be changed too much. I think they just put me on ignore and didn't want to listen.

[TheIronGolem]

4e had really vocal refluffing advocates. Right up until 'Bobo the poo flinging monkey' appeared. It was a standard 'lazylord' build, a martial buffer/healer setup that used abilities on allies to make them get extra attacks. All the powers were refluffed as 'flings poo at you'.

Nobody ever actually admitted that there were things that shouldn't really be changed too much. I think they just put me on ignore and didn't want to listen.

That doesn't prove that refluffing can "go too far", it proves that some character concepts don't mesh with the average D&D game. The character you describe would be fine in a game where extreme silliness and gross-out humor are expected and encouraged.

[SangoProduction]

That doesn't prove that refluffing can "go too far", it proves that some character concepts don't mesh with the average D&D game. The character you describe would be fine in a game where extreme silliness and gross-out humor are expected and encouraged.

Thank you. I was about to write the same thing.

Which leads to my original reply. (Why was I trying to say "supplant"?) There is literally no limit to refluffing, so long as everyone is OK with it. That is to say, the limit is entirely subjective, and subject to change with different group compositions, and adventure styles.

That being said, mechanical confusion, and enemy-reactions need to not be overly obfuscated by the fluff. This means more mechanically simple, or at least straightforward, games such as 4e or Fate Accelerated (especially), have a greater innate... allowance for fluff.

In 3.5, refluffing magic as alchemy-fighting requires a bit of world building (dispel works against alchemy) to work. In 4e, "well, is the poo an arcane, or divine magical ability, or is it a martial feat?" Meanwhile, in Fate, you can literally have a one eyed tentacle monster that flies on the albinism of peacocks, and it doesn't mess with anything at all...mechanically. You might want to explain how you grouped with the other guys but sure. Go ahead.