I'm glad 5E D&D eschews the 'just refluff it mentality!' of modern game design.

[Deathtongue]

I always found it patronizing when I'm playing a not-so-rules-light game (it's an acceptable compromise in rules-light games like FATE) and want to play a concept that's not really supported by the rules, I get told that it's not a failing of the rules set, I just need to refluff it! You want to play a necromancer but the game doesn't support it? Play a ranger, and then pretend your animal companions are zombie warriors!

I mean, it's acceptable and even inevitable to some extent, but a lot of 21st century games take it too far. When I'm told that I can play my Fire Summoner by refluffing my fireball as conjuring a self-destructive fire elemental, it breaks my WSoD more than just being told that it's not supported by the rules, you know?

Thank you, 5E D&D developers, for not insulting my intelligence and just straight-up telling me that if something is not supported to the extent you'd expect in past editions/fantasy genre standards, it's not supported and may not ever be supported.*

* I still want a Psion and a Warlord sometime, though.

[Mith]

I always found it patronizing when I'm playing a not-so-rules-light game (it's an acceptable compromise in rules-light games like FATE) and want to play a concept that's not really supported by the rules, I get told that it's not a failing of the rules set, I just need to refluff it! You want to play a necromancer but the game doesn't support it? Play a ranger, and then pretend your animal companions are zombie warriors!

I mean, it's acceptable and even inevitable to some extent, but a lot of 21st century games take it too far. When I'm told that I can play my Fire Summoner by refluffing my fireball as conjuring a self-destructive fire elemental, it breaks my WSoD more than just being told that it's not supported by the rules, you know?

Thank you, 5E D&D developers, for not insulting my intelligence and just straight-up telling me that if something is not supported to the extent you'd expect in past editions/fantasy genre standards, it's not supported and may not ever be supported.*

* I still want a Psion and a Warlord sometime, though.

Psion is likely coming at some point. Not sure if Warlord is planned to be a thing in 5e. Only ever played a few sessions of 4e (not my type of game), so I don't know if Warlord can be a thing in 5e.

[Malifice]

I always found it patronizing when I'm playing a not-so-rules-light game (it's an acceptable compromise in rules-light games like FATE) and want to play a concept that's not really supported by the rules, I get told that it's not a failing of the rules set, I just need to refluff it! You want to play a necromancer but the game doesn't support it? Play a ranger, and then pretend your animal companions are zombie warriors!

I mean, it's acceptable and even inevitable to some extent, but a lot of 21st century games take it too far. When I'm told that I can play my Fire Summoner by refluffing my fireball as conjuring a self-destructive fire elemental, it breaks my WSoD more than just being told that it's not supported by the rules, you know?

Thank you, 5E D&D developers, for not insulting my intelligence and just straight-up telling me that if something is not supported to the extent you'd expect in past editions/fantasy genre standards, it's not supported and may not ever be supported.*

* I still want a Psion and a Warlord sometime, though.

5E expressly embraces the 're-fluff' philosophy. You can see it in the weapons table (and expressly in the Monk weapons section) plus elsewhere it's alluded to.

Your 'staff' can be a three sectioned staff, a steel whip, a tetsu-o, a chain with a lead ball on the end of it, a double ended hammer, or whatever bludgeoning weapon you want.

Whats wrong with fluffing something with your own name for it? The mechanics are not affected in any way.

If your Dragon Sorcerer is in fact a Demon blooded sorderer (scales, wings, elemental affinity etc) what does that matter? The only mechanical change that is needed is probably swapping the Draconic language it gicves you to Abyssal (or Infernal).

I cant imagine a DM that would have any issue with that, and I certainly dont have a problem with it as a player either.

[Regitnui]

Uh, yeah. I actively refluff things in this game. Hell, I'm writing a whole homebrew refluffing the monster manual.

[Spore]

I cant imagine a DM that would have any issue with [refluffing], and I certainly dont have a problem with it as a player either.

Oh, my first regular DM would have had an issue with that. Only after he had discovered that even HIS very traditional ideas of fantasy cannot be perfectly matched every time, he conceded and allowed refluffing. But you had to make every minor point of refluffing a minor discussion with him.

But then again, refluffing a ranger into a necromancer would throw flags left and right with me too. Minor refluffs are fine but permanent undead instead of animals is a completely different ball game.

[Malifice]

Oh, my first regular DM would have had an issue with that. Only after he had discovered that even HIS very traditional ideas of fantasy cannot be perfectly matched every time, he conceded and allowed refluffing. But you had to make every minor point of refluffing a minor discussion with him.

But then again, refluffing a ranger into a necromancer would throw flags left and right with me too. Minor refluffs are fine but permanent undead instead of animals is a completely different ball game.

Id have no problem with an undead animal companion.

[Mith]

Undead ranger makes sense. When the companion dies, the bones crumble to dust, leaving behind the skull. The ranger performs an 8 hour ritual that conjures up another skeleton beast. keep the same stats as the original animal companion too.

[Malifice]

Undead ranger makes sense. When the companion dies, the bones crumble to dust, leaving behind the skull. The ranger performs an 8 hour ritual that conjures up another skeleton beast. keep the same stats as the original animal companion too.

For some kind of dark ranger type, its a pretty cool idea actually.

[Tanarii]

Yup. People try to take it too far all the time. Mainly they take it too far when it requires a house rule. Even under the craziest divisions of the rules into fluff/mechanical, if you have to make a house rule for it, you should be acknowledging its not just "refluffing". Call a spade a spade.

If a player wants to "refluff" their chainmail as super armor skin, it's a problem. Because now you have to have house rules for sleeping in armor, finding magical armor, rusting, etc.

------------

But it's also annoying when they're doing an extreme "refluffing" that just breaks other people's suspension of disbelief at the table. Most commonly I found saw people try to do this in official play. It doesn't matter how you describe your "instant fire elemental summon" if they all know you are using a Fireball spell every time. (That's a good example btw.)

[Anonymouswizard]

A bit of an extreme example there.

But yeah, there are degrees of refluffing. Refluffing your Champion Fighter's abilities as being from a divine blessing is fine. Refluffing your bow as a wand is fine (depending on the group). Refluffing your animal companion as an undead X is fine.


I'm using a version of the Artificer that encourages refluffing. If you want a clockwork companion take the Find Familiar spell as one of your inventions. It actually works really well, particularly better than the 'pick a magic item from this list' from the official artificer while allow me to have some fun working out what the spells represent. I just need to know if I'll be able to take the gun-focused subclass or if I'll have to go alchemist (in which case I'm potentially making heavy use of refluffing to attack enemies with hot sauce and lemon juice*).

* Yes, this is the level of seriousness in most of the games with this group.

[fbelanger]

I always found it patronizing when I'm playing a not-so-rules-light game (it's an acceptable compromise in rules-light games like FATE) and want to play a concept that's not really supported by the rules, I get told that it's not a failing of the rules set, I just need to refluff it! You want to play a necromancer but the game doesn't support it? Play a ranger, and then pretend your animal companions are zombie warriors!

I mean, it's acceptable and even inevitable to some extent, but a lot of 21st century games take it too far. When I'm told that I can play my Fire Summoner by refluffing my fireball as conjuring a self-destructive fire elemental, it breaks my WSoD more than just being told that it's not supported by the rules, you know?

Thank you, 5E D&D developers, for not insulting my intelligence and just straight-up telling me that if something is not supported to the extent you'd expect in past editions/fantasy genre standards, it's not supported and may not ever be supported.*

* I still want a Psion and a Warlord sometime, though.

Lazy fluff is usually not good.
But if you take a couple of hours to work out an idea it can make a decent class. A decent psion is already available in play test, and with some research I guess you could find a build of warlord home brew shared on the net.

[Arkhios]

I always found it patronizing when I'm playing a not-so-rules-light game (it's an acceptable compromise in rules-light games like FATE) and want to play a concept that's not really supported by the rules, I get told that it's not a failing of the rules set, I just need to refluff it! You want to play a necromancer but the game doesn't support it? Play a ranger, and then pretend your animal companions are zombie warriors!

I mean, it's acceptable and even inevitable to some extent, but a lot of 21st century games take it too far. When I'm told that I can play my Fire Summoner by refluffing my fireball as conjuring a self-destructive fire elemental, it breaks my WSoD more than just being told that it's not supported by the rules, you know?

Thank you, 5E D&D developers, for not insulting my intelligence and just straight-up telling me that if something is not supported to the extent you'd expect in past editions/fantasy genre standards, it's not supported and may not ever be supported.*

* I still want a Psion and a Warlord sometime, though.

In the meantime, check out my signature. Maybe that'll ease your desire for Warlord. :smallbiggrin:

[Kuulvheysoon]

In the meantime, check out my signature. Maybe that'll ease your desire for Warlord. :smallbiggrin:

Funny enough, I was just searching for one of your posts somewhere to drop a link. One of my players was using your Warlord and it was working really well (until he got swallowed by a Behir).

[Arkhios]

Funny enough, I was just searching for one of your posts somewhere to drop a link. One of my players was using your Warlord and it was working really well (until he got swallowed by a Behir).

Awesome to hear that (except the Behir part. I hope it got a bellyache!)

Which subclass? :)

[Vogie]

5E expressly embraces the 're-fluff' philosophy. You can see it in the weapons table (and expressly in the Monk weapons section) plus elsewhere it's alluded to.

Your 'staff' can be a three sectioned staff, a steel whip, a tetsu-o, a chain with a lead ball on the end of it, a double ended hammer, or whatever bludgeoning weapon you want.

Whats wrong with fluffing something with your own name for it? The mechanics are not affected in any way.

If your Dragon Sorcerer is in fact a Demon blooded sorderer (scales, wings, elemental affinity etc) what does that matter? The only mechanical change that is needed is probably swapping the Draconic language it gicves you to Abyssal (or Infernal).

I cant imagine a DM that would have any issue with that, and I certainly dont have a problem with it as a player either.

Precisely. Warlock Patrons may be replaced with more abstract concepts, Paladin Oaths could be tied to divine beings, Rangers don't have to be Ranged, and you don't have to be a bard while actively bard-ing across the campaign. The beauty of 5e is that the bulk of a class or subclasses features are frontloaded, making it super easy to go in strange directions with only a 2-4 level dip.

They don't need to sit down and churn out a bunch of prestige classes, because the existing classes can be mixed & matched to get most concepts taken care of.

[Unoriginal]

Awesome to hear that (except the Behir part. I hope it got a bellyache!)

Eating a Warlord, it probably got a bad case of leader poisoning.

[Arkhios]

Eating a Warlord, it probably got a bad case of leader poisoning.

LOL :smallbiggrin:

[Pex]

There is the other side of the coin where the DM demands the player give a roleplaying justification for everything. It offends the DM the player wants something because it's fun to play. That's where you get a paladin being granted the power to unleash holy power from the palm of his hand because the player wanted to multiclass into warlock. To these DMs if you can't justify it you can't have it.

[DivisibleByZero]

Leave it to Pex to show up in a discussion about design philosophy and start bashing DMs.
:amused:

[alchahest]

In the meantime, check out my signature. Maybe that'll ease your desire for Warlord. :smallbiggrin:

I really like your Warlord, by the way. haven't played it but it looks real good on paper!

[Arkhios]

I really like your Warlord, by the way. haven't played it but it looks real good on paper!

Thank you!

[Tanarii]

Refluffing your bow as a wand is fine (depending on the group).Thats not refluffing. Both bows and wands have already defined mechanical "here's what they are" things associated with them. You can't take one and call it the other. That's a house rule, and one that raises all sorts of questions.

A Bow uses uses ammunition from a quiver to do its piercing type damage, and anyone with the appropriate Bow proficiency can pick it up and use it with their proficiency bonus, and crafting it takes the same amount of time as Bow, interacts with Sharpshooter and anything else that refers to a ranged weapon.

A wand can be used as a focus, and doesn't do any of that other stuff.


Refluffing your animal companion as an undead X is fine.Its "fine" as refluffing provided it acts in all ways as the appropriate stat block and creature, including needing to breath, eat, take a dump occasionally, and has no Undead traits. Like being affected by Turn Undead. Otherwise it's a house rule, not a refluff.

Again, Beasts and Undead are already defined things. Trying to make one the other is not refluffing.

[Cybren]

My problem with "refluffing" is when people take "fluff" as entirely divorced from "mechanics", rather than "mechanics" being the game construct representation of "fluff".

Refluffing something to be something else is fine... provided you're refluffing something that makes sense. Refluffing leather armor as a gambeson is different from refluffing a wizard as a master martial artist that has a book of ninja techniques

[Anonymouswizard]

Thats not refluffing. Both bows and wands have already defined mechanical "here's what they are" things associated with them. You can't take one and call it the other. That's a house rule, and one that raises all sorts of questions.

A Bow uses uses ammunition from a quiver to do its piercing type damage, and anyone with the appropriate Bow proficiency can pick it up and use it with their proficiency bonus, and crafting it takes the same amount of time as Bow, interacts with Sharpshooter and anything else that refers to a ranged weapon.

A wand can be used as a focus, and doesn't do any of that other stuff.

As I said, depending on the group. It might be closer to say that you could homebrew a 'warrior's wand' using a bow as your base.


Its "fine" as refluffing provided it acts in all ways as the appropriate stat block and creature, including needing to breath, eat, take a dump occasionally, and has no Undead traits. Like being affected by Turn Undead. Otherwise it's a house rule, not a refluff.

Again, Beasts and Undead are already defined things. Trying to make one the other is not refluffing.

I'm too tired today to argue, but the short answer is I was agreeing with an example given. As 99% of games I've played have either ignored or handwaved the limitations of being a living animal (such as food), or just not have them come up, such refluffing would have been fine in those games.

Of course, if what creature type something is comes up all the time in your games refluffing might not be appropriate. I suppose I should have prefaced it with 'examples might be more or less appropriate depending on your group's existing house rules'.


Also, the post just after yours reminds me of the Barbarian wizard, with his mighty Sword Spell and Summon Crowbar.

[Regitnui]

Its "fine" as refluffing provided it acts in all ways as the appropriate stat block and creature, including needing to breath, eat, take a dump occasionally, and has no Undead traits. Like being affected by Turn Undead. Otherwise it's a house rule, not a refluff.

Again, Beasts and Undead are already defined things. Trying to make one the other is not refluffing.

I thought I'd point out that breathing, eating, and periodically defecating aren't in the stat blocks. There are rules for the former two (more accurately, not doing them), but I find a lot of people I DM for aren't exactly fond of keeping track of their character's meals, which is arguably more important than their class feature's. It's easy enough to let those fall by the wayside, unless narratively important or funny, and from there it's a short step to a ritually bound animal corpse that acts like a Beastmaster pet.

[Cybren]

I thought I'd point out that breathing, eating, and periodically defecating aren't in the stat blocks. There are rules for the former two (more accurately, not doing them), but I find a lot of people I DM for aren't exactly fond of keeping track of their character's meals, which is arguably more important than their class feature's. It's easy enough to let those fall by the wayside, unless narratively important or funny, and from there it's a short step to a ritually bound animal corpse that acts like a Beastmaster pet.

Needing to eat breathe and pewp aren't in stat blocks- they're intrinsic facts about creatures unless contradicted by a statblock

[Tanarii]

I thought I'd point out that breathing, eating, and periodically defecating aren't in the stat blocks. There are rules for the former two (more accurately, not doing them), but I find a lot of people I DM for aren't exactly fond of keeping track of their character's meals, which is arguably more important than their class feature's. It's easy enough to let those fall by the wayside, unless narratively important or funny, and from there it's a short step to a ritually bound animal corpse that acts like a Beastmaster pet.


Needing to eat breathe and pewp aren't in stat blocks- they're intrinsic facts about creatures unless contradicted by a statblock
Right. There are general rules for how much food & water creatures need to survive, as well as suffocating rules.

These can all be waived or changed around for a character, but under the model that rules are divided into fluff/mechanics*, that's certainly more than a refluffing.

Not saying it's wrong, if the group/table is cool with that. In that case, go for it.

*not a fan of that model personally

[Eric Diaz]

If a player wants to "refluff" their chainmail as super armor skin, it's a problem. Because now you have to have house rules for sleeping in armor, finding magical armor, rusting, etc.



Its "fine" as refluffing provided it acts in all ways as the appropriate stat block and creature, including needing to breath, eat, take a dump occasionally, and has no Undead traits. Like being affected by Turn Undead. Otherwise it's a house rule, not a refluff.

Again, Beasts and Undead are already defined things. Trying to make one the other is not refluffing.


Right. There are general rules for how much food & water creatures need to survive, as well as suffocating rules.

These can all be waived or changed around for a character, but under the model that rules are divided into fluff/mechanics*, that's certainly more than a refluffing.

Not saying it's wrong, if the group/table is cool with that. In that case, go for it.

*not a fan of that model personally

I agree with you last point - it depends on the table/group.

In my table, we usually handwave things such as armor rust (TBH I don't remember there is such rule), what a beast eats (and when it poops!), etc. So I'm very okay with refluffing.

If someone tried to "refluff" something to get more perks, I might object... But it has never happened to me. In fact, my problem was the opposite - one player wanted to be a fighter with high Dex, Str and one empty hand - I warned it was suboptimal, but ok - and the other insisted on using the wild magic table even though I offered to let him homebrew less ridiculous results as he pleased.

He was a sorcerer refluffed as an "iron man kobold" of sorts. Wild magic was malfunction, etc. But of course his spells could be counterspelled, his "armor" stopped working in an anti-magic field, etc - this is probably the line between refluffing and house-ruling.

Did anyone ever have a problem with PCs trying to "refluff" stuff to his or her advantage?

[the secret fire]

I take the HERO games system approach to PC abilities. The ability does what it says it does, but you can describe its "special effect" however you like. This description might occasionally have mechanical side-effects, maybe even beneficial ones, but they are not something so common that they can be exploited.

[Cybren]

I take the HERO games system approach to PC abilities. The ability does what it says it does, but you can describe its "special effect" however you like. This description might occasionally have mechanical side-effects, maybe even beneficial ones, but they are not something so common that they can be exploited.

What is or isn't a special effect varies by campaign, though. In a one shot dungeon crawl, that your animal companion needs to eat doesn't matter. In a wilderness survival hex crawl, it's a critically important detail.

[DarkKnightJin]

I got to refluff a Halberd into a Scythe for my Dragonborn Death Cleric.
I even got to have a mix of a Continual Flame with about the light spread of a candle at the end of his tail.
And yes, I drew inspiration from Charmander.

[Pex]

Leave it to Pex to show up in a discussion about design philosophy and start bashing DMs.
:amused:

If all refluffing is bad then so too is forced refluffing. Being forced to justify your character is just as bad as finding an excuse for it.

[Submortimer]

If all refluffing is bad then so too is forced refluffing. Being forced to justify your character is just as bad as finding an excuse for it.

That very much so depends on what kind of game the DM is running/what kind of world you're playing in.

In my games, I do require people to give me storytelling reasons for why they have the classes they have, and much of it depends on how disparate the things being mixed together are. I don't usually require refluffing, but I do require justification.

You're a paladin, and now you want to pick up levels in warlock? Unless you're an oathbreaker, you're gonna need to give me some reasoning as to why you chose to sell your soul.

[Regitnui]

If all refluffing is bad then so too is forced refluffing. Being forced to justify your character is just as bad as finding an excuse for it.

I once had a player who wanted to play an aasimar. Unfortunately, aasimar didn't exist in my setting at the time, partly because VGtM hadn't been out when we started. So I asked him to come up with a reason why. Between the Two of us, we came up with a character who had been blessed at birth by a god. Refluffed aasimar. Happy player, happy DM.

[DivisibleByZero]

If all refluffing is bad then so too is forced refluffing. Being forced to justify your character is just as bad as finding an excuse for it.

I don't know what this "forced refluffing" you're talking about is.
99% of the time, the player is the one that initiates any potential refluffing.
That other 1% of the time, the DM will usually do it because whatever the item in question happens to be something that doesn't exist in his or her world. Refluff, or say No. Choice: refluff.
As to "being forced to justify your character," that's Role Playing. Actions and/or story that justifies the choices you made. That's Role Playing.
Might I quote you from a different thread?

THAT is "rollplaying", and it drives me up the wall.
So which is it? Does "rollplaying" drive you up a wall, or do you not want to Role Play? You can't have both.

[Tanarii]

I agree with you last point - it depends on the table/group.I think that what rules you don't want to use and do what to use is entirely up to the table/group ... and reject the idea that some things are "fluff" and others are "mechanical rules". The book is various kinds of rules, and they can be adapated or changed as needed by the table/group.

But if you're calling something "refluffing", it implies use of the model of dividing things into "fluff" vs "mechanical rule". If something is ignoring a mechanical rule in the book, using the term "refluffing" isn't appropriate. Even if your group ignores or handwaves that mechanical rule, it's still not refluffing. It's still a rules change.

-----------
Here's a example of why I'm being clear that I don't really like the fluff or refluffing in the first place: Alignment is a rule in the book. Personality Traits are a rule in the book. They're neither fluff nor a mechanical rule, they're roleplaying rules.

[alchahest]

That very much so depends on what kind of game the DM is running/what kind of world you're playing in.

In my games, I do require people to give me storytelling reasons for why they have the classes they have, and much of it depends on how disparate the things being mixed together are. I don't usually require refluffing, but I do require justification.

You're a paladin, and now you want to pick up levels in warlock? Unless you're an oathbreaker, you're gonna need to give me some reasoning as to why you chose to sell your soul.

Well a: pact doesn't automatically mean you're giving up your soul and b: if the pact you create helps you fulfill your vow, there's no conflict? like a Vengeance paladin making a pact with asmodeus to better go after the orc horde that slaughtered an orphanage or whatever makes perfect sense to me. By Any and All Means. an Ancients paladin is a perfect fit for a preservation-minded fey patron. I can't really see where you're getting a conflict from unless you're adding a house rule that paladins have to be sworn to a specific diety.

[Regitnui]

Well a: pact doesn't automatically mean you're giving up your soul and b: if the pact you create helps you fulfill your vow, there's no conflict? like a Vengeance paladin making a pact with asmodeus to better go after the orc horde that slaughtered an orphanage or whatever makes perfect sense to me. By Any and All Means. an Ancients paladin is a perfect fit for a preservation-minded fey patron. I can't really see where you're getting a conflict from unless you're adding a house rule that paladins have to be sworn to a specific diety.

Wasn't there something about a Greater Evil in the Vengeance vows? Though I agree that an Ancients paladin could easily make a deal with an Archfey to be more effective in service.

[Theodoxus]

Or Celestial, and any Paladin Oath in the PHB...

I refluff stuff all the time - sometimes my players don't even realize the "new' spells they're encountering are just refluffed effects from PHB spells.

[alchahest]

It's not a real stretch to use the power of the greater evil to combat it. In comics, you've got Spawn using the power of hellspawn to fight against evil like Clown/Violator. or Silver Surfer using the power cosmic granted to him by Galactus to ensure Galactus doesn't consume planets with sentient beings on them (and in some cases fighting against him directly). Ghost Rider is another example that's similar to spawn in that he gets his power from an evil source, one that he actually did sell his soul to (again the pacts do not specify this as a requirement) and he frequently battles evil from the lowest of street crime to the biggest bads in the marvel version of hell.

The Grey Wardens of Dragon Age drink the blood of the darkspawn and gain power from it, and use that power to better combat the darkspawn.

Those are just some pop culture examples, I'm sure there's tons of other examples of good guys sacrificing their souls / short term ideals / for facing off against the big bad with more potency.

And even if you never face off against the fiend that grants you your power, if you take that power and face off against an entity that is creating a bigger, worse problem than the fiend that is giving out powers to good guys, you're still keeping with your oath.

[Eric Diaz]

I think that what rules you don't want to use and do what to use is entirely up to the table/group ... and reject the idea that some things are "fluff" and others are "mechanical rules". The book is various kinds of rules, and they can be adapated or changed as needed by the table/group.

But if you're calling something "refluffing", it implies use of the model of dividing things into "fluff" vs "mechanical rule". If something is ignoring a mechanical rule in the book, using the term "refluffing" isn't appropriate. Even if your group ignores or handwaves that mechanical rule, it's still not refluffing. It's still a rules change.

-----------
Here's a example of why I'm being clear that I don't really like the fluff or refluffing in the first place: Alignment is a rule in the book. Personality Traits are a rule in the book. They're neither fluff nor a mechanical rule, they're roleplaying rules.

That is an interesting discussion.

I agree that, in RPGs, fluff IS rules in many ways - if that is similar to waht you're saying. Maybe we could draw the lines at NAMES. For example, take the monk:

"Whatever name you use for a monk weapon, you can use the game Statistics provided for the weapon."

So where do you draw the line - if there is a line at all? Would you allow my thief to use a kama, or would he have to multi-class into monk just to use a weapon identical to the sickle for cosmetic reasons? Can I call my scimitar a falchion, or would that be house ruling?

[Vogie]

That very much so depends on what kind of game the DM is running/what kind of world you're playing in.

In my games, I do require people to give me storytelling reasons for why they have the classes they have, and much of it depends on how disparate the things being mixed together are. I don't usually require refluffing, but I do require justification.

You're a paladin, and now you want to pick up levels in warlock? Unless you're an oathbreaker, you're gonna need to give me some reasoning as to why you chose to sell your soul.

Maybe if it was a Cleric that wanted to pick up levels in Warlock, as they're both playing off a Deity-Devotee trope. But a Paladin? If you're in 5E, there's no reason why an Oath-keeper can't also forge a bond with another deity/fey/fiend/talking shovel. In fact, if you really enjoy compelling roleplay experience, you may encourage it - will the patron demand things to encourage them break their oath? Will their Oath allow the PC to continue serving under the patron?

If someone's still in the mindset of earlier editions where Paladins were the champions of a deity, either due to the setting or their own mindspace, then that's the problem of the setting or mindspace.

In the same reasoning, if a DM is red-faced, spittle-flying demanding:

a blood transfusion before picking up a level in Sorcerer ("Because BLOODLINES")
a soul to be sold before picking up a level in warlock
years of training before picking up one level in fighter, ranger, wizard or rogue
a spiritual experience before picking up a level in monk or cleric
then that's... a really terrible DM, and I wouldn't want to play anywhere nearby.

[DivisibleByZero]

So where do you draw the line - if there is a line at all? Would you allow my thief to use a kama, or would he have to multi-class into monk just to use a weapon identical to the sickle for cosmetic reasons? Can I call my scimitar a falchion, or would that be house ruling?

There is no line. That line is only in people's minds.
Names don't matter.
Use the rules an/or statistics presented, and call your Thing by any name you want to.

[Eric Diaz]

In the same reasoning, if a DM is red-faced, spittle-flying demanding:

a blood transfusion before picking up a level in Sorcerer ("Because BLOODLINES")
a soul to be sold before picking up a level in warlock
years of training before picking up one level in fighter, ranger, wizard or rogue
a spiritual experience before picking up a level in monk or cleric
then that's... a really terrible DM, and I wouldn't want to play anywhere nearby.

Some of those would be decent ways of limiting multi-classing for those who dislike it - it is an optional rule after all. Not that I would ever do that, I think - I'd prefer a "carrot" approach.

I completely agree there is nothing special about the warlock here - the same could be applied to all classes.

[Tanarii]

Maybe we could draw the lines at NAMES. For example, take the monk:

"Whatever name you use for a monk weapon, you can use the game Statistics provided for the weapon."

So where do you draw the line - if there is a line at all? Would you allow my thief to use a kama, or would he have to multi-class into monk just to use a weapon identical to the sickle for cosmetic reasons? Can I call my scimitar a falchion, or would that be house ruling?
Personally, I don't allow players to call something else a name that already labels associated rules. In other words, I don't care if you call your sickle a kama, as long as it follows all the rules for sickles, including proficiency, which stats you can use to attack with it, and how class features interact with it. I don't care if you call your Scimitar a Falchion, and another player calls their Battle Axe a Falchion. As long as everyone realizes I won't be handing out a Kama of Karma or a Falchion of Friendly Ferocity.

But if you try to call your Bow a Wand, or your Rapier a Longsword, that's not going to fly.

If a player wants to use a new weapon, as opposed to just renaming an existing one, they can come to me and I'll figure out it's nearest equivalence or make up new stats. But yeah, for Kama I'd go with Sickle. Any of the ones in the DMG I'd just go with them. For a Falchion I might make up a new weapon.

[MeeposFire]

Considering that in the PHB it tells you that you can represent various martial arts weapons using other weapon stats rather than creating new specific weapons for that purpose in the monk section I think that shows that the OP's position is incorrect. They have situations where they embrace this and I cannot think of any major things where they explicitly forbid refluffing (not not changing actual mechanics that is different just refluffing) so I do not follow how the OPs position would be true.

Now if you want to argue whether something is actually refluffing or houseruling that is a conversation that I think has merit or whether doing it too much or in certain ways may not work for you or other people I think can also have merit but I do not think that the edition itself is against and has actual examples making use of the concept so I do nto think I can support the OP's position.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Awesome to hear that (except the Behir part. I hope it got a bellyache!)

Which subclass? :)

He played a Tactician. He asked, and I allowed, his to take the Protection fighting style. Any reason why you didn't add that as one of the Fighting Styles?

And the Behir did not survive for very many days after that. The party specifically made a point to hunt it down. They all bought longspears to deal with it, lol.

I'm going to offer it again when I start my sandbox Eberron campaign in a couple months - I'll let you know playtesting from that if it does end up being picked.

[Eric Diaz]

Personally, I don't allow players to call something else a name that already labels associated rules. In other words, I don't care if you call your sickle a kama, as long as it follows all the rules for sickles, including proficiency, which stats you can use to attack with it, and how class features interact with it. I don't care if you call your Scimitar a Falchion, and another player calls their Battle Axe a Falchion. As long as everyone realizes I won't be handing out a Kama of Karma or a Falchion of Friendly Ferocity.

But if you try to call your Bow a Wand, or your Rapier a Longsword, that's not going to fly.

If a player wants to use a new weapon, as opposed to just renaming an existing one, they can come to me and I'll figure out it's nearest equivalence or make up new stats. But yeah, for Kama I'd go with Sickle. Any of the ones in the DMG I'd just go with them. For a Falchion I might make up a new weapon.

Yeah, I understand - so, just to make things clear, when I say "refluffing" I mean "as long as it follows all the rules [...], including proficiency, which stats you can use to attack with it, and how class features interact with it". Maybe "renaming" would be more clear.

But yeah, calling your bow a wand might have different effects.

[Vogie]

But yeah, calling your bow a wand might have different effects.

Unless, of course, it's conjured by a blade warlock with improved Pact weapon invocation... in which case, your bow can actually be used as a spellcasting focus, and calling it a wand isn't that far off.

On the other hand, if you're in a world with no firearms, and a player wants to play a spellcaster with a Hitsugi no Chaika theme (that is, they are wielding a something that looks like a firearm as their spellcasting focus) that would be perfectly fine.

https://img1.goodfon.com/wallpaper/big/9/80/hitsugi-no-chaika-chayka-i.jpg

[Theodoxus]

Maybe if it was a Cleric that wanted to pick up levels in Warlock, as they're both playing off a Deity-Devotee trope.

I'm playing a Life Cleric of Lathander/Celestial Warlock of Amauntor in an AL game.

I guess what I'm getting at, is there are always exceptions that make sense. Even back in the beginning of 5E, I was promoting a Fey/Ancients multiclass as perfectly logical - and that particular combination has been promoted ad nauseum as the exception that proves the rule.

Sure, there might be consequences, in game, if a player decides to play a Devotion/Fiend pallock. But that's settled in game. Presumably, they'd know that going in - or when first contemplating the multiclass. (though it's a lot harder to justify screwing them over if they go to Paladin 2 and then MC to warlock, since they haven't uttered an oath yet - but that just means the angst is delayed. muahahahaha.

[Arkhios]

He played a Tactician. He asked, and I allowed, his to take the Protection fighting style. Any reason why you didn't add that as one of the Fighting Styles?

I considered adding Protection fighting style as well, but ultimately I decided not to, merely to differentiate Warlord from Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger. Fighter gets them all, Paladin doesn't get Archery nor Two-Weapon Fighting, and Ranger doesn't get Protection nor Great Weapon Fighting. If you wish to allow Protection fighting style as well, it's your prerogative as the DM, just like any DM could allow two-weapon fighting (for example) for a Paladin. :smallsmile:


And the Behir did not survive for very many days after that. The party specifically made a point to hunt it down. They all bought longspears to deal with it, lol.

I'm sure that Behir got what was coming for it, eventually. That bastard! :smallbiggrin:


I'm going to offer it again when I start my sandbox Eberron campaign in a couple months - I'll let you know playtesting from that if it does end up being picked.

Awesome! I'm looking forward to any feedback from playtesting, as usual. Feel free to contact me with Personal Message when you have something worth mentioning. :smallsmile:

[TheCrowing1432]

Am....am I suffering from delirium or something?

Ive been playing 5e for the better part of two years now, and its nothing BUT refluffing (Which I absolutely LOVE about it)

Weapons, Skills, etc.

Tons of areas are encouraged by the DMG to be altered.

[MeeposFire]

Yeah, I understand - so, just to make things clear, when I say "refluffing" I mean "as long as it follows all the rules [...], including proficiency, which stats you can use to attack with it, and how class features interact with it". Maybe "renaming" would be more clear.

But yeah, calling your bow a wand might have different effects.

Oddly I would have less trouble as a DM but more of a player of trying to make that wand work (honestly I am not sure why I would try). I guess I could go with a "wood wand" that shoots out blasts of wood and is charged with specialized wood cores to fuel its blasts. The wood being shot is not magical but is magically shot out so it does normal piercing damage. All stats exactly the same as a bow. Not sure I would ever want such a thing but hey more power to you I guess.

As for a rapier being called a longsword I say go ahead naming conventions for most swords are problematic to start with and so long as the rapier longsword acts as a rapier at all times I do not care what you call it. Heck a number of what many are going to call longswords in fan art if they look like they are used more for stabbing may be better represented by the rapiers stats even though they may not be called that in the fan art.

[Mikal]

Relevant: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?550455-Fluffing-a-Finesse-spear

[Sol]

I always found it patronizing when I'm playing a not-so-rules-light game (it's an acceptable compromise in rules-light games like FATE) and want to play a concept that's not really supported by the rules, I get told that it's not a failing of the rules set, I just need to refluff it! You want to play a necromancer but the game doesn't support it? Play a ranger, and then pretend your animal companions are zombie warriors!

I mean, it's acceptable and even inevitable to some extent, but a lot of 21st century games take it too far. When I'm told that I can play my Fire Summoner by refluffing my fireball as conjuring a self-destructive fire elemental, it breaks my WSoD more than just being told that it's not supported by the rules, you know?

Thank you, 5E D&D developers, for not insulting my intelligence and just straight-up telling me that if something is not supported to the extent you'd expect in past editions/fantasy genre standards, it's not supported and may not ever be supported.*

* I still want a Psion and a Warlord sometime, though.

I have never found refluffing to be either patronising nor insulting to my intelligence. I find this post to be both.

[MeeposFire]

Relevant: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?550455-Fluffing-a-Finesse-spear

That one is actually houseruling or homebrewing even if the OP is saying refluffing. It is not a refluff as it is not changing the fluff of something that exists but the mechanical stats. If the idea was to cal his rapier a spear but mechanically it acts as rapier in all ways that is what I would call a refluff (just like nunchuks could be a club). Instead that thread is talking about taking the spear and making it melee finesse which is a different animal all together.

[Mikal]

That one is actually houseruling or homebrewing even if the OP is saying refluffing. It is not a refluff as it is not changing the fluff of something that exists but the mechanical stats. If the idea was to cal his rapier a spear but mechanically it acts as rapier in all ways that is what I would call a refluff (just like nunchuks could be a club). Instead that thread is talking about taking the spear and making it melee finesse which is a different animal all together.

Still amused me.

[MeeposFire]

Still amused me.

I think it serves a useful purpose though in that it shows either some of us have different definitions of what refluff means or that some do not understand the potentially subtle differences between a refluff or a houserule/homebrew.

[Knaight]

Whats wrong with fluffing something with your own name for it? The mechanics are not affected in any way.
That's basically the issue sometimes - the mechanics are created to represent particular parts of the fiction, and changing the fiction without changing the mechanics can run into issues. My favorite example of this is in the various attempts to use D&D for science fiction. You can refluff a wizard as some sort of nanotech technician, but it tends to run into problems quickly. You can refluff a crossbow as a fully automatic plasma rifle, but again you run into issues.

[Tanarii]

Am....am I suffering from delirium or something?

Ive been playing 5e for the better part of two years now, and its nothing BUT refluffing (Which I absolutely LOVE about it)

Weapons, Skills, etc.

Tons of areas are encouraged by the DMG to be altered.Agreed to your general point. 5e strongly encourages tailoring the game however you like, accross the spectrum of kinds of rules. From "fluff" to "hard mechanical rule" to all the other things that don't fit into a fluff/mechanical rule model.


Oddly I would have less trouble as a DM but more of a player of trying to make that wand work (honestly I am not sure why I would try). I guess I could go with a "wood wand" that shoots out blasts of wood and is charged with specialized wood cores to fuel its blasts. The wood being shot is not magical but is magically shot out so it does normal piercing damage. All stats exactly the same as a bow. Not sure I would ever want such a thing but hey more power to you I guess.Don't forget it also must use ammo that comes from a quiver, and cannot be used as a focus, despite being called a Wand, to qualify as all stats exactly the same as a bow. (Special class features notwithstanding.)

[Kuulvheysoon]

Don't forget it also must use ammo that comes from a quiver, and cannot be used as a focus, despite being called a Wand, to qualify as all stats exactly the same as a bow. (Special class features notwithstanding.)

Also that it needs to be a two handed wand, which is kind of an amusing image.

[MeeposFire]

Agreed to your general point. 5e strongly encourages tailoring the game however you like, accross the spectrum of kinds of rules. From "fluff" to "hard mechanical rule" to all the other things that don't fit into a fluff/mechanical rule model.

Don't forget it also must use ammo that comes from a quiver, and cannot be used as a focus, despite being called a Wand, to qualify as all stats exactly the same as a bow. (Special class features notwithstanding.)

I figured it was clear that the wood cores were the arrows but also refluffed but to make that clear yes it would be using the mechanical equivalent to an arrow as ammo. Indeed it could not be used as a focus for that would require a true wand or other specified focus and it would count as a bow in all things so arcane archers could use this wood wand unlike a user of an actual wand (though they would be described differently again).

[MeeposFire]

Also that it needs to be a two handed wand, which is kind of an amusing image.

Lol I forgot about that but that too can be dealt with by saying that you can hold the wand in one hand but it has a quite a kick when used (and while charging to fire hense why you need two hands before the shot goes off) and so requires two hands to actually fire it.

[Rhedyn]

Refluffing tends to stem from one of two possibilities.

1. The system is generic by design.
2. The group is going beyond what the system supports.

[Tanarii]

Also that it needs to be a two handed wand, which is kind of an amusing image.
Although not one I'd be willing to risk googling at work. :smallbiggrin:

[Kuulvheysoon]

Lol I forgot about that but that too can be dealt with by saying that you can hold the wand in one hand but it has a quite a kick when used (and while charging to fire hense why you need two hands before the shot goes off) and so requires two hands to actually fire it.


Although not one I'd be willing to risk googling at work. :smallbiggrin:
Something along these lines, perhaps? :smallbiggrin:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/92/dd/1c/92dd1cab76d71e01858f292e70b3f4b6.jpg

[Pex]

That very much so depends on what kind of game the DM is running/what kind of world you're playing in.

In my games, I do require people to give me storytelling reasons for why they have the classes they have, and much of it depends on how disparate the things being mixed together are. I don't usually require refluffing, but I do require justification.

You're a paladin, and now you want to pick up levels in warlock? Unless you're an oathbreaker, you're gonna need to give me some reasoning as to why you chose to sell your soul.

Why can't the paladin's deity be the patron?


I don't know what this "forced refluffing" you're talking about is.
99% of the time, the player is the one that initiates any potential refluffing.
That other 1% of the time, the DM will usually do it because whatever the item in question happens to be something that doesn't exist in his or her world. Refluff, or say No. Choice: refluff.
As to "being forced to justify your character," that's Role Playing. Actions and/or story that justifies the choices you made. That's Role Playing.
Might I quote you from a different thread?

So which is it? Does "rollplaying" drive you up a wall, or do you not want to Role Play? You can't have both.

I have nothing against refluffing. I'm all for it. The trend in the thread at the time was refluffing was badPlayerbad don't do that. I gave another point of view. You decided to make it a personal attack.

[DivisibleByZero]

I have nothing against refluffing. I'm all for it. The trend in the thread at the time was refluffing was badPlayerbad don't do that. I gave another point of view. You decided to make it a personal attack.

Wasn't an attack. I found it amusing, that's all.

[Saiga]

That's basically the issue sometimes - the mechanics are created to represent particular parts of the fiction, and changing the fiction without changing the mechanics can run into issues. My favorite example of this is in the various attempts to use D&D for science fiction. You can refluff a wizard as some sort of nanotech technician, but it tends to run into problems quickly. You can refluff a crossbow as a fully automatic plasma rifle, but again you run into issues.

I agree with this. As a player, I dislike refluffing something if the mechanics can't be tweaked to match.

An example, was that I wanted to create a Warlock who wielded a Spear and used Shilleagh, because of the character they were inspired by. I pointed out that there isn't a tonne of difference between Spears and Quarterstaves, and both are made of wood. The DM allowed it... on the condition that my spear lacked the thrown property, was completely wooden, and only dealt bludgeoning damage. That's annoying to me, as I wasn't trying to break anything - hell, Shilleagh ends if you let go of the weapon, so I couldn't throw it anyway - and the damage type is, in 90% of cases, not mechanically significant.

Using a spear that deals bludgeoning damage is just a reminder that my character isn't doing what I actually want them to do. It doesn't feel good.

It's the same thing as refluffing the Rapier into a (non-versatile) Longsword or Falchion. If I am restricted to piercing damage, I'm always going to be conscious that I'm wielding a rapier on a character it doesn't fit.

I dislike refluffing things without making them mechanically fit what they are.

[Malifice]

Wasn't there something about a Greater Evil in the Vengeance vows?

Yep. My vengeance paladin is LE and worships Bane.

He views the 'Greater Evil' as the LG church of Torm, and its deluded Paladins.

Hes a fascist, a tyrant and honestly believes (in a self deluded way that escapes him) that he's working towards a brighter and more noble future, by engaging in genocide, pogroms and uniting Faerun under the banner of the black hand.

[DivisibleByZero]

- hell, Shilleagh ends if you let go of the weapon, so I couldn't throw it anyway - and the damage type is, in 90% of cases, not mechanically significant.

Using a spear that deals bludgeoning damage is just a reminder that my character isn't doing what I actually want them to do. It doesn't feel good.
It's more like 99%.
If it can't be thrown anyway, and 99% of the time the damage type doesn't matter, then why were you so hung up about it?
The difference is only in your head.

[MeeposFire]

I agree with this. As a player, I dislike refluffing something if the mechanics can't be tweaked to match.

An example, was that I wanted to create a Warlock who wielded a Spear and used Shilleagh, because of the character they were inspired by. I pointed out that there isn't a tonne of difference between Spears and Quarterstaves, and both are made of wood. The DM allowed it... on the condition that my spear lacked the thrown property, was completely wooden, and only dealt bludgeoning damage. That's annoying to me, as I wasn't trying to break anything - hell, Shilleagh ends if you let go of the weapon, so I couldn't throw it anyway - and the damage type is, in 90% of cases, not mechanically significant.

Using a spear that deals bludgeoning damage is just a reminder that my character isn't doing what I actually want them to do. It doesn't feel good.

It's the same thing as refluffing the Rapier into a (non-versatile) Longsword or Falchion. If I am restricted to piercing damage, I'm always going to be conscious that I'm wielding a rapier on a character it doesn't fit.

I dislike refluffing things without making them mechanically fit what they are.

Let us call a spade a spade what you are wanting to do is not refluffing because you want to change the mechanics. You want a houserule or homebrew solution which may not be a bad thing but it requires the DM to actually weigh their options on how they should do something. A refluff would not change anything at all mechanically which means no actual ruling is needed.

[Saiga]

Let us call a spade a spade what you are wanting to do is not refluffing because you want to change the mechanics. You want a houserule or homebrew solution which may not be a bad thing but it requires the DM to actually weigh their options on how they should do something. A refluff would not change anything at all mechanically which means no actual ruling is needed.

Well, that's kind of my argument. Refluffing sometimes isn't enough because of what it is. Minor mechanical changes would be preferred for what I'm trying to do.

@DBZ I'm not hung up on it, I just don't see why a DM would need to oppose a minor change.

[DivisibleByZero]

@DBZ I'm not hung up on it, I just don't see why a DM would need to oppose a minor change.

Because a minor change to the mechanics is not a refluff. Refluff is changing the fluff.
What you're proposing is changing the crunch.

I'm not saying that it will break anything, but it isn't a refluff. It's a homebrewed weapon. And maybe he's not into that idea.

[Knaight]

Because a minor change to the mechanics is not a refluff. Refluff is changing the fluff.
What you're proposing is changing the crunch.

This is literally the point. A refluff is being pointed out as insufficient, and thus a crunch change (albeit an incredibly tiny one) is required to make the concept work instead.


I'm not saying that it will break anything, but it isn't a refluff. It's a homebrewed weapon. And maybe he's not into that idea
The DM not wanting to make alterations applies just as much to fluff as crunch.

[DivisibleByZero]

This is literally the point. A refluff is being pointed out as insufficient, and thus a crunch change (albeit an incredibly tiny one) is required to make the concept work instead.

But it is sufficient.
He himself admitted that it could not be thrown regardless, and that damage type makes no difference in the extreme vast majority of the time. He essentially refuted both of the "reasons" that he's calling it insufficient by himself.
So I say again, the difference is only in your/his mind.

[Saiga]

But it is sufficient.
He himself admitted that it could not be thrown regardless, and that damage type makes no difference in the extreme vast majority of the time. He essentially refuted both of the "reasons" that he's calling it insufficient by himself.
So I say again, the difference is only in your/his mind.

No, I didn't refute anything. I wasn't looking for mechanical benefits, just for the mechanics to actually match what I was using. Spears should deal piercing damage, it's not about the mechanical effect.

The whole GAME is in our minds. That's the entire premise of a roleplaying game.

[DivisibleByZero]

No, I didn't refute anything. I wasn't looking for mechanical benefits, just for the mechanics to actually match what I was using. Spears should deal piercing damage, it's not about the mechanical effect.

The whole GAME is in our minds. That's the entire premise of a roleplaying game.

And if they removed damage "types" from the game, like many upon many RPGs do?
The only reason this refulff isn't sufficient for your purposes is because you have imposed artificial reasons.
99% of the time, damage type doesn't matter. 1d8 damage is 1d8 damage. It isn't working in your mind because you can't get past a superficial difference that literally almost never actually matters.

[Vaz]

No, I didn't refute anything. I wasn't looking for mechanical benefits, just for the mechanics to actually match what I was using. Spears should deal piercing damage, it's not about the mechanical effect.

The whole GAME is in our minds. That's the entire premise of a roleplaying game.

Yes. You are looking for a mechanical benefit. You are looking to gain a benefit when attacking a creature who is resistant to bludgeoning damage but not piercing damage. However minor that is, or even on a 1:1 swap, you are looking for a mechanical benefit/change.

Refuting that it's not a mechanical change to how the printed weapon works is just flat out wrong.

Me personally, as a DM, I'd allow it, but I'm not your DM.

[JackPhoenix]

Yes. You are looking for a mechanical benefit. You are looking to gain a benefit when attacking a creature who is resistant to bludgeoning damage but not piercing damage. However minor that is, or even on a 1:1 swap, you are looking for a mechanical benefit/change.

Refuting that it's not a mechanical change to how the printed weapon works is just flat out wrong.

Me personally, as a DM, I'd allow it, but I'm not your DM.

Funnily enough, bludgeoning is better damage type than piercing (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage). There are 10 creatures resistant to piercing damage and 8 creatures resistant to bludgeoning. Also, 4 creatures vulnerable to bludgeoning damage, but nothing with vulnerability to piercing.

[Vaz]

Funnily enough, bludgeoning is better damage type than piercing (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage). There are 10 creatures resistant to piercing damage and 8 creatures resistant to bludgeoning. Also, 4 creatures vulnerable to bludgeoning damage, but nothing with vulnerability to piercing.

Irrelevant if those creatures don't appear, however. That does work both ways, but there's a mechanical difference nonetheless.

[Tanarii]

No, I didn't refute anything. I wasn't looking for mechanical benefits, just for the mechanics to actually match what I was using.Wanting to use Shillelagh with a club spear is a "mechanical benefit".

You get to use additional proficiencies with the cantrip. You get to use additional found magical items with the cantrip. That's a mechanical benefit. But it's a pretty minor one, all things considered.

The bigger thing for me is: how is a cantrip named "awesome Irish bludgeon" working with a spear at all? That's not flavor, that's a anti-flavor. 😂 It's like saying "I want my Fireball to be an Iceball." Sure, there's no particular mechanical balance reason to not do it, but it sure triggers warnings that you're actually after a mechanical benefit, not adding character specific flavor.

[strangebloke]

Refluffing is awesome, much like homebrew and everything else is awesome. Who wants to play some generic fighting man anyway?
I encourage my players to come up with a concept that they think would be fun, and we'll butcher the system to make it work if we have to. Want to be a berserker who's a fistfighter? Ok, you can TWF with your fists, TWF fighting style, to which you now have access, just adds an extra attack, bringing you up to three attacks at level 5, or 4 attacks with frenzy. Looks good, and the math doesn't look too stupid.

You want all your druid shapes to be bears, even if they have the stats of a spider or whatever? Go for it! That's no TRex, that's an Ancient Dire Bear (who's old and forgot how to use his claws.).


Yes. You are looking for a mechanical benefit. You are looking to gain a benefit when attacking a creature who is resistant to bludgeoning damage but not piercing damage. However minor that is, or even on a 1:1 swap, you are looking for a mechanical benefit/change.

Refuting that it's not a mechanical change to how the printed weapon works is just flat out wrong.

Me personally, as a DM, I'd allow it, but I'm not your DM.

AS everyone has said, he was wrong to call it a refluffing. It's (slightly) more than that.

However, you calling it a benefit is also kind of silly. It's a transferral between two of the most synonymous damage types in the game. Just a change, not a benefit.

[Tanarii]

You want all your druid shapes to be bears, even if they have the stats of a spider or whatever? Go for it! That's no TRex, that's an Ancient Dire Bear (who's old and forgot how to use his claws.).Given the Druid Wild Shape requires seeking the creature, this requires the DM introducing all these new kinds of bears into his campaign world.

Which is IMO a fantastic way to deal with not wanting Dinosaurs in your campaign world! :smallbiggrin:


AS everyone has said, he was wrong to call it a refluffing. It's (slightly) more than that.He was not wrong about anything. He very clearly said it was a mechanical change, not just refluffing.

And keep in mind I'm the one who has been making a big deal that mechanical changes are not refluffing, under the fluff/mechanical model.

Quotes showing exactly where Saiga he was perfectly clear in his post that he was talking about more than just refluffing:

I agree with this. As a player, I dislike refluffing something if the mechanics can't be tweaked to match.

I dislike refluffing things without making them mechanically fit what they are.

[DivisibleByZero]

Quotes showing exactly where Saiga he was perfectly clear in his post that he was talking about more than just refluffing:

I agree with this. As a player, I dislike refluffing something if the mechanics can't be tweaked to match.
I dislike refluffing things without making them mechanically fit what they are

But he isn't talking about refluffing. It isn't "more than just refluffing," it isn't refluffing at all.
He's saying he doesn't like refluffing at all, and only likes homebrewing.

Consider:
I don't like vanilla ice cream unless it is also made with chocolate.
Guess what? You don't like vanilla ice cream at all. So don't make chocolate ice cream and then tell us that it's vanilla.

If you also change the mechanics, it's no longer refluffing, it's homebrewing.
Refluffing is keeping mechanics and changing explanations or descriptions. If you also change the mechanics, it is not a fluff change.

[strangebloke]

Given the Druid Wild Shape requires seeking the creature, this requires the DM introducing all these new kinds of bears into his campaign world.

Which is IMO a fantastic way to deal with not wanting Dinosaurs in your campaign world! :smallbiggrin:


I would just say that it's a new bear type he dreamed up as an expert in bear theory. Sort of an idealized bear, you might say, that may or may not exist in the real word.

So I guess this is a mechanical change since there are rules for 'seeking out animals' but I've never seen a DM actually make that one a sticking point.

[FabulousChester]

I have a couple GMs who hate all things eastern, and see the monk as anathema to D&D.

So, I often get by through refluffing my monks as brawlers, Greek fist fighters, or some such and come up with whatever campaign relevant BS to waive why I get stuff like Empty Body.

I've also told the GMs to shut up, it's not set on our Earth, it's fantasy, and get over it. (More politely, of course.)

[Mith]

I would just say that it's a new bear type he dreamed up as an expert in bear theory. Sort of an idealized bear, you might say, that may or may not exist in the real word.

So I guess this is a mechanical change since there are rules for 'seeking out animals' but I've never seen a DM actually make that one a sticking point.

So the apply Aristotle's Theory of Forms to get new Wildshapes? I like it.

[Vogie]

I would just say that it's a new bear type he dreamed up as an expert in bear theory. Sort of an idealized bear, you might say, that may or may not exist in the real word.

So I guess this is a mechanical change since there are rules for 'seeking out animals' but I've never seen a DM actually make that one a sticking point.

Maybe an archaeologist druid who has only seen a partial skeleton of the bear.

[Pex]

Yep. My vengeance paladin is LE and worships Bane.

He views the 'Greater Evil' as the LG church of Torm, and its deluded Paladins.

Hes a fascist, a tyrant and honestly believes (in a self deluded way that escapes him) that he's working towards a brighter and more noble future, by engaging in genocide, pogroms and uniting Faerun under the banner of the black hand.

My favorite Forgotten Realms deity is Torm.
In my paladin game, he's a Devotion paladin of Torm.

No wonder we disagree so much.

[strangebloke]

The thing is, I really can't be opposed to refluffing (even with mechanical tweaks) in my games because I do that all the time.

I had this obscene super spider I threw at the party. It was living in a world-between-worlds, sabotaging the material plane from it's web-world in the unending forests. The thing was a fricking sphinx. Teleportation, flying, legendary resistances, the whole nine yards. Screaming instead of roaring, and piercing instead of slashing, but.... that was it. And they thought it was rad as heck and a really cool homebrew monster. They had no idea what it was and they were panicking trying to figure it out.

Refluffing is how you put the painmagic back into the game.

[FabulousChester]

The thing is, I really can't be opposed to refluffing (even with mechanical tweaks) in my games because I do that all the time.

I had this obscene super spider I threw at the party. It was living in a world-between-worlds, sabotaging the material plane from it's web-world in the unending forests. The thing was a fricking sphinx. Teleportation, flying, legendary resistances, the whole nine yards. Screaming instead of roaring, and piercing instead of slashing, but.... that was it. And they thought it was rad as heck and a really cool homebrew monster. They had no idea what it was and they were panicking trying to figure it out.

Refluffing is how you put the painmagic back into the game.

100% agree on that. Also, nice application of refluff.

[Knaight]

Yes. You are looking for a mechanical benefit. You are looking to gain a benefit when attacking a creature who is resistant to bludgeoning damage but not piercing damage. However minor that is, or even on a 1:1 swap, you are looking for a mechanical benefit/change.
Benefits and changes aren't the same thing. They're looking for a change to the mechanics because they want the mechanics to represent the fiction and spears doing bludgeoning damage primarily really doesn't do that. There's no actual benefit here


But he isn't talking about refluffing. It isn't "more than just refluffing," it isn't refluffing at all.
He's saying he doesn't like refluffing at all, and only likes homebrewing.
He's saying that he doesn't like refluffing when it causes the mechanics to no longer fit. Refluffing a staff as a spear causes a situation where the mechanics representing a spear include a damage type of bludgeoning. This is a bad representation - if the designers had put that on their weapon table they'd be mocked and/or criticized for it. The same thing applies to my examples they were agreeing with. Refluffing a crossbow as a fully automatic plasma rifle results in a fully automatic plasma rifle that does piercing damage, has no meaningful covering fire rules, and that can be fired once per round. It's a bad mechanical representation.


If you also change the mechanics, it's no longer refluffing, it's homebrewing.
Refluffing is keeping mechanics and changing explanations or descriptions. If you also change the mechanics, it is not a fluff change.
Literally everyone here is on the same page about this.

[Theodoxus]

Refluffing a staff as a spear causes a situation where the mechanics representing a spear include a damage type of bludgeoning. This is a bad representation - if the designers had put that on their weapon table they'd be mocked and/or criticized for it.

Because bashing someone over the head with a wooden spear is mechanically impossible...

It's perfectly fine to rule that a spear can't be used to bash - because it's gamist, and there's nothing inherently wrong with treating a game like a game. But since darn near the dawn of history, folk have been taking a walking stick, whittling one end into a point, fire-hardening said point, and using it as a spear - while still beating things over the head with the blunt end, like a staff...

If the designers had properly explained why a spear can be used like a staff, we wouldn't mock or criticize them for it - unless they had both spears and staves on the list, that literally do the same thing... kinda like spears and tridents currently.

For whatever reason, the devs didn't want multi-damage type weapons. Morningstars have historically been B/P - but not in 5th. So, spears can't be B/P either - and changing them would be a mechanical change not a fluff one - even though 99% of the time, it won't matter. However, that 1%, a B/P spear becomes darn near required. Fighting skeletons and zombies mixed together? And the whole campaign is basically a 'fight the necromancers army' - everyone would want a B/P mixed weapon...