reflavouring mechanics - how much is too much?

[Lobsterphone]

I'm playing a druid right now, and I don't like the look of my character with a big dumb shield. I asked my DM if I can go through whatever shield-acquiring process they like (buying one or w/e) so that I could have the mechanical benefits of one, but not actually register that in game, and instead pretend my character is just extra evasive.

They gave me hard, knee-jerk no. They said I couldn't raise my AC without having an express reason, and since evasiveness in AC is governed by dex mods, I couldn't pretend I was getting that from my pretend shield.

I feel like a player should be able to do anything they ****in want, as long as they're following the rules in a mechanical sense. I feel like there's a mechanical optimal path for all classes, and if these options aren't reflavoured, the game just looks and feels the same all the time. I feel like using your imagination the one reason someone would want to play a game powered by creativity and not computer code.

Am I crazy? If not, where's the line for how much a player can pretend is going on? Obviously the DM should accommodate what their players want to do, but if their headcanon breaks the canon of the world, it can hurt the game for other players, but if no one cares, is the sky the limit?

[Quoz]

I'm all about rewriting fluff, so if you wanted a frying pan, a barrel lid, or some other one-handed item that gives a shield bonus to AC, I would probably allow it. But things that change mechanics I would probably say no. Would your 'extra evasiveness' apply to wild shape? Let you still use a 2nd hand for weapons, items, or grappling? If so it's a significant advantage and not a simple style change.

[Connington]

This level of refluffing breaks my suspension of disbelief like a twig. The concerns about free hands and wild shape have been mentioned, but what if your character is disarmed? Are they just inexplicable less evasive then? Have they sworn an oath not to use their off hand for fighting or magic in combat? What are you even supposed to be paying money FOR?

I'm in favor of refluffing when it fits, but this would be a massive reach for me.

[Lobsterphone]

Oh absolutely not. The understanding was that I would follow the mechanical requirements to the letter, but simply pretend no shield is there.

I even suggested the character could lose their left arm the next time they get criticaled, assuming I could still gain the mechanical benefits the class is supposed to have.

The hide armoured druid with a wooden shield and a quarterstaff is such an annoyingly overused visual that I just want something different, but ideally I'd like to not be punished for trying to build upon the conventional "druid look" for dnd that was established almost 50 years ago.

[Lobsterphone]

what if your character is disarmed? Are they just inexplicably less evasive then?

That's legit actually I hadn't thought of that. The DM hasn't used disarms yet, but in the event that it cropped up, I would assume they'd rework the shield-targeting disarm into some other manoeuvre.

Clearly you lads aren't fans, but I'd argue that the immersion of the precise justification of mechanical AC is less important than the visual of a player's character.

[CorporateSlave]

That's legit actually I hadn't thought of that. The DM hasn't used disarms yet, but in the event that it cropped up, I would assume they'd rework the shield-targeting disarm into some other manoeuvre.

Clearly you lads aren't fans, but I'd argue that the immersion of the precise justification of mechanical AC is less important than the visual of a player's character.

No way you could go with your "shield" being some sort of solid bracer that isn't much bulkier than your arm, but still weighs the same, requires use of the hand, can be removed, requires an Action to don or doff in combat, etc? Frankly as a DM, trying to say "oh I'm sticking to the same mechanics but I don't have a shield" would feel like you're trying to trap me somehow down the line with a "but I don't have a shield!" excuse.

Reflavoring something into something else is one thing, reflavoring something into nothing at all is a bit of a reach.

[Lunali]

Stuff like this depends greatly on knowing your DM and them knowing you. If your DM knows you well enough to know that it's just a fluff change then they are far more likely to give it to you than if they think you might be angling towards an advantage now or in the future.

[Griswold]

Am I crazy? If not, where's the line for how much a player can pretend is going on? Obviously the DM should accommodate what their players want to do, but if their headcanon breaks the canon of the world, it can hurt the game for other players, but if no one cares, is the sky the limit?

I'd be all for it. As long as you lose the use of one hand, pay the money, etc., no reason you can't reflavor it all you like. We're playing an imaginary fun game. I'm all for more fun for imagining your character however you want. I don't know how pretending you don't have a shield ruins your DM's fun.

I'm not for being passive aggressive, but if I were, I would get a mini for my character that's got a weapon in one hand and an empty other hand. Oh no! Would such a mini not be allowed because mechanically I have a shield?

[JoeJ]

I'm not for being passive aggressive, but if I were, I would get a mini for my character that's got a weapon in one hand and an empty other hand. Oh no! Would such a mini not be allowed because mechanically I have a shield?

Are you seriously playing at a table where the appearance of your miniature has any effect whatsoever on your character? I've never encountered that.

[SociopathFriend]

I'd be all for it. As long as you lose the use of one hand, pay the money, etc., no reason you can't reflavor it all you like. We're playing an imaginary fun game. I'm all for more fun for imagining your character however you want. I don't know how pretending you don't have a shield ruins your DM's fun.

I'm not for being passive aggressive, but if I were, I would get a mini for my character that's got a weapon in one hand and an empty other hand. Oh no! Would such a mini not be allowed because mechanically I have a shield?

Kinda jumping to a different argument there mate.

[SVamp]

I don’t have a huge problem reflavouring a shield into say an orb. Or a twig of shielding. Or something else you have to use in the exact same way as a shield: can be disarmed, can be dropped, need war caster to cast with, weighs x, is made of material Y, can be sundered, etc etc.

Reflavouring into nothing? That’s a hard nope.

You might have an easier time pushing a custom feat into play that does what you want, while preventing you from using a shield or a second weapon or a two handed weapon (quarterstaff, etc) while held in one hand, or a single weapon with a two handed grip while still getting the benefits of the feat. But even this isn’t an easy sell, but at least at the cost of a feat I might be willing to consider it (see war caster)

[Mellack]

I am with the others in saying that if you want to reflavor a shield as something else similar, go right ahead. When you want to change it to nothing, that is a hard no. When fighter Bob gets his shield eaten by a rust monster, do you just get to ignore it? Nope, seems out of bounds for my table.

[JoeJ]

Would you consider draping a heavy cloak over your arm and using that as a shield? That's a real-world fencing style, so it shouldn't be too hard to sell it to your DM.

[unusualsuspect]

I'm a huge proponent for reflavoring mechanics to better suit a character concept.

That said, there can and should be limits to that, and that will be heavily based on the enjoyment of other players at the table - if my reflavoring breaks verisimilitude in a substantial way (say, someone who pays money for an object, is "equipped" with an object that can be disarmed, but doesn't have an object to disarm), I'm sacrificing the enjoyment of others for what amounts to a fairly minor uptick in my own enjoyment.

Bracers, a draped cloak, a literal log https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/lord-of-the-rings-and-hobbit-film/images/3/39/Oak_shield.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/220?cb=20150212214009, a special holy symbol wrapped your hand with animated vines that deflect incoming attacks...

Make your reflavoring MAKE SENSE IN CONTEXT as more than just "I want all the benefits not but all of the drawbacks and the looks" and you'll have a better time convincing your DM and fellow players to play along with your character presentation whims.

[Trask]

I feel like the physical presence of a shield would come up a lot.

When you are disarmed

Rust monsters

Crawling through a tight space

Meeting for diplomacy without any weapons or armor

And probably more

[Pex]

Ooh, that. A petrified log to be used as a shield.

Reflavoring mechanics is fine, but I agree it's up to a point. It's not a universal point. It's the point of view of the DM. The DM is in his rights to outright say no to everything, but he shouldn't. Work with the player not against him and vice versa of the player with the DM.

[Quietus]

That's legit actually I hadn't thought of that. The DM hasn't used disarms yet, but in the event that it cropped up, I would assume they'd rework the shield-targeting disarm into some other manoeuvre.

Clearly you lads aren't fans, but I'd argue that the immersion of the precise justification of mechanical AC is less important than the visual of a player's character.

The issue there is that you're putting more work on the DM's plate. They now have to :

A) Remember that you're 'using a shield' mechanically, despite your constant descriptions of not having one
B) Justify enemies taking actions that would take into account you having a shield, despite you not having one
C) Spend time deciding, on the fly, how to refluff those actions in ways that take all of this into account

If you want the AC from an object that occupies your off hand, takes extra time to put on/take off, costs money to acquire - then at least have the decency of picking an item that you are using in place of a shield. Lots of suggestions have been made here.

[Samayu]

Ask Thorin Oakenshield about reflavoring a shield into something else.

[TyGuy]

I also don't really like the caster with a shield idea personally, and while thinking about what I would do in your situation I thought of this.

A druid using a moose antler, gripped like a tonfa. OMG I'm using this one day.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I feel like the physical presence of a shield would come up a lot.

When you are disarmed

Rust monsters

Crawling through a tight space

Meeting for diplomacy without any weapons or armor

And probably more

I think some people forget that shield can be made of wood and that a Druid by the book will not use a metal one.

I may be wrong but Rust Monsters go after metal.


To the topic, you need something visable that can be interacted with and take your arm space.

[LudicSavant]

In past editions of D&D, one of the kinds of shields you could get was a "dueling cloak." 5e of course makes no differentiation between types of shields, whether it be a buckler or a tower.

If you want to have a physical object, perhaps fluffing something like this would work:
https://i.postimg.cc/hvm0KmsT/235f4efc4356aa72a06c163b1d8c339c.jpg

[Mordaedil]

I don't mind reflavoring shields, but obviously, as others have pointed out, it needs to occupy the same level of occupation.

It also needs to be something someone can take from you and use themselves. You also have the option to, you know, not buy or use a shield. Use a two-handed weapon instead.

[SVamp]

I think some people forget that shield can be made of wood and that a Druid by the book will not use a metal one.

I may be wrong but Rust Monsters go after metal.


To the topic, you need something visable that can be interacted with and take your arm space.

Pretty sure everything except maybe prehistoric/earliest civilizations wooden shields would be reinforced with metal and/or have functional metal parts that were an important part of the shield, so they’d still be yummy rust monster food. You can have the no longer functioning piece of wood they leave behind back though, as a souvenir :smalltongue:

Still, I’d be willing to work with a wooden only shield-like prop, like magic antlers or the Druid having learned to use antlers as a shield or something along those lines. But if it’s not affected by rust monsters, it’s now affected by fire, just saying..

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Pretty sure everything except maybe prehistoric/earliest civilizations wooden shields would be reinforced with metal and/or have functional metal parts that were an important part of the shield, so they’d still be yummy rust monster food. You can have the no longer functioning piece of wood they leave behind back though, as a souvenir :smalltongue:

Still, I’d be willing to work with a wooden only shield-like prop, like magic antlers or the Druid having learned to use antlers as a shield or something along those lines. But if it’s not affected by rust monsters, it’s now affected by fire, just saying..

But if you aay that every wooden shield have metal part, RAW Druids can't use shields.

Wikipedia say it didn't always had metal parts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield

I started quoting from there but there was to much stuff to quote. Including a 19th century Zolo and knights in heavy armour.
Most of the time the metal was only decorations but there was also metal shields.

Edit:
Apparently wood and leather are easier to use and lighter then metal.
Weapon and armor need to be easy to create, ‏reaper and use.

[Lobsterphone]

These are all really fantastic comments guys, and I'm certainly now appreciating that this situation is a bit more complicated than I thought before.

There were some incredible alternative suggestions in here too! Barkskin arm and antler tonfa is absolutely inspired, and is exactly the shot of originality I was desperate for.

Thanks for setting me straight. This is my first post on this site, and I don't really use forums, but you guys have been super insightful and understanding!

[CorporateSlave]

But if you aay that every wooden shield have metal part, RAW Druids can't use shields.


Technically, they can, they just won't.

PHB 5e Druid:

Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)

This is further clarified in the Sage Advice Compendium:

Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it.

I always imagine that while a Druid may generally eschew the use of metal to protect themselves, if it was life and death one might scoop a stray metal shield up off the ground to deflect a blow, then cast it aside distastefully (similar to Obi-Wan Kenobi using a blaster to defeat General Grievous at the end of Revenge of the Sith).

Point is slightly off topic, but thought it interesting to clarify that metal doesn't hurt* Druids or interfere with their abilities, they just don't like it.

(*unless you stab them with it!):smallbiggrin:

[Brutalitops]

Oh absolutely not. The understanding was that I would follow the mechanical requirements to the letter, but simply pretend no shield is there.

I even suggested the character could lose their left arm the next time they get criticaled, assuming I could still gain the mechanical benefits the class is supposed to have.

The hide armoured druid with a wooden shield and a quarterstaff is such an annoyingly overused visual that I just want something different, but ideally I'd like to not be punished for trying to build upon the conventional "druid look" for dnd that was established almost 50 years ago.


Maybe instead of getting the gm to flavor the shied as a thick wooden shield perhaps have it as a very thin shield made of a light material that you use to deflect stuff with. Try to work with the flavor and except the fact you need something on your arm but redefine what that is.

[Shuruke]

Id like to point out that there is a difference between re flavoring something and wanting its statistical benefit but hand waiving it as not beong there.

Asking for somatic components to be dancing as a bladesong wizard is different than asking for theatrically having no somatic components


Now , if u really want the feel of being extra evasive and nimble than take one level monk to get dex and wis for a.c. if wis is more than 2 than itd even be better statistically but have a cost

[OverLordOcelot]

I feel like using your imagination the one reason someone would want to play a game powered by creativity and not computer code.

I don't consider "I'm just better than everyone else so I get the benefits without using equipment" to be imaginative or creative at all, it's just "look at me I'm SUPER BETTER than any of you". I actually find the idea of claiming that "I am just a lot better than everyone else" is imaginative and accusing me of being unimaginative or hampering creativity if I don't allow it to be red-flag behavior, as it's manipulative and deceptive, especially as a go-to response. There are a lot of good suggestions in this thread that I would have no problem with at all, but the 'I want to just get the benefits' followed by 'if you don't allow this, you're clearly opposed to imagination' is extremely off-putting.

[Skyblaze]

Why not just...don't have a shield?

[Shuruke]

Why not just...don't have a shield?

Because he still wants the +2 a.c

[Chronos]

It's not enough to say that you could still be stripped of the benefit by someone doing something that would take away a shield. If I'm fighting someone who's described as wielding a shield, and I'm finding it hard to hit, I might reasonably say "I want to take away his shield". If I'm fighting someone who's described as just being evasive, I'm not going to say "I want to take away his extra evasiveness". Even if the DM would allow it, I would have no way of knowing that the DM would allow it, because by the description, it doesn't make sense, so I'd never even attempt it.

And then what happens when you find a magic shield in your adventures, and you want to upgrade? "OK, the evil warlord's shield was magical, who wants it, the fighter or the druid? Oh, the druid? In that case, the warlord wasn't wearing a shield, and you now have his not-a-shield."

[Lobsterphone]

I actually find the idea of claiming that "I am just a lot better than everyone else" is imaginative and accusing me of being unimaginative or hampering creativity if I don't allow it to be red-flag behavior, as it's manipulative and deceptive, especially as a go-to response.

I've clearly gotten your goat, and for that I apologise. I'm not a veteran dnd player, and I've only been aware of it for a year or so. In my experience there's more hand waiving and reductionism in the nature of fifth edition's ruleset and style than other iterations of tabletop RPGs, and i've seen rules be described in a very fluid sense in some cases by WotC.

To that end, my question was more: "Does anyone really care if I completely shatter the rules in a flavour sense as long as I'm following them exhaustively in a mechanical one" and the answer to that has been a resounding "yes, obviously."

I've always preferred to withhold statistically advantageous options for my characters to best fit their aesthetic, and that's probably what I'll do here. I just thought that if the druid had been balanced to have an extra 2AC thrown in there, would it really matter how it got there?

It seems quite rare to see a druid illustrated with a shield, because it just looks so weird and out of place, and it frustrated me that there was such a simplistic, cheap, effective and weirdly unconventional mechanical advantage to the class that changes the whole look.

To clarify a point, the "shield" arm would go strictly unused for combat mechanics, culminating in an actual arm loss, while the back-end math of the shield would always be processed into higher AC. But clearly this overcomplicates / invalidates disarm rules, and the whole thing seems to create more problems than it solves, at least where disarm is concerned.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I've clearly gotten your goat, and for that I apologise. I'm not a veteran dnd player, and I've only been aware of it for a year or so. In my experience there's more hand waiving and reductionism in the nature of fifth edition's ruleset and style than other iterations of tabletop RPGs, and i've seen rules be described in a very fluid sense in some cases by WotC.

To that end, my question was more: "Does anyone really care if I completely shatter the rules in a flavour sense as long as I'm following them exhaustively in a mechanical one" and the answer to that has been a resounding "yes, obviously."

I've always preferred to withhold statistically advantageous options for my characters to best fit their aesthetic, and that's probably what I'll do here. I just thought that if the druid had been balanced to have an extra 2AC thrown in there, would it really matter how it got there?

It seems quite rare to see a druid illustrated with a shield, because it just looks so weird and out of place, and it frustrated me that there was such a simplistic, cheap, effective and weirdly unconventional mechanical advantage to the class that changes the whole look.

To clarify a point, the "shield" arm would go strictly unused for combat mechanics, culminating in an actual arm loss, while the back-end math of the shield would always be processed into higher AC. But clearly this overcomplicates / invalidates disarm rules, and the whole thing seems to create more problems than it solves, at least where disarm is concerned.

Well, you can do everything if your DM agree, I played at tables where it will be allowed and tables were it wouldn't.

[OverLordOcelot]

[QUOTE=Lobsterphone;23800470]I've clearly gotten your goat, and for that I apologise. I'm not a veteran dnd player, and I've only been aware of it for a year or so. In my experience there's more hand waiving and reductionism in the nature of fifth edition's ruleset and style than other iterations of tabletop RPGs, and i've seen rules be described in a very fluid sense in some cases by WotC.

You don't have anything to apologize for here; your posts didn't bother me on a personal level at all. You also don't really seem to be engaging in the pattern that I pointed out, you're sounding out ideas here which is fine. What I was trying to do is let you know that the sequence "I want to do this" "No" "You're opposed to imagination/creativity" is something that is a major warning sign for a lot of people so that you don't do it without realizing it.

[Aquillion]

Try bracers (think Wonder Woman.) Of course, with non-magical bracers, you have to devote your hand to using them; you can't have anything in it or be using a two-handed weapon. (Some people might object, pointing to Bracers of Defense - but those leave your hand free, which is a crucial difference. Also, they can be used without shield proficiency. Refluffing your shield as a bracer doesn't accomplish any of that.)

Ask your DM to let you find an Animated Shield. Or, well, Bracers of Defense.


Technically, they can, they just won't.

PHB 5e Druid:

Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)

This is further clarified in the Sage Advice Compendium:

Druids don’t lack the ability to wear metal armor. They choose not to wear it.This does lead to weird roleplaying / DM interactions, though.

PC: "After that life-harrowing experience, my Druid realizes he needs better defense and decides to wear metal armor."

DM: "No, he doesn't. He doesn't decide that. He continues to choose not to wear metal armor."

PC: "He's my character! He chooses to wear metal armor!"

DM: "No. He. Doesn't. He hates metal armor. Metal armor killed his parents."

Like... I can understand a DM refusing to just allow metal armor just like that, but making it unambiguously the PC's choice puts a DM in an awkward place if a PC insists their character wouldn't make that decision, since usually, a DM doesn't want to dictate what a PC thinks or how they behave.

To avoid that, I'd just go with "Druid spellcasting and wild shape don't work if you're wearing metal armor."

(Of course, it's possible that the intent of making it a choice was that players could override it? The shield restriction has no mechanical impact at all, and while the armor restriction matters sometimes, high-AC alternatives made from dragon scales and the like do exist. It's also unclear exactly what it bans, since "made of" is ambiguous - lots of armor is part-metal, part-something else. According to this (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-march-2016), Studded Leather is allowed? The answer there implies that the restriction is intended for narrative reasons and wouldn't unbalance the game if removed.)

[CorporateSlave]

This does lead to weird roleplaying / DM interactions, though.

Ah, if the player is stubborn about it and decides he's going to have his druid clomp about with a metal breastplate, why not just let him?

...and then he can wonder why all his old animal friends don't seem to hang round so much anymore...and why other druids have kicked him out of all the cool druid circles...and what is that god awful itching sensation? :smallbiggrin:

[JackPhoenix]

Ah, if the player is stubborn about it and decides he's going to have his druid clomp about with a metal breastplate, why not just let him?

...and then he can wonder why all his old animal friends don't seem to hang round so much anymore...and why other druids have kicked him out of all the cool druid circles...and what is that god awful itching sensation? :smallbiggrin:

Meh. The druid kited out in proper armor may be a heretic, but at least he's a living heretic. Unlike those judgemental pricks that thought some furs would help again those big, sharp orc axes.

[djreynolds]

Ask Thorin Oakenshield about reflavoring a shield into something else.

Right there.

Heck I don't care if you use a bouquet of flowers and have to pick daisies every short rest.

Turtle shell, huge mushroom cap (that is cool), leaves and dried mud.. just be creative

[Trask]

Kind of off-topic but I think the metal armor restriction on Druids is kind of dumb when they're also allowed to use metal weapons. Also it just feels silly sometimes, Druids must lead and guide communities in the wilds that use metal tools, implements and arms. So why not don a chain shirt? The Druid will absolutely refuse to wear Half-Plate to protect himself and further his noble goals, but he'll collect silver and gold coins? Seems nonsensical, I get it was done for thematic reasons but there are a lot of thematic things that 5e has done away with, such as the Lawful Good restriction on Paladins. I think not allowing Druids to use metal armor should have been one of those things.

[Mordaedil]

In older editions of D&D, druids had to use wooden everything or lose access to their spellcasting and wildshaping abilities. 3rd edition allowed druids to use metal swords for some reason, but the same penalty applied to wearing metal armor or using metal shields (and yes, there were wooden shields druids were allowed to use and yes you can make shields entirely out of wood in real life too) in losing spellcasting and wildshaping for 24 hours.

"Choosing not to" seems really miniscule to these penalties of old.