Crunch vs. Fluff: How meaningful is the distinction?

[Catullus64]

Had a recent game in which, mirabile dictu, I actually got to play instead of DM, and had an interesting dispute arise.

Our party was hiding out in various places around the courtyard of a castle we were infiltrating. Playing a Rogue, like I usually do, I was hiding in a bush with the Warlock/Paladin, and we agreed that I should go and try to ambush the patrolling guard. The Warlock/Paladin player offered to cast a buff on me, and I agreed; he cast Shield of Faith. The DM had the other player read out the spell description:

A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the duration.

The DM asked if he definitely wanted to cast it, and he said yes. Upon casting, the DM then decided that the guard suddenly noticed a shimmering aura emanating from the bush; he came to investigate, and called over another two guards to investigate with him.

I thought the DM's ruling was perfectly reasonable; I thought it was amusing that I had forgotten about the shimmering part of the spell, and I generally like rolling with entertaining goofs. The other player was a little upset, but the DM stood by his ruling and the session went on. When talking after the game, I heard the other player give a curious reasoning for why he didn't think the DM's ruling was fair.

As I understood his argument, it was unreasonable to have the "shimmering field" part of the spell affect gameplay like that, because it was "just fluff", as if to say that the "crunch" part of the spell, the AC bonus, was the "real" spell effect. The DM stood by his claim that that's simply a plain reading of what the spell does.

Now, you may have your own opinions about this ruling and the player's complaint, which you are welcome to share, but that's not really what I'm starting this thread for. Instead, this instance got me thinking about the mental & rhetorical act of dividing game text into "crunch" and "fluff", typically with the implication that the crunch has a greater degree of reality than the fluff. But "crunch vs. fluff" is not actually a distinction that the game creates for itself. The game has number-crunchy rules, and it makes assertions about the in-game reality in terms of those rules, assertions like "you gain a +2 bonus to Armor Class." But it does not necessarily follow that only statements couched in those rules are meant to convey meaningful, actionable information about the reality of the game world.

I'm not advancing the argument that all "fluff" text needs to be taken as strictly binding. Rather, I'm going to begin by putting forth that it should be no more or less binding than the "rules" or "crunch"; that is to say, freely subject to the wishes & consent of the Dungeon Master and the players at the table. But I'm keen to hear others' thoughts and experiences on this matter! How do you think we should understand these two ideas? Should we think about them as truly separate at all?

Whatever your response, I encourage you to go back into the PHB and look for stuff you might not have read or thought about for a while because it's "just fluff". I'll certainly be doing so, in hopes of mining more interesting examples for this thread. In general I would like to see a general trend of people taking so-called "fluff" more seriously as a living, breathing part of the game. Cue Optimization threads about how Paladin Oath Tenets affect your DPR.

[heavyfuel]

I agree with the DM as well. A shimmering aura is definitely noticeable.

In Magic the Gathering, all italics text is explicitly fluff and have no impact on the game. I don't think WotC has rules for fluff text in D&D like they do for MtG.

Text is text.

But you might treat "fluff" as "non/less impactful rules", and they matter when it comes to houserules. You're more likely to have your DM to change a rule based on something non-impactful than based on impactful mechanics.

"Can I have 'Acidball' instead of Fireball?" is probably going to be a "no" for most DMs.

But, "Can I have 'Fireskull' that works exactly like Fireball in all aspects, except in that the flames are skull-shaped?" is more likely to get a pass

[strangebloke]

Generally my attitude is that if you're not leveraging the fluff for in-game purposes, you're not really using the ttrpg medium to its fullest potential.

[animorte]

I agree with the DM as well. A shimmering aura is definitely noticeable.

But, "Can I have 'Fireskull' that works exactly like Fireball in all aspects, except in that the flames are skull-shaped?" is more likely to get a pass

The only thing I would note is perhaps a stealth check to be hidden far enough in the bushes to account for the shimmering aura.


Generally my attitude is that if you're not leveraging the fluff for in-game purposes, you're not really using the ttrpg medium to its fullest potential.

I appreciate this response. I love trying to incorporate all manner of immersion. Though I could understand some (newer) players aren't accustomed to the potential of that yet.

[RSP]

Did the Paladin Subtle cast Shield of Faith? If not, that V component is probably heard in an otherwise quiet courtyard as well.

RAW, the spell effect, is the spell effect: I’d get DM approval before expecting anything to be changed. Plus it sounds like the DM gave plenty of fair notice, reading the effect aloud, and making sure the Paladin wanted to go that route.

Not much to complain about from the Paladin, in my view.

[Mastikator]

Ditto on the verbal component, they are loud and break stealth that relies on being unheard.

[diplomancer]

In this particular case, unless this is the very first time the spell has been cast in the entire campaign, I think the DM should have been more explicit, not just read the text out loud. More like "so, when you've cast this spell before, there was this shimmering field. Are you sure you want to cast it?" Or if he'd always described it like this when the spell was cast. And this is before we get into a big argument about what exactly is a "shimmering" that, RAW, does not have a dim light or bright light description. Maybe it's more like a heat distortion? I don't know, but the characters do. Remember, it's the DM's job to describe what the characters sees, hears, smells, etc.

Regardless of how you treat fluff and crunch, never "surprise" the players with things their characters would know, even if the players don't. Same thing goes for Verbal components; remember, how far away a verbal component is heard is strictly up to the DM, but the characters should know how loud it is to cast a spell before casting it.

[Glorthindel]

But you might treat "fluff" as "non/less impactful rules", and they matter when it comes to houserules. You're more likely to have your DM to change a rule based on something non-impactful than based on impactful mechanics.

"Can I have 'Acidball' instead of Fireball?" is probably going to be a "no" for most DMs.

But, "Can I have 'Fireskull' that works exactly like Fireball in all aspects, except in that the flames are skull-shaped?" is more likely to get a pass

I agree with this; barring prior agreement there is no distinction, and a player should expect the spell to interact with the world exactly as described in the description. However, I would judge the 'fluff' portion as more open to change with player and DM agreement (say the paladin wanted an illusionary shield to flash in front of the target when the spell is cast, or a celestial spotlight to shimmer over the target, instead of the constant aura), but that agreement has to come right the first time the spell is picked, and not to be changed on the fly to suit the situation.

[Bobthewizard]

Shimmering doesn't necessarily mean glowing. The heat of a grill can shimmer in the daylight but not be noticeable in the darkness. Nothing in the spell says it creates light or gives disadvantage on stealth checks. I think the DM took it too far and assigned a detrimental effect to the spell that doesn't exist. They should have been more explicit about the effects they wanted to give the spell.

I agree with previous posters that depending on how far away they are, the V component needs to be taken into account, and the effects should be explicit to the player before they cast the spell.

[MoiMagnus]

I'd note that there is another secondary question in your example: the GM ruling in favour of character incompetence. Assuming this spellcasting followed a Stealth check, I would have ruled that the character knew which spells were safe to cast from the position he choses, and I would have asked a question more explicit than "are you sure?", and instead "from where you are, the guards could potentially see the the shimmering field, do you still take this risk?".

Additionally, Shield of Faith has VSM component, did you get subtle casting for that? If yes, I personally find it somewhat annoying that there is no "subtle spell" metamagic (which would remove the visual/sound effects of that spell) and only a "subtle casting" one.

As for Crunch vs Fluff. I'd like to submit a non-spell example:

Danger Sense
At 2nd level, you gain an uncanny sense of when things nearby aren't as they should be, giving you an edge when you dodge away from danger.
You have advantage on Dexterity saving throws against effects that you can see, such as traps and spells. To gain this benefits, you can't be blinded, deafened, or incapacitated.

The first half of this ability is usually considered as Fluff, while the second half as Crunch. However, the fluff here is much more general than the Crunch. If you are good at determining when things aren't as they should be, should you be able to use this ability for other things that dodging? Should you get an advantage or a lower DC for spotting traps when you search for them?

I think this would lead to a better game if the Fluff was allowed to influence the gameplay more often. But while I can't really explain why, when I read the rules I really feel that they book is pushing me toward rejecting the Fluff and only caring about the Crunch.

[Segev]

The line is blurry. If changing the fluff changes the power and utility of the spell, it probably is not merely fluff. However, if changing the fluff merely slightly alters the way the spell is advavtaged or disadvantaged in certain circumstances, it is probably okay as long as the change is consistently applied.

Where I might disagree with the DM in your case would more be that the spell doesn't say it induces any stealth penalties, so if the guard didn't hear the spell being cast and didn't already see you, the shimmering field also would not be visible until he did spot you. On the other hand, that shimmery field is visible and people can deduce you're under a magical effect by seeing it. Those familiar with Shield of Faith will even likely know that that is the spell you're under.

[Keltest]

I agree with Segev. The DM got to the right result (the players being discovered) for the wrong reasons (casting a spell with verbal components is loud, not because the spell glows).

The real kicker for me in a game I ran is the Message spell. It has verbal components, but the fluff says that the actual message is whispered. The party bard wanted to use it to surreptitiously communicate with the party while infiltrating an enemy group without being seen as overtly casting a spell. My first reaction was "it has all 3 components, theres no way to do this subtly", but the bard pointed out that while no provision for being subtle was given in the spell, it was obviously the intent for its use, and it would be a pretty useless spell if you had to shout to the heavens you were casting a spell before using your message.

I agreed at the time, but im still uncertain if that was the right call. Spellcasting IMO shouldnt be subtle unless the spell says it is or you use a feature to make it so.

[Willie the Duck]

I can see all sorts of disagreements regarding each person's conception of both 'shimmering' and 'field,' especially since the character was hiding in a bush (my own thinking is that the field wouldn't 'emanate' from the bush. It appears around the character and is noticeable about the character if you can already see the character, but if the character is in a bush/behind a curtain, etc., it doesn't change that they are out of sight). Regardless, that's overthinking the specific situation, not the base CvF distinction.

As others have said, 5e doesn't have an explicit Fluff v Crunch delineation or distinction. That of course is simply a declaration of what is RAW, not RAI or RAP(layed) or what is actually good for an individual game or table. On that, I think it's once again one of those things where session 0* is important. Once the group has established for themselves how things are going to go down in this regard, just be consistent about it and there shouldn't be (many) problems.
*and continued vigilance against unshared understanding of what the game is like.

[Composer99]

If anything, it is the "crunch" that is less meaningful in the fiction of the game, even if the "fluff" is more malleable (such as re-flavouring aesthetic elements of spellcasting or spell effects or even spell names, for instance)

Outside of self-referential stories such as the one that has made this site possible, people in the fiction don't know what AC is. The term has no meaning. But folks do know that if you cast shield of faith (possibly using a title apropos to the thing you have faith in - casting Thor's valorous shield, for instance) it creates a shimmering field that protects you against harm.

The "crunch" matters to us, the players, because D&D is a game, after all, and because the mechanics are how we decide things unfold in the game world, but it's imperceptible to the creatures in the fiction.

So there is some meaning to the distinction, and you can't quite treat the two holistically, but by my reckoning there's no call to prioritise "crunch". The "fluff" matters just as much.

Apropos of shield of faith, it's also not clear that the spell description is really divisible into "fluff" and "crunch", not least because the spell's effect is contained in a single sentence. The shimmering field is as much as part of the "crunch" as the bonus to AC.

[Tanarii]

5e doesn't separate crunch and fluff.

That's a 4e thing. Or 13th age, also by Heinsoo.

More importantly, crunch and fluff and not intrinsic model that applies to all roleplaying games. Unless a game tells you that they're seperate things (like D&D 4e or 13th age), there's no reason to assume it exists in the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

5e doesn't separate crunch and fluff.

That's a 4e thing. Or 13th age, also by Heinsoo. This is the answer to the title question. There isn't a distinction, so "how meaningful" is a question with a flawed premise.

As to the scenario in the OP:

Upon casting, the DM then decided that the guard suddenly noticed a shimmering aura emanating from the bush; he came to investigate, and called over another two guards to investigate with him. I'd have first rolled a perception check for the guard, or checked his passive perception skill. But I think the ruling's a good one, since he did a form of "are you sure?" with having you two examine the spell description before doing that. (In world, refreshing your spell caster's memory on how it works).

I thought the DM's ruling was perfectly reasonable; I thought it was amusing that I had forgotten about the shimmering part of the spell, and I generally like rolling with entertaining goofs.
I concur.

because it was "just fluff"
That assertion is simply wrong for this edition.

[Keltest]

Worth pointing out, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything includes a section on fluffing spells to better suit your character's particular personality and idiom. One of the given examples is fireball appearing as a storm of red lightning (which still deals fire damage and ignites things), so I would say that counts as a declaration of separation of fluff and crunch for this edition.

[heavyfuel]

Where I might disagree with the DM in your case would more be that the spell doesn't say it induces any stealth penalties

While this might work from a pure RAW perspective, it doesn't really make sense. Change "Shield of Faith" for "Light" with subtle spell metamagic. Nothing in the Light spell says you are noticed, but I'm pretty sure most DMs would argue that you are noticed for having Light cast on your clothes, even if you are hiding behind cover and not due to being obscured.

"Shimmer" can have multiple meanings, like the heat of a grill as it was mentioned, but it's not necessarily that. The DM had to make a call on what type of shimmer it was, and there's nothing wrong with the DM choosing the shimmer that makes you noticed.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would say that counts as a declaration of separation of fluff and crunch for this edition. That's a reach, so I'll disagree with you here. It is worth recalling that Tasha's also explicitly spells out, right up front, that the contents are optional rules - declaring that an optional rule substantively changes anything to that degree makes no sense.

[heavyfuel]

That's a reach, so I'll disagree with you here. It iw worth recalling that Tasha's also explicitly spells out right up front that the contents are optional rules - declaring that an optional rule substantively changes anything to that degree makes no sense.

True that.

[Keltest]

That's a reach, so I'll disagree with you here. It is worth recalling that Tasha's also explicitly spells out, right up front, that the contents are optional rules - declaring that an optional rule substantively changes anything to that degree makes no sense.

I mean sure, but refluffing would be optional by definition, right? Everything comes with its own default flavor which you dont have to change at all if you dont want to.

Especially when speaking to intent of design, an optional rule that allows you to change something seems to speak pretty clearly to the idea that it was meant to be able to be changed if you are so inclined. To me that's sort of like saying that feats werent intended to be in 5e, because they were made an optional rule, and therefore it would be nonsense if they were to radically change the game.

[RSP]

The real kicker for me in a game I ran is the Message spell. It has verbal components, but the fluff says that the actual message is whispered. The party bard wanted to use it to surreptitiously communicate with the party while infiltrating an enemy group without being seen as overtly casting a spell. My first reaction was "it has all 3 components, theres no way to do this subtly", but the bard pointed out that while no provision for being subtle was given in the spell, it was obviously the intent for its use, and it would be a pretty useless spell if you had to shout to the heavens you were casting a spell before using your message.

There is nothing “subtle” about Message:

“You point your finger toward a creature within range and whisper a message.”

I think it’s by design pretty obvious what’s happening (or at least a spell is being cast and at who) given the pointing and VSM.

[loki_ragnarock]

I would have had the group discovered based on the fact a spell with three components had been cast. Dude had to wave his arms (thus rustling the bush), raise his voice to implore the heaven's aid (thus being heard), and pull out a holy scroll to read from (thus rustling the bush even more.)

But you throw a visual effect on the spell in question on top of it? Instant discovery.

Here's the reason I put things in parenthesis in that explanation; the stuff in parenthesis is fluff. The crunch of the game is that Shield of Faith has a VSM components. (The fluff is how that's going to look to the fiction.)

There is no distinction between fluff and crunch. Not in the communal fiction a group is trying to create.

[Keltest]

There is nothing “subtle” about Message:

“You point your finger toward a creature within range and whisper a message.”

I think it’s by design pretty obvious what’s happening (or at least a spell is being cast and at who) given the pointing and VSM.

I agree, but the argument was that because you whisper the message and only the recipient can hear it, the intent is that its not immediately obvious what youre doing, and that the verbal component is the whispered message, which naturally would be hard to hear or understand for a casual listener, and I genuinely am struggling to come up with any other reason for this spell to exist given that it only has a range of 120 feet.

[diplomancer]

While this might work from a pure RAW perspective, it doesn't really make sense. Change "Shield of Faith" for "Light" with subtle spell metamagic. Nothing in the Light spell says you are noticed, but I'm pretty sure most DMs would argue that you are noticed for having Light cast on your clothes, even if you are hiding behind cover and not due to being obscured.


"Shimmer" can have multiple meanings, like the heat of a grill as it was mentioned, but it's not necessarily that. The DM had to make a call on what type of shimmer it was, and there's nothing wrong with the DM choosing the shimmer that makes you noticed.

Light talks about creating an area of light with an specified radius. Shield of Faith doesn't.

But the problem here is that, whatever "shimmer" means in this context, the characters should know that, even if the players don't. And the DM didn't tell them what their characters perfectly knew. I'd also be pretty miffed.

[Joe the Rat]

But you might treat "fluff" as "non/less impactful rules", and they matter when it comes to houserules. You're more likely to have your DM to change a rule based on something non-impactful than based on impactful mechanics.

"Can I have 'Acidball' instead of Fireball?" is probably going to be a "no" for most DMs.

But, "Can I have 'Fireskull' that works exactly like Fireball in all aspects, except in that the flames are skull-shaped?" is more likely to get a pass

This is not a refutation - I agree on your take, but in a very real way the two can be treated the same way - at spell selection. You could have an acidball spell, but it needs to be done as a separate spell, and may require in-game research per DM.

Fireskull does not require as much oversight, and should be totally doable at any table, but also needs to be set when you select the spell, or even better, when you set your spell style. This is a schtick going back at least as far as 2e, and was brought up again in Tasha's - making your spells distinctly yours. The spider-sect goblin who has a strong spiders, webs, and poisons theme to the appearance of his spells. Randal the Red, a Warlock with a very prominent blood theme (arms of hadar and armor of agathys are distinctly crimson rather than black and rimefrost white). If you are a Necromancer Wizard, Fireskull is totally on theme. You might be able to negotiate alternate material components as well. But the core of it is, special effects aside, you need to maintain all sensory and cost aspects of your spells. The shimmering field might be swirling motes, or an illusory cloak of wings. But there is an effect that can be seen. You might not like the crown in crown of madness, so perhaps an ominous glow.

But don't go changing how your spell does its thing in the middle of combat, unless you specifically make that a thing. Like Aesthetic Metamagic: 1 pt, change one sensory aspect of the spell. It does not change the effect of the spell, nor can it remove the feature in question. Unless you think "invisible fireball" is a fair use of a sorcery point... which it might be, actually.

[Keltest]

Light talks about creating an area of light with an specified radius. Shield of Faith doesn't.

But the problem here is that, whatever "shimmer" means in this context, the characters should know that, even if the players don't. And the DM didn't tell them what their characters perfectly knew. I'd also be pretty miffed.

I've had players forget that fireball sets things on fire and then proceed to use it on wooden scaffolding, among other things, and thats something explicitly in the description of the spell, to say nothing of being obvious.

Its not at all implausible that somebody would overlook something like that in-character, especially if stealth isnt their specific sphere. The DM even asked them if they were sure they wanted to cast that spell, which is a strong indication that something will happen even without the specific "are you sure?" meme.

[heavyfuel]

Light talks about creating an area of light with an specified radius. Shield of Faith doesn't.

But the problem here is that, whatever "shimmer" means in this context, the characters should know that, even if the players don't. And the DM didn't tell them what their characters perfectly knew. I'd also be pretty miffed.

Sure, the character might have known that it creates a visible aura, but did they remember that information before casting?

Personal real-life example: Having played Divinity Original Sin 2 with a few friends, I can tell you that plenty of times we'd forget that ability X also did Y, only remembering after the fact.

It's not like your character has perfect memory about everything all the time. The DM even asked "are you sure?", which is the universal sign for double checking the spell description.

[PhoenixPhyre]

5e doesn't separate crunch and fluff.

That's a 4e thing. Or 13th age, also by Heinsoo.

More importantly, crunch and fluff and not intrinsic model that applies to all roleplaying games. Unless a game tells you that they're seperate things (like D&D 4e or 13th age), there's no reason to assume it exists in the game.

This. If any of it is rule text, it's all rule text unless the text calls it out as such.


If anything, it is the "crunch" that is less meaningful in the fiction of the game, even if the "fluff" is more malleable (such as re-flavouring aesthetic elements of spellcasting or spell effects or even spell names, for instance)

Outside of self-referential stories such as the one that has made this site possible, people in the fiction don't know what AC is. The term has no meaning. But folks do know that if you cast shield of faith (possibly using a title apropos to the thing you have faith in - casting Thor's valorous shield, for instance) it creates a shimmering field that protects you against harm.

The "crunch" matters to us, the players, because D&D is a game, after all, and because the mechanics are how we decide things unfold in the game world, but it's imperceptible to the creatures in the fiction.

So there is some meaning to the distinction, and you can't quite treat the two holistically, but by my reckoning there's no call to prioritise "crunch". The "fluff" matters just as much.

Apropos of shield of faith, it's also not clear that the spell description is really divisible into "fluff" and "crunch", not least because the spell's effect is contained in a single sentence. The shimmering field is as much as part of the "crunch" as the bonus to AC.

I agree about this. For me, "fluff" is usually much more important than "crunch", because "fluff" determines how the world reacts, not crunch. This isn't some isekai anime where everyone has a game UI--they react (or don't) to what they see and hear.

And yes, I'd have them react differently to a fireball and an exploding skull. Otherwise, what was the point? I have no interest in playing a TTMMO, where what color your damage is and what your animation is is all that differs between classes.

And I'd totally let someone cast an acidball...as long as that was a replacement for fireball, chosen at the time you learned the spell. I wouldn't allow someone to freely choose at cast time--that's giving a metamagic for free. I've let someone rewrite sunbeam into a darkness-flavored spell (changing a few of the mechanics as well, so not just cosmetic). Mechanics are, if anything, more mutable and free to change than the "fluff"--fluff implicates the world, mechanics are just the UI (how the world is communicated to the players and vice versa).

[Segev]

The real kicker for me in a game I ran is the Message spell. It has verbal components, but the fluff says that the actual message is whispered. The party bard wanted to use it to surreptitiously communicate with the party while infiltrating an enemy group without being seen as overtly casting a spell. My first reaction was "it has all 3 components, theres no way to do this subtly", but the bard pointed out that while no provision for being subtle was given in the spell, it was obviously the intent for its use, and it would be a pretty useless spell if you had to shout to the heavens you were casting a spell before using your message.

I agreed at the time, but im still uncertain if that was the right call. Spellcasting IMO shouldnt be subtle unless the spell says it is or you use a feature to make it so.It's tricky, because I sometimes think the writers forget the specific nature of the rules they're invoking. Message very probably has a V component because the message itself is the component. So it's likely intended that the whispered message IS the V component. You could rule that message is providing a specific exception to the requirement of speaking the V component loudly. That said, it's really going to be up to the DM. It's not entirely useless if you have to speak loudly and clearly, though: the whispered message still isn't going to give away the target's position, and is unlikely to be heard even if you cast the spell openly. But it's a lot less useful for clandestine purposes, which does seem to be an intended use.


While this might work from a pure RAW perspective, it doesn't really make sense. Change "Shield of Faith" for "Light" with subtle spell metamagic. Nothing in the Light spell says you are noticed, but I'm pretty sure most DMs would argue that you are noticed for having Light cast on your clothes, even if you are hiding behind cover and not due to being obscured.

"Shimmer" can have multiple meanings, like the heat of a grill as it was mentioned, but it's not necessarily that. The DM had to make a call on what type of shimmer it was, and there's nothing wrong with the DM choosing the shimmer that makes you noticed.I would call out a DM who said the light spell cast on your clothing made YOU visible behind a rock. The light spell has a specific radius that it illuminates to specific levels. It is within the spell effect for creatures to automatically notice that if there's not a good reason they'd have trouble doing so. Shield of faith does not say that it has an effect more noticeable than wearing a sequined vest, for example, and no rules I know of say that donning a sequined vest makes your stealth check go from "success" to "auto-fail."

[Tanarii]

It's tricky, because I sometimes think the writers forget the specific nature of the rules they're invoking. Message very probably has a V component because the message itself is the component. So it's likely intended that the whispered message IS the V component. You could rule that message is providing a specific exception to the requirement of speaking the V component loudly. That said, it's really going to be up to the DM. It's not entirely useless if you have to speak loudly and clearly, though: the whispered message still isn't going to give away the target's position, and is unlikely to be heard even if you cast the spell openly. But it's a lot less useful for clandestine purposes, which does seem to be an intended use.Yes. Quotes from Crawford Twitter and possibly SAC aside, I feel that there are a large number of spells where it was originally intended the V and S component were supposed to be called out in the text, as opposed to the text being in addition to the V/S component. And that dramatically changes the use cases of some of them.

[heavyfuel]

I would call out a DM who said the light spell cast on your clothing made YOU visible behind a rock. The light spell has a specific radius that it illuminates to specific levels. It is within the spell effect for creatures to automatically notice that if there's not a good reason they'd have trouble doing so. Shield of faith does not say that it has an effect more noticeable than wearing a sequined vest, for example, and no rules I know of say that donning a sequined vest makes your stealth check go from "success" to "auto-fail."

Note that I never said "visible", I said "noticed". If I'm holding a torch behind a rock, people can notice light coming from behind the rock. Same goes for the light spell.

You can definitely see light from beyond the radius of illumination. It's the reason you can see a car's headlights at night long before the driver sees you.

Even if the shimmer (assuming the visible kind of shimmer) is not enough light to provide illumination in game terms, it might be light enough that makes you more noticeable.

[Segev]

So, if I'm holding a torch behind a rock nobody can notice light coming from behind the rock? :smallconfused:

You are probably confused because that is the exact opposite of what I said.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, if I'm holding a torch behind a rock nobody can notice light coming from behind the rock? :smallconfused:

That's not how light works.

You can definitely see light from beyond the radius of illumination. It's the reason you can see a car's headlights at night long before the driver sees you.

Even if the shimmer (assuming the visible kind of shimmer) is not enough light to provide illumination in game terms, it might be light enough that makes you more noticeable.

Right. You'd see the shimmering. Not enough to illuminate the person (ie you're still "not visible" for game purposes with all the mechanical effects that entails), but enough so they know someone (or something) is there.

[heavyfuel]

You are probably confused because that is the exact opposite of what I said.

I've edited the post to be more clear, but you ninja'd me :smalltongue:

[Catullus64]

I see a lot of people responding with the claim that there is or ought to be no meaningful difference between crunch and fluff. While that's certainly close to my own way of thinking, and I tend to agree, I think it still bears discussing because the idea of a separation between the two seems pretty prevalent in the community (or this community, at least.) I think it's worth examining what assumptions about the game spring from this artificial division.

[diplomancer]

Sure, the character might have known that it creates a visible aura, but did they remember that information before casting?

Personal real-life example: Having played Divinity Original Sin 2 with a few friends, I can tell you that plenty of times we'd forget that ability X also did Y, only remembering after the fact.

It's not like your character has perfect memory about everything all the time. The DM even asked "are you sure?", which is the universal sign for double checking the spell description.

Yeah, I really disagree with this sort of thinking. It leads to paranoia that, in my view, brings the game to a halt. Adventurers are competent, and, unlike the person sitting in the comfort of their homes playing a videogame, are putting their life on the line. If a spell makes them glow, they know it, and are not using it on a stealth mission.


I would have had the group discovered based on the fact a spell with three components had been cast. Dude had to wave his arms (thus rustling the bush), raise his voice to implore the heaven's aid (thus being heard), and pull out a holy scroll to read from (thus rustling the bush even more.)

But you throw a visual effect on the spell in question on top of it? Instant discovery.

Here's the reason I put things in parenthesis in that explanation; the stuff in parenthesis is fluff. The crunch of the game is that Shield of Faith has a VSM components. (The fluff is how that's going to look to the fiction.)

There is no distinction between fluff and crunch. Not in the communal fiction a group is trying to create.

I really liked your post, for its clearness. It makes it easier to show where I disagree :)

Everything you put in parentesis is, in fact, fluff, and it's perfectly possible and within the general parameters of RAW for a DM to run spellcasting the way you suggest. But a DM who ran the same spell with "you make a small gesture while holding your holy symbol, calling down, in a soft prayer, the blessings of Bahamut upon your friend", would fulfill the same crunch requirements, but with entirely different fluff (and consequences!).

All is good, all ways of doing spellcasting are acceptable and within RAW, but the characters should know it, even if the players don't. And yes, the characters absolutely know how loud the V components are, and how expansive the S components are. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to cast the spell in the first place.

[heavyfuel]

Right. You'd see the shimmering. Not enough to illuminate the person (ie you're still "not visible" for game purposes with all the mechanical effects that entails), but enough so they know someone (or something) is there.

At the point they've noticed someone or something is there, the NPCs were no longer using their Passive Perception. It's perfectly reasonable that after noticing the shimmer, they noticed the party

[heavyfuel]

Yeah, I really disagree with this sort of thinking. It leads to paranoia that, in my view, brings the game to a halt. Adventurers are competent, and, unlike the person sitting in the comfort of their homes playing a videogame, are putting their life on the line. If a spell makes you glow, they know it, and are not using it on a stealth mission.

So, just because they're not in a comfortable situation that means that they are not going to make mistakes? I call bull****.

Competent people make mistakes all the time, even when their lives are on the line. Plenty of perfectly competent climbers/divers/pilots die every year from mistakes they made.

Adventurers are not immune to making mistakes just because they are competent or because their lives are on the line.

The DM basically told you to double check the spell. You didn't. You pay the price.

If something is ambiguous - like the word "shimmering" - you check with the DM. "Oh, wait. If it's a shimmering aura, will they notice us or is it a non visible shimmer like hot asphalt?" to which the DM would reply "It's a visible shimmer".

There's nothing wrong with the DM call in this situation.

[Segev]

Note that I never said "visible", I said "noticed". If I'm holding a torch behind a rock, people can notice light coming from behind the rock. Same goes for the light spell.

You can definitely see light from beyond the radius of illumination. It's the reason you can see a car's headlights at night long before the driver sees you.

Even if the shimmer (assuming the visible kind of shimmer) is not enough light to provide illumination in game terms, it might be light enough that makes you more noticeable.

REsponding to the edited post, now that it's been edited! :smallcool:

The issue here is that the light spell's radius of illumination and the shield of faith's shimmer are two different things that don't analogize together the way you want them to. The shimmer doesn't, by the text, shed light. You might decide it does, but it needn't. Think, again, "sequined vest." That shimmers, but will not provide any illumination on its own. And that's a pretty extreme example of "shimmering." The light spell's illumination, on the other hand, causes everything in the radius to be brightly or dimly lit (as appropriate), so if your hiding place is smaller than the diameter of the shed light, people will see things that are not blocked by the hiding place as being lit much more brightly than they otherwise would be. This is an overt rules interaction, with no rulings based on common sense needed. Not discounting common sense as a factor, but pointing out that you need no "reading into" anything to get here with the light spell. For shield of faith's shimmer to do the same, you must rule that it is shedding enough light to be seen when you couldn't see the individual without the shimmer. The rules text says no such thing. Therefore, the DM is inventing something into the spell that isn't part of it. which he can do, but which is definitely house ruling.

[diplomancer]

So, just because they're not in a comfortable situation that means that they are not going to make mistakes? I call bull****.

Competent people make mistakes all the time, even when their lives are on the line. Plenty of perfectly competent climbers/divers/pilots die every year from mistakes they made.

Adventurers are not immune to making mistakes just because they are competent or because their lives are on the line.

The DM basically told you to double check the spell. You didn't. You pay the price.

If something is ambiguous - like the word "shimmering" - you check with the DM. "Oh, wait. If it's a shimmering aura, will they notice us or is it a non visible shimmer like hot asphalt?" to which the DM would reply "It's a visible shimmer".

There's nothing wrong with the DM call in this situation.

As I said, I wouldn't like to play in a game like that, where there are spells that make you visibly glow but you don't know that. Maybe if it's a very rarely used spell, and even then as a DM I'd have the players make an Arcana or straight intelligent check. But if it's one of the more common level 1 buffs, that a Paladin probably uses all the time? No, they know that it makes people glow. And if a DM pulled that on me, assuming I did not leave the game, I think I'd eventually be thrown out of it, because now I'm double-checking *every single possible interaction*, which will be unpleasant for everybody. And not because I'm trying to ruin the game, but because now I know that, in this game, basic competence is not assumed.

If you do like playing in a game where people don't know the very basics of their skills, have fun.

[loki_ragnarock]

I really liked your post, for its clearness. It makes it easier to show where I disagree :)

Everything you put in parentesis is, in fact, fluff, and it's perfectly possible and within the general parameters of RAW for a DM to run spellcasting the way you suggest. But a DM who ran the same spell with "you make a small gesture while holding your holy symbol, calling down, in a soft prayer, the blessings of Bahamut upon your friend", would fulfill the same crunch requirements, but with entirely different fluff (and consequences!).
That would be down to the interpretation of other crunch, found on 203 of the PHB.

For Verbal components:
"Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power;
rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion."

Let's look at a common definition of resonance:
NOUN
1. The quality in a sound of being deep, full, and reverberating."
(There are some other definitions to draw on, like the one from physics to do with sound reflections, but that gets absurdly technical, and I believe the designers claimed a plain English perspective for how the rules were to be presented at some point or another. There's also a definition wherein something evokes a feeling/memory/etc, but that doesn't specifically have to do with the descriptor of a sound. Thus, I consider that the more accurate definition for the rules text.)
Common synonyms include:
synonyms:
reverberation · resounding · thunder · thundering · roaring · echoing · re-echoing · blasting · crashing · drumming · thrumming · pounding · roar · rumble · bellow · bang · blast · blare · loud noise

Which is to say, a DM deciding that one can somehow muffle the verbal component to a spell flies in the face of the crunch regarding verbal components, unless it is always the case that the verbal components are whispered softly in every other instance. This introduction of variance produces the problem of a lack of shared understanding you've already outlined as problematic.

Somatic Components:
"Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures."
The use of the word MIGHT does undermine the overarching validity, but I'd again say that the base assumption of the crunch of Somatic Components is more than a slight wave of the hand unless the spell text would say otherwise. And again, unless the standard is that a small gesture is enough in all other instances, it once again involves a variance that introduces a lack of shared understanding.

The ability to subtly cast spells is an optional class feature for a specific class, or an option for a specific feat. The rules for spellcasting - the base rules - indicate that spellcasting something with a verbal component should certainly be noticeable, and the base understanding of somatic components are likewise. Depart from that as you will, but you've moved away from the base understanding of the game in that instance.



All is good, all ways of doing spellcasting are acceptable and within RAW, but the characters should know it, even if the players don't. And yes, the characters absolutely know how loud the V components are, and how expansive the S components are. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to cast the spell in the first place.
Yes, the characters should know how loud the V components are, but the players also have a fairly clear definition for what to expect from those component types.

[Demonslayer666]

A spell's description that tells you how the spell appears is not fluff. It is a noticeable effect. Your DM just misunderstood what it meant.

The DM seems to have interpreted the shimmering field as a larger, light emitting field that surrounds the character's 5' square, rather than a field surrounding just the character that shimmers (Dune Shield).

I agree with others that stated shimmering does not emit. When light strikes it, it shines/distorts. So behind a bush, a shimmering field would not make you any more noticeable than shiny armor.

Casting a spell in my game is obvious unless you remove the components VS (and sometimes M). You have to speak in a clear, normal voice (V), fetch components or hold a focus (M), and make gestures (S). So casting Shield of Faith would have been heard within 30' or so (depending on what was gong on). A little ways past that, it might draw a guard over to investigate the sound.

Message still has to be successfully cast in order to whisper the message. The message and the casting of the spell are separate things. I would much prefer that it had no components, or it had a longer duration so you could cast it and go in. I most likely would have allowed the bard to get behind cover, cast it and go unnoticed without even rolling. Surely there are opportunities when walking around to do that, unless they are all sitting quietly in church. :smallcool:

[kyoryu]

Had a recent game in which, mirabile dictu, I actually got to play instead of DM, and had an interesting dispute arise.

I agree with the ruling.

However, I think the GM did a minor mistake. In this case, I think it would have made sense to remind the player and clarify the results of doing so, since that is clearly an undesired but predictable side effect of casting on someone that's hidden.

Player: "Okay, I'm going to cast Shield of Faith on the rogue".
GM: "Okay, but they're hiding right now. Since that makes a shimmering field, that could be visible to others, and blow their cover. You still good with that?"
Player: "Uh, maybe not."

[diplomancer]

That would be down to the interpretation of other crunch, found on 203 of the PHB.

For Verbal components:
"Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power;
rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion."

Let's look at a common definition of resonance:
NOUN
1. The quality in a sound of being deep, full, and reverberating."
(There are some other definitions to draw on, like the one from physics to do with sound reflections, but that gets absurdly technical, and I believe the designers claimed a plain English perspective for how the rules were to be presented at some point or another. There's also a definition wherein something evokes a feeling/memory/etc, but that doesn't specifically have to do with the descriptor of a sound. Thus, I consider that the more accurate definition for the rules text.)
Common synonyms include:
synonyms:
reverberation · resounding · thunder · thundering · roaring · echoing · re-echoing · blasting · crashing · drumming · thrumming · pounding · roar · rumble · bellow · bang · blast · blare · loud noise

Which is to say, a DM deciding that one can somehow muffle the verbal component to a spell flies in the face of the crunch regarding verbal components, unless it is always the case that the verbal components are whispered softly in every other instance. This introduction of variance produces the problem of a lack of shared understanding you've already outlined as problematic.

Somatic Components:
"Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures."
The use of the word MIGHT does undermine the overarching validity, but I'd again say that the base assumption of the crunch of Somatic Components is more than a slight wave of the hand unless the spell text would say otherwise. And again, unless the standard is that a small gesture is enough in all other instances, it once again involves a variance that introduces a lack of shared understanding.

The ability to subtly cast spells is an optional class feature for a specific class, or an option for a specific feat. The rules for spellcasting - the base rules - indicate that spellcasting something with a verbal component should certainly be noticeable, and the base understanding of somatic components are likewise. Depart from that as you will, but you've moved away from the base understanding of the game in that instance.



Yes, the characters should know how loud the V components are, but the players also have a fairly clear definition for what to expect from those component types.

So, this will get us away from the topic of the thread, but it's all about how you interpret the phrase "with specific pitch and resonance". If you interpret it as "with specific pitch and with resonance", then "resonance" probably means that it's a loud sound. But if you interpret it as "with specific pitch and with specific resonance", then, as I see it, this is talking more about where, in the caster, the sound is reverberating (is it head voice, nasal, chest voice, etc; I'm an amateur musician and used to conduct choirs, so it's very natural for me to read this phrase with this meaning of resonance; And you can have a "specific pitch and resonance" at a very low volume, it's called singing "Pianissimo").

It's notable that the description of the verbal component does NOT say it's "loud". For what it's worth, Jeremy Crawford, when asked that question, answered: "The verbal component of a spell must be audible to work. How loud is audible? That's up to the DM.", which is also my interpretation.

Coming back to the topic of the thread: How audible is the spell is, in fact, totally up to the DM, but whatever the DM decides to be "how spellcasting works" in his game world, spellcasters in that same world KNOW how spellcasting works, they can't be "surprised" by the DM going"well, you shout out words of power and everyone looks at you suddenly", unless the character has some sort of Tourette's Syndrome.


I agree with the ruling.

However, I think the GM did a minor mistake. In this case, I think it would have made sense to remind the player and clarify the results of doing so, since that is clearly an undesired but predictable side effect of casting on someone that's hidden.

Player: "Okay, I'm going to cast Shield of Faith on the rogue".
GM: "Okay, but they're hiding right now. Since that makes a shimmering field, that could be visible to others, and blow their cover. You still good with that?"
Player: "Uh, maybe not."

I agree with this, though I wouldn't say it's a minor mistake. In this case, the DM is describing, in no uncertain terms, how he translates the wording of the spell into the game world, so that now the characters are making their decision with the information they need, and that they should have. If they decide to risk it nevertheless, that's on them.

[Catullus64]

Coming back to the topic of the thread: How audible is the spell is, in fact, totally up to the DM, but whatever the DM decides to be "how spellcasting works" in his game world, spellcasters in that same world KNOW how spellcasting works, they can't be "surprised" by the DM going"well, you shout out words of power and everyone looks at you suddenly", unless the character has some sort of Tourette's Syndrome.

Funny you should say that, diplomancer; the topic of this thread, as I thought I said in my original post, is not the particular ruling that occasioned this thought, or even rulings of that kind, but the broader issue of how we treat game text and sometimes mentally divide it into two spheres of impact like "crunch vs. fluff" or "rules vs. flavor text". I'm picking on you in particular (sorry) because of the irony of saying "coming back to the topic of the thread", but it does seem that a lot of people are fixated on the occasioning incident and not the issue I intended to discuss.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree with the ruling.

However, I think the GM did a minor mistake. In this case, I think it would have made sense to remind the player and clarify the results of doing so, since that is clearly an undesired but predictable side effect of casting on someone that's hidden.

Player: "Okay, I'm going to cast Shield of Faith on the rogue".
GM: "Okay, but they're hiding right now. Since that makes a shimmering field, that could be visible to others, and blow their cover. You still good with that?"
Player: "Uh, maybe not."

I agree with this. Better communication would help. I'm not fond of "are you sure" as a generic message, because if there's a mismatch of mental models, it doesn't actually communicate what it should. The player can be sure about his mental model, which doesn't match the DM's model. Which leads to problems.

[diplomancer]

Funny you should say that, diplomancer; the topic of this thread, as I thought I said in my original post, is not the particular ruling that occasioned this thought, or even rulings of that kind, but the broader issue of how we treat game text and sometimes mentally divide it into two spheres of impact like "crunch vs. fluff" or "rules vs. flavor text". I'm picking on you in particular (sorry) because of the irony of saying "coming back to the topic of the thread", but it does seem that a lot of people are fixated on the occasioning incident and not the issue I intended to discuss.

No hard feelings. I thought my position on this was clear. There is no such distinction, all text in the game has the same "value", except that "fluff" probably needs clearer communication between players and DM then "crunch". There's no need to talk about what "you get +2 AC" means, but there IS need to talk about what "shimmer" means.

[heavyfuel]

REsponding to the edited post, now that it's been edited! :smallcool:

The issue here is that the light spell's radius of illumination and the shield of faith's shimmer are two different things that don't analogize together the way you want them to. The shimmer doesn't, by the text, shed light. You might decide it does, but it needn't. Think, again, "sequined vest." That shimmers, but will not provide any illumination on its own. And that's a pretty extreme example of "shimmering." The light spell's illumination, on the other hand, causes everything in the radius to be brightly or dimly lit (as appropriate), so if your hiding place is smaller than the diameter of the shed light, people will see things that are not blocked by the hiding place as being lit much more brightly than they otherwise would be. This is an overt rules interaction, with no rulings based on common sense needed. Not discounting common sense as a factor, but pointing out that you need no "reading into" anything to get here with the light spell. For shield of faith's shimmer to do the same, you must rule that it is shedding enough light to be seen when you couldn't see the individual without the shimmer. The rules text says no such thing. Therefore, the DM is inventing something into the spell that isn't part of it. which he can do, but which is definitely house ruling.

I agree that "shimmer" need not emit light, but if shimmers can emit light, it's perfectly reasonable that the DM said it did.

Were I DMing, I'd even be willing to retcon my call if a player brought up a sequined vest or hot asphalt, as they are perfectly reasonable interpretations of "shimmer". But so is the DM's interpretation. The DM isn't wrong from interpreting that the shimmering aura also emitted some very dim light that could be noticed.

I'd ask for a retroactive Wis check by the players involved for one of them to realize that it might make them visible, and retcon'd the story if they passed.

But I'd only do it if the non-light emitting shimmers were brought up by the players, because light emitting shimmers were definitely my first thought and the other kind didn't even cross my mind before other posters brought up.

Still, it's not a houserule to rule that this specific shimmer emits light like a lot shimmers out there. The rules don't say it emits light, but they also don't say it doesn't emit light. It's 100% DM call whether it does or not.


As I said, I wouldn't like to play in a game like that, where there are spells that make you visibly glow but you don't know that. Maybe if it's a very rarely used spell, and even then as a DM I'd have the players make an Arcana or straight intelligent check. But if it's one of the more common level 1 buffs, that a Paladin probably uses all the time? No, they know that it makes people glow. And if a DM pulled that on me, assuming I did not leave the game, I think I'd eventually be thrown out of it, because now I'm double-checking *every single possible interaction*, which will be unpleasant for everybody. And not because I'm trying to ruin the game, but because now I know that, in this game, basic competence is not assumed.

If you do like playing in a game where people don't know the very basics of their skills, have fun.

One could argue that it would be equally as unpleasant for everyone if one person kept insisting that their character cannot make mistakes.

Again, it's not a matter of "know", it's a matter of "remember" or "realize". You can know it glows, but you might not remember it or you might not realize that this would make you visible. These are completely different things. Competent people who know stuff can still make mistakes because they either forgot something or because they didn't realize it.

[OldTrees1]

Now, you may have your own opinions about this ruling and the player's complaint, which you are welcome to share, but that's not really what I'm starting this thread for. Instead, this instance got me thinking about the mental & rhetorical act of dividing game text into "crunch" and "fluff", typically with the implication that the crunch has a greater degree of reality than the fluff. But "crunch vs. fluff" is not actually a distinction that the game creates for itself. The game has number-crunchy rules, and it makes assertions about the in-game reality in terms of those rules, assertions like "you gain a +2 bonus to Armor Class." But it does not necessarily follow that only statements couched in those rules are meant to convey meaningful, actionable information about the reality of the game world.

I'm not advancing the argument that all "fluff" text needs to be taken as strictly binding. Rather, I'm going to begin by putting forth that it should be no more or less binding than the "rules" or "crunch"; that is to say, freely subject to the wishes & consent of the Dungeon Master and the players at the table. But I'm keen to hear others' thoughts and experiences on this matter! How do you think we should understand these two ideas? Should we think about them as truly separate at all?

Crunch is more than just the numbers. Crunch is the mechanics, including things like "if a spell gives off a shimmering light, then see how light works".

Fluff is more than just the description text. Fluff is all the flavor that is waving a green flag inviting the Player and GM to change that flavor to better fit the character & campaign.

You are observant so you noticed, despite this being a meaningful distinction, it also has overlap.

For example the Artificer needs tools in order to cast their spells. The default fluff is their magic is some form of magitech or alchemy. I played an Artificer that did magic by creating worn magic items. This refluff changed the part beyond the mechanics (the Artificer can use any tool and that does not conflict with the concept of use enchantment/infusion magic) and added new restrictions (I could not cast Featherfall on a barefooted party member).

Your example in the opening post is a good example of overlap. The default fluff and crunch of Shield of Faith imply a visual shimmering field surrounding the creature. However maybe the player & GM feel it makes more sense for THIS character to create an warm blanket instead? There is still a visible element but they have changed it from a hard to see shimmering image to an easy to see opaque image. The crunch is changing slightly as the fluff is changing.

Another example would be the player & GM deciding this character's Fireball is green flame. The fluff changed but none of the mechanics did. It is still a fireball.

Yet another example would be the player & GM deciding this character wants to learn Acidball in addition to Fireball. So they copy fireball but change the crunch to do acid damage. (Later they decide to decrease the damage but give it some damage on the next round).

So yes, the fluff is no less binding than other parts of the rules. Except the fluff invites and even expects the players and GMs to change some of the fluff.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Except the fluff invites and even expects the players and GMs to change some of the fluff.

So does crunch. And to the exact same degree. Because the distinction doesn't actually exist the way people want it to.

[sithlordnergal]

I would say the DM made a poor call there, for two reasons:

1) While the spell does say "shimmer", nothing mentions it giving off any sort of light or making it easier to spot you. As such, this should have no effect on how well you can hide.

2) The shimmer bit is pure fluff, and absolutely shouldn't give a mechanical benefit or detriment to variety on person affected by it.

Now, how can you tell if something is fluff, and something is mechanical? Its pretty simple, remove it from the spell and see if anything changes. In the case of Shield of Faith, it gives you +2 to AC and causes a shimmer. If you remove the bit of +2 to AC, does it still have the same mechanical effect? No, you no longer have a higher AC, as such this is not fluff.

How about if you remove the shimmer? You still have the +2 to AC, therefore the mechanical effects of the spell are unchanged. This is fluff, and players can change the fluff to fit whatever they like. Meaning if they want to be more stealthy, they don't have to make it shimmer.

[sithlordnergal]

So does crunch. And to the exact same degree. Because the distinction doesn't actually exist the way people want it to.

Crunch really doesn't...A fireball deals 8d6 and sets flamable objects not being held on fire. That's the crunch. If you changed it to 5d6, or 8d4, its no longer a fireball spell. Its close, but you're no longer casting fireball.

Meanwhile the fluff is that a tiny bead flies from your hand. That bead can be changed into anything you like. It could be a bead, skull, insect, dagger, doesn't matter. Changing that bead does not change the effect of the spell, and therefore does not change the spell.

[OldTrees1]

So does crunch. And to the exact same degree. Because the distinction doesn't actually exist the way people want it to.

I do not get the impression Extra Attack is inviting and expecting me to change it's crunch. It is permitting me to change it but it is not inviting or expecting to be changed.

I do not get the impression Shield of Faith is inviting and expecting me to change it to a save bonus instead of an AC bonus.

There are places crunch and fluff overlap that there seems to be an invitation to change it (Tasha's gave an example IIRC about refluffing spell visuals). However there is a lot of crunch where change is permitted but not invited.

The game permits you to change crunch but encourages you to change fluff. That is a different degree in my estimation. This is partially because fluff generally is on the characterization and roleplaying side of the system and crunch is generally on the game engine and mechanics side of the system. Those overlap* but the expectation is players and GMs will create and change more on the characterization side (happens with basically every character) and less on the engine side.

The example in the OP is a great example of overlap between the shimmer (glow with soft light) visual. Light is crunch but how the spell appears is fluff. Thus shimmer is both.

[diplomancer]

One could argue that it would be equally as unpleasant for everyone if one person kept insisting that their character cannot make mistakes.

Good thing that this is not what I'm saying then. But players should make decisions on the basis of the information their characters have, and giving the players this information is entirely a DM's responsibility. This is not a video game run on an impressive graphics card, everything we know that's happening on the game world comes from the DM's description. If there's something, relevant to my decison making, that my character would know but I don't because the DM has never described it to me, the DM has to tell me that information before I make the decision. If I then make a stupid decision, that's on me. But that's not the same thing as making a stupid decision because I don't know something that my character would absolutely know (like the visible effect of a very common buff, or how loud is the sound required to cast a spell).

And no, just reading out loud the text of the spell, specially a spell that does not specify any light radius, is not a substitute for telling the player "you will start to glow if you cast Shield of Faith". If anything, glowing would probably make you easier to hit, while having a wave light distortion field around you might make you harder to hit. So if you want to marry the "fluff" of Shield of Faith to the "crunch", it makes more sense that this shimmering does not make you more visible.

[PhantomSoul]

Crunch really doesn't...A fireball deals 8d6 and sets flamable objects not being held on fire. That's the crunch. If you changed it to 5d6, or 8d4, its no longer a fireball spell. Its close, but you're no longer casting fireball.

Meanwhile the fluff is that a tiny bead flies from your hand. That bead can be changed into anything you like. It could be a bead, skull, insect, dagger, doesn't matter. Changing that bead does not change the effect of the spell, and therefore does not change the spell.

I'd only half agree -- not having anything fly out would have huge potential implications (perceptible directionality regardless of Subtle), even if that might not come up much and the details of what gives the in-world perceptibility usually won't matter much (unless it's e.g. a snake and the NPCs happen to be scared of them). So it's fluff and not-fluff, all wrapped together!

[PhoenixPhyre]

I do not get the impression Extra Attack is inviting and expecting me to change it's crunch. It is permitting me to change it but it is not inviting or expecting to be changed.

I do not get the impression Shield of Faith is inviting and expecting me to change it to a save bonus instead of an AC bonus.

There are places crunch and fluff overlap that there seems to be an invitation to change it (Tasha's gave an example IIRC about refluffing spell visuals). However there is a lot of crunch where change is permitted but not invited.

That's what the entire DMG is for. And why one of the section titles is "Master of the Rules". And the repeated "the rules don't rule, you do" exhortations.

Nothing in the PHB allows players to change "fluff" (or any other rule) at will[1]. The DM is allowed (and encouraged) to change just about everything to fit the circumstances.

And you can't distinguish fluff and crunch in anything but an ad hoc, arbitrary way, usually by doing really bad things to context. Fluff is not a defined term in the rules, so the rules can't say that you can distinguish the two. All distinctions are entirely in the mind of the person advocating for change. Sure, not all changes have the same consequences, but I'd say that "fluff" changes have much more potential for weird effects than crunch changes, because crunch isn't real. AC doesn't exist in the fiction. Neither do saving throws. Those are UI conventions and UI conventions only. Changing how things are described (the usual "fluff" term) changes how the world reacts to them. And that's meaningful. Fireball is a package. Changing any piece of it is changing the whole thing. There's just as much authority to change the numbers as the "glowing bead" part. Ie "None at all" for the players (acting alone) and "as much as you want" (subject to table rebellion as always) for the DM.

Edit: in fact, you could completely remove Extra Attack and replace it with something that did the same overall job very differently and the world wouldn't change or even know the difference. Because 1 Attack (game term) =/= 1 attack (universe term) by explicit statement. You could rebalance HP entirely so fireball did N wounds, and as long as the relative "it's good for clearing mooks" property was kept intact, the world wouldn't change. But if you change it to a swarm of butterflies? That's a world-visible change. Even if the numbers don't change. Crunch is easier to change without disruption than "fluff", unless you're playing a video game where crunch is all that exists. If you have any kind of verisimilitude, fluff is way more important and has bigger knock-on effects than "crunch", to the degree that you can even tell them apart.

[1] with the one, partial, exception of the monk weapons sidebar. Which does say to work with your DM on it.

[Catullus64]

Crunch is more than just the numbers. Crunch is the mechanics, including things like "if a spell gives off a shimmering light, then see how light works".

Fluff is more than just the description text. Fluff is all the flavor that is waving a green flag inviting the Player and GM to change that flavor to better fit the character & campaign.

So yes, the fluff is no less binding than other parts of the rules. Except the fluff invites and even expects the players and GMs to change some of the fluff.

All-around good post by OldTrees1, I'm just omitting most of it for brevity. I will say that what constitutes "waving a green flag", as you put it, is where I think we get into really personal and interesting territory. For a particularly dramatic example, let's look at the structure of Paladin subclasses.

Each one comes with a set of values and behavioral standards attached to the numerical, highly codified features. In some ways, this seems like a classical example of crunch and fluff placed next to one another, but in this context the game is clearly trying to present them as a coherent whole. A character using the Oath of Devotion who believes in "look out for No. 1" is, in some sense, a violation of the "rules" present in the subclass, the rule which states that Paladins of this oath are motivated by this, that and the other thing.

I often see the fluff vs. crunch binary invoked in the interest of player freedom, with the suggestion that as long as the player doesn't change the "crunch" (typically read as "combat power") of the feature or spell or whatever, the DM is unreasonable for curtailing or pushing back against any "fluff" changes or inconsistencies. Hopefully the DM will be reasonable in allowing fluff changes, just as one hopes the DM would be reasonable in considering changing a mechanical rule that isn't working; but the call ultimately lies with the DM. It seems wrong-headed to me to assume that the DM's authority to make executive decisions is limited to the realm of so-called "crunch."

Am I tilting at windmills here, or do others feel that they've encountered this attitude before, either on the tabletop or in discussions?

EDIT: No sooner do I post this, but I look up and see that in the time it took me to write it, some posts have popped up with precisely this attitude.

[Unoriginal]

I see a lot of people responding with the claim that there is or ought to be no meaningful difference between crunch and fluff. While that's certainly close to my own way of thinking, and I tend to agree, I think it still bears discussing because the idea of a separation between the two seems pretty prevalent in the community (or this community, at least.) I think it's worth examining what assumptions about the game spring from this artificial division.

Like many things still prevalent in 5e discussions in spite of what the books say, the fluff vs crunch distinction is part of the dubious inheritance of past editions' mindsets.

3.X's discussions had (and maybe still have) a strong "only mechanics matter for RAW" crowd, which wss supported by the game to an extent. 4e ended up making that a literal rule, which culminates in the fact that 4e Disintegrate can't be used to disintegrate stuff.

5e got rid of the concept, but it's slower to change minds than to print text.

[Tanarii]

The fireball bead is as much a rule as the rest of the spell. And spells visual rules are important ones, since they can be used to identify a spell being cast.

There not being a crunch/fluff division doesn't mean some rules aren't easier for the DM to change than others, nor that their aren't rules that directly impact an explicit existing resolution method, rules that impact DM arbitration, and rules that impact player roleplaying (aka decision making).

[PhoenixPhyre]

All-around good post by OldTrees1, I'm just omitting most of it for brevity. I will say that what constitutes "waving a green flag", as you put it, is where I think we get into really personal and interesting territory. For a particularly dramatic example, let's look at the structure of Paladin subclasses.

Each one comes with a set of values and behavioral standards attached to the numerical, highly codified features. In some ways, this seems like a classical example of crunch and fluff placed next to one another, but in this context the game is clearly trying to present them as a coherent whole. A character using the Oath of Devotion who believes in "look out for No. 1" is, in some sense, a violation of the "rules" present in the subclass, the rule which states that Paladins of this oath are motivated by this, that and the other thing.

I often see the fluff vs. crunch binary invoked in the interest of player freedom, with the suggestion that as long as the player doesn't change the "crunch" (typically read as "combat power") of the feature or spell or whatever, the DM is unreasonable for curtailing or pushing back against any "fluff" changes or inconsistencies. Hopefully the DM will be reasonable in allowing fluff changes, just as one hopes the DM would be reasonable in considering changing a mechanical rule that isn't working; but the call ultimately lies with the DM. It seems wrong-headed to me to assume that the DM's authority to make executive decisions is limited to the realm of so-called "crunch."

Am I tilting at windmills here, or do others feel that they've encountered this attitude before, either on the tabletop or in discussions?

I've seen that attitude--it's the default one in online discussions, it seems.

More cynically (and I'd make this about 80% blue text if that weren't so annoying): Fluff is the things I want you to ignore for the sake of my argument because it doesn't help me. Crunch is the things I care about that help my argument. Nothing more than that--pure sophistry. If mostly unintentional sophistry (rather than active bad faith, which I don't think is the case). It's basically a mutant form of confirmation bias. We see the things that help our cause as "rules" and those that don't as "unimportant fluff that can be discarded." Instead of looking at the whole thing as a package, which is the intent and the only way things stay coherent and make any kind of sense, at least to me.

[heavyfuel]

Good thing that this is not what I'm saying then. But players should make decisions on the basis of the information their characters have, and giving the players this information is entirely a DM's responsibility. This is not a video game run on an impressive graphics card, everything we know that's happening on the game world comes from the DM's description. If there's something, relevant to my decison making, that my character would know but I don't because the DM has never described it to me, the DM has to tell me that information before I make the decision. If I then make a stupid decision, that's on me. But that's not the same thing as making a stupid decision because I don't know something that my character would absolutely know (like the visible effect of a very common buff, or how loud is the sound required to cast a spell).

And no, just reading out loud the text of the spell, specially a spell that does not specify any light radius, is not a substitute for telling the player "you will start to glow if you cast Shield of Faith".

It's not the DM's responsibility to tell you every little detail. You cast Fireball and get surprised when the DM says the wooden walls caught fire? That's on you for not reading the description of the spell.

If you read a spell and see something that is ambiguous, you don't assume it works as you think it does, you ask the DM.

Much like the Shield of Missile Attraction (a separate thread is currently active to discuss it). To gain resistance, you must be holding the shield. But what is "holding" the shield? Is it literally just holding it, ie, can a Monk hold it not lose Unarmored Defense? Or is holding it in the sense that it must be donned? It's ambiguous, so you must ask the DM. You cannot assume it works one or another.

"Shimmering" is ambiguous. You must ask the DM how it works.

[OldTrees1]

@PhoenixPhyre
Yes, D&D permits the GM to change the fluff and the crunch. That is not in disagreement.

However D&D encourages the player & GM (yes this is called working with the GM) to change fluff to match the characterization of the character.

Yes fluff changes can have bigger impact than crunch changes. That is one of the reasons D&D encourages the player & GM to change them. Description is very closely tied to characterization and D&D wants to encourage the players & GM to create characters.

[KorvinStarmast]

the idea of a separation between the two seems pretty prevalent in the community (or this community, at least.) But the problem with hanging on to that {non} distinction is nicely assessed here by unoriginal:

...the fluff vs crunch distinction is part of the dubious inheritance of past editions' mindsets...5e got rid of the concept, but it's slower to change minds than to print text. and here by PhoenixPhyre

More cynically (and I'd make this about 80% blue text if that weren't so annoying): Fluff is the things I want you to ignore for the sake of my argument because it doesn't help me. Crunch is the things I care about that help my argument. Nothing more than that--pure sophistry. If mostly unintentional sophistry (rather than active bad faith, which I don't think is the case). And because I've seen this with too great of a frequency in on line discussions {never comes up in play in the groups I play with, never} I have no use for it, since it is an artifact of a now-failed system.

There's nothing wrong with the DM call in this situation.

[PhoenixPhyre]

@PhoenixPhyre
Yes, D&D permits the GM to change the fluff and the crunch. That is not in disagreement.

However D&D encourages the player & GM (yes this is called working with the GM) to change fluff to match the characterization of the character.

Yes fluff changes can have bigger impact than crunch changes. That is one of the reasons D&D encourages the player & GM to change them. Description is very closely tied to characterization and D&D wants to encourage the players & GM to create characters.

The same applies to anything else. Which is why there's no real fundamental distinction between fluff and crunch. So trying to distinguish between them as if some are "inviting change" and others aren't is pointless and mostly there as argument weaponry (or defenses). "That's just fluff, so I can change it however I want and how dare you be a tyrant and tell me I can't!" or "You have to do X, because that's crunch and changing it is a houserule that needs to be approved in advance by everyone!".

Each coherent piece of text is just as much rules as any other coherent piece. Any bit of it can and should be changed by the DM and the players working together if they feel the need. Some pieces cause more knock-on effects than others. Which is fine. But it doesn't neatly separate into "descriptive == easy" and "mechanical == hard" bits. That's the point. And the "fluff/crunch" terms smuggle in lots and lots of unspoken and false assumptions.

[diplomancer]

It's not the DM's responsibility to tell you every little detail. You cast Fireball and get surprised when the DM says the wooden walls caught fire? That's on you for not reading the description of the spell.

If you read a spell and see something that is ambiguous, you don't assume it works as you think it does, you ask the DM.

Much like the Shield of Missile Attraction (a separate thread is currently active to discuss it). To gain resistance, you must be holding the shield. But what is "holding" the shield? Is it literally just holding it, ie, can a Monk hold it not lose Unarmored Defense? Or is holding it in the sense that it must be donned? It's ambiguous, so you must ask the DM. You cannot assume it works one or another.

"Shimmering" is ambiguous. You must ask the DM how it works.

It IS the DM's responsibility to tell me any relevant detail that my character would know but I don't. My character knows how it works. So should I.

Again, that attitude can bring the game to a halt. Now I have to ask the DM every single possible detail of every reading before taking any decision. Isn't it just a lot simpler and allowing a more pleasant experience for all, if the DM assumes that my character is not intentionally going to make himself all glowy when he's on a stealth mission, and that, if I'm saying that's what he's doing it is likely because I don't know that he will be all glowy? Why not just TELL the player what the exact effect of the spell will be, since the character knows it?

This is also different from Fireball; in my experience, when that happens, it's because the players were not paying attention to description, not because of different expectations of what will happen once the spell goes off. But if on the other hand the DM had never described the wooden walls that are going to be on fire after Fireball is cast, it would be a bad move to now add those walls, even if the DM is running a published adventure and those wooden walls were there in the first place. So it should go: Player: "I cast Fireball". DM : "The walls here are made of wood, you know". Player: "FIREBAAAAAALLLLLLL!" Boom, walls are on fire. It should NOT go: "I cast Fireball". DM: "The wooden walls (which I'd never described as wooden before, or maybe I did, 3 sessions ago) catch fire"

Imagine a DM that thinks casters are way overpowered, and, in keeping with that philosophy, says that all spells with a verbal component are not only audible, but VERY LOUD, and getting louder the more powerful the spell is. A player, not knowing that this is how the DM rules spellcasting, casts Pass Without Trace. The DM describes it as "in a commanding voice you summon shadows around you, alerting everyone in a 100' radius of your presence. Now the party has a +10 to stealth, but since everyone knows where you all are they are homing in on you". Would your character have cast this spell on those circumstances? No, because he knows what's necessary to cast that spell. He'd probably cast it at a greater distance from the fortress the party is trying to infiltrate.

[OldTrees1]

All-around good post by OldTrees1, I'm just omitting most of it for brevity. I will say that what constitutes "waving a green flag", as you put it, is where I think we get into really personal and interesting territory. For a particularly dramatic example, let's look at the structure of Paladin subclasses.

Very much so. *Eagerly reads on*


Each one comes with a set of values and behavioral standards attached to the numerical, highly codified features. In some ways, this seems like a classical example of crunch and fluff placed next to one another, but in this context the game is clearly trying to present them as a coherent whole. A character using the Oath of Devotion who believes in "look out for No. 1" is, in some sense, a violation of the "rules" present in the subclass, the rule which states that Paladins of this oath are motivated by this, that and the other thing.

I often see the fluff vs. crunch binary invoked in the interest of player freedom, with the suggestion that as long as the player doesn't change the "crunch" (typically read as "combat power") of the feature or spell or whatever, the DM is unreasonable for curtailing or pushing back against any "fluff" changes or inconsistencies. Hopefully the DM will be reasonable in allowing fluff changes, just as one hopes the DM would be reasonable in considering changing a mechanical rule that isn't working; but the call ultimately lies with the DM. It seems wrong-headed to me to assume that the DM's authority to make executive decisions is limited to the realm of so-called "crunch."

While I think there is a meaningful distinction between fluff and crunch, I do think they overlap. I also view refluffing as something done by the "player & GM" so there is little disagreement after agreement has been reached (apologies for the tautology).

The Paladin Oath/Tenants appear to wave a green flag for the player and GM to discuss what this Paladin character feels is important, what ideals and tenants they hold onto, and whether the character is a strict adherent or someone striving but failing to perfectly meet their ideals. The game gives some examples for each subclass that should be a good place to start considering the mechanical benefits the subclass will provide and to provide multiple examples to help start creativity.

As you can clearly see the GM has authority over the fluff too. Even, and especially in areas where the game encourages the player & GM to work together to change the fluff to match with the characterization of the character and campaign.


Am I tilting at windmills here, or do others feel that they've encountered this attitude before, either on the tabletop or in discussions?

EDIT: No sooner do I post this, but I look up and see that in the time it took me to write it, some posts have popped up with precisely this attitude.

No. You are not tilting at windmills.
1) I have seen unilateral refluffing before. When the Player and GM are not on the same page there can be collisions over different expectations. There are times when refluffing might involve the entire playgroup working together.

1b) However there are times when permissive GMs encourage players to assume refluffing is okay and ask for permission afterwards. With my Artificer example we talked before the campaign to make sure my Artifier had a magical fluff instead of a SciFi fluff to make sure it matched the campaign. At that time, and during session 1 I demonstrated I wanted my Artificer magic fluffed as temporarily enchanting worn items. Later I revealed I was also restricting where an enchantment could be placed (featherfall must be on footwear). Despite refluffing being something done by the player & GM working together, some shortcuts can be made with enough trust & flexibility.

2) I have also seen people pretend fluff is not part of the rules. Despite it encouraging refluffing, fluff is rules, especially where fluff and crunch overlap.

2a) The example in the OP is a good although understandable example of this. By default Shield of Faith shimmers. It produces a tiny bit of light. That is the rules unless and until changed.

So I can easily see people being open to refluffing shield of faith, including the part that overlaps with crunch (no longer produce light). I can also see a GM noticing shield of faith does produce light and having NPCs react to that light. Personally I would chalk the situation in the OP as a collision of different expectations. After the session it might be worth the player & GM talking about whether a shimmering field fits the characterization of the character. I don't know enough about the character to see any characterization conflict but maybe it has been established they worship a sun devouring serpent of darkness. The GM has authority over whether they approve the refluff for this campaign.

3) There are also times when the Player was motivated by wanting to change the crunch instead. In the OP I am slightly suspicious the player did not want the light source crunch but was ambivalent about the shimmering fluff. This is another reason the distinction between fluff and crunch is meaningful. Especially when they overlap.

[sithlordnergal]

So I can easily see people being open to refluffing shield of faith, including the part that overlaps with crunch (no longer produce light). I can also see a GM noticing shield of faith does produce light and having NPCs react to that light. Personally I would chalk the situation in the OP as a collision of different expectations. After the session it might be worth the player & GM talking about whether a shimmering field fits the characterization of the character. I don't know enough about the character to see any characterization conflict but maybe it has been established they worship a sun devouring serpent of the night. The GM has authority over whether they approve the refluff for this campaign.

Here's the thing though, the shimmer effect produces zero light. Nothing in the spell states you are producing light with this effect, and spells tend to be pretty explicit on what they do and do not do. You can't cast shield of faith in a pitch black room and suddenly be able to see the person with Shield of Faith. Its not Faerie Fire, it doesn't do that. Since it produces zero light and has no actual mechanical effect, it can be dropped from the spell entirely and nothing would change. That's what makes it fluff. And since it can be dropped whenever, that means it can be changed without any actual change to the spell.

[Bobthewizard]

According to Merriam Webster, shimmer has two meanings.

"1 : to shine with a soft tremulous or fitful light : GLIMMER
2 : to reflect a wavering sometimes distorted visual image"

Given the way spells with light are written in 5e, the second definition seems much more plausible. I think if they had meant for it to glow, they would have used another term, like glimmer or glow, and given the light a radius, perhaps more like Faerie fire's "For the duration, objects and affected creatures shed dim light in a 10-foot radius."

I don't think it's reasonable to force the most unfavorable definition of shimmer on a player's spell without explicitly warning them first, especially when other spells that light a target say they do that, and shimmer has another, commonly accepted, definition that produces no light.

[OldTrees1]

Here's the thing though, the shimmer effect produces zero light. Nothing in the spell states you are producing light with this effect, and spells tend to be pretty explicit on what they do and do not do. You can't cast shield of faith in a pitch black room and suddenly be able to see the person with Shield of Faith. Its not Faerie Fire, it doesn't do that. Since it produces zero light and has no actual mechanical effect, it can be dropped from the spell entirely and nothing would change. That's what makes it fluff. And since it can be dropped whenever, that means it can be changed without any actual change to the spell.

I disagree. It says it shimmers. It does not say how bright or give a radius. I expect we use the common language term of "shine with a soft tremulous light" which implies barely any light and not enough to adjust the light level from dark to dim or dim to bright. How visible is it when looking straight at it? Ask your GM. How visible is the glow on nearby surfaces? Ask your GM.

Changing it would change the spell, but I don't expect that to stop the "player & GM" if refluffing it to a warm blanket makes more sense for the character.

Edit: Bobthewizard is right about shimmer being a vague word. It would be up to the GM to rule on which meaning is at play and then up to the player & GM to refluff it as needed. Personally I expected shimmer to be more about distortion until I saw the first definition. My quick check source only gave the 1st definition. Given the ambiguity I went with the GM's ruling for the context of replying to sithlordnergal.


I don't think it's reasonable to force the most unfavorable definition of shimmer on a player's spell without explicitly warning them first, especially when other spells that light a target say they do that, and shimmer has another, commonly accepted, definition that produces no light.

I think it would be ideal if the GM recognized the difference in expectations in advance and warned the player.
I think it would be ideal if the GM that missed the difference in advance allowed a retcon.
Of course it would be even more ideal if there was no difference in expectations :D

I think you could use 20 20 hindsight to give the GM a list of minor tips/improvements.

[animorte]

I think it's fair that if you actively tell the DM you want to look around with - maybe including perception checks - the DM should absolutely provide you the relevant details you need. But if you're stepping into a room for the first time, depending on how long you've been in there, how much is going on, how dark it is, if you're in the middle of a fight, if you're even in a room at all...

I think at that point its fair that the DM should give you basic descriptions of the environment but it's still up to you to request looking into further detail and expect yourself to know how your own abilities and spells might interact with it. I mean, that's the same way we often come up with really creative solutions to problems, interacting with the environment intentionally.

[Catullus64]

Here's the thing though, the shimmer effect produces zero light. Nothing in the spell states you are producing light with this effect, and spells tend to be pretty explicit on what they do and do not do. You can't cast shield of faith in a pitch black room and suddenly be able to see the person with Shield of Faith. Its not Faerie Fire, it doesn't do that. Since it produces zero light and has no actual mechanical effect, it can be dropped from the spell entirely and nothing would change. That's what makes it fluff. And since it can be dropped whenever, that means it can be changed without any actual change to the spell.

For what it's worth, in the actual example, light wasn't even relevant. The courtyard was well-lit with oil lamps.

Anyway, a Fireball doesn't say that it produces light either; it requires the inference of the reader that "blossoming into an explosion of flame" produces light. It may be a staggeringly obvious inference in that case, but it's an inference nevertheless. Going from "shimmering aura" to "faint light" is not, to me, an inference of a fundamentally different kind, even if it is less certain than "fire produces light."

[JLandan]

It's not the DM's responsibility to tell you every little detail. You cast Fireball and get surprised when the DM says the wooden walls caught fire? That's on you for not reading the description of the spell.

If you read a spell and see something that is ambiguous, you don't assume it works as you think it does, you ask the DM.

Much like the Shield of Missile Attraction (a separate thread is currently active to discuss it). To gain resistance, you must be holding the shield. But what is "holding" the shield? Is it literally just holding it, ie, can a Monk hold it not lose Unarmored Defense? Or is holding it in the sense that it must be donned? It's ambiguous, so you must ask the DM. You cannot assume it works one or another.

"Shimmering" is ambiguous. You must ask the DM how it works.

It isn't the responsibility of the DM to tell the players every little detail, absolutely. But it IS the DM's responsibility to tell the players important details.

In the specific case of the shimmering spell giving away the hiding position, the DM gave them a chance to reconsider. The players should have immediately wondered why the DM did so. Paranoia saves lives.

Were I the DM, I would have been even more obvious and asked for a Wisdom save or just said outright that the spell would give up the position.

For any DM ruling that "shimmering" is mere fluff and the effect will have no affect, the point is moot.

As to the question of crunch vs fluff: There's really two games coexisting in any RPG. There's the descriptive role-playing-game, and the tactical combat board game. Most people I've played with combine the two. Some people play with an almost purely descriptive style and don't fuss too much with numbers, grids, and minis. While others play with no description at all and play straight numbers only, ignoring all fluff. (Remember the example of the invisible fire elemental?) And it's all good. Play your style and have fun.

For me specifically, I like fluff matters sometimes. When it does, the onus is on the DM to make the call, as always.

[heavyfuel]

It IS the DM's responsibility to tell me any relevant detail that my character would know but I don't. My character knows how it works. So should I.

Again, that attitude can bring the game to a halt. Now I have to ask the DM every single possible detail of every reading before taking any decision. Isn't it just a lot simpler and allowing a more pleasant experience for all, if the DM assumes that my character is not intentionally going to make himself all glowy when he's on a stealth mission, and that, if I'm saying that's what he's doing it is likely because I don't know that he will be all glowy? Why not just TELL the player what the exact effect of the spell will be, since the character knows it?

This is also different from Fireball; in my experience, when that happens, it's because the players were not paying attention to description, not because of different expectations of what will happen once the spell goes off. But if on the other hand the DM had never described the wooden walls that are going to be on fire after Fireball is cast, it would be a bad move to now add those walls, even if the DM is running a published adventure and those wooden walls were there in the first place. So it should go: Player: "I cast Fireball". DM : "The walls here are made of wood, you know". Player: "FIREBAAAAAALLLLLLL!" Boom, walls are on fire. It should NOT go: "I cast Fireball". DM: "The wooden walls (which I'd never described as wooden before, or maybe I did, 3 sessions ago) catch fire"

Imagine a DM that thinks casters are way overpowered, and, in keeping with that philosophy, says that all spells with a verbal component are not only audible, but VERY LOUD, and getting louder the more powerful the spell is. A player, not knowing that this is how the DM rules spellcasting, casts Pass Without Trace. The DM describes it as "in a commanding voice you summon shadows around you, alerting everyone in a 100' radius of your presence. Now the party has a +10 to stealth, but since everyone knows where you all are they are homing in on you". Would your character have cast this spell on those circumstances? No, because he knows what's necessary to cast that spell. He'd probably cast it at a greater distance from the fortress the party is trying to infiltrate.

I agree that it is, but you did know that it was a shimmering aura. You just had a different definition of what shimmering is. If you ask for clarification, any DM would be more than happy to clarify.

However, asking the DM to clarify (and also to think about) every possible ambiguity within the rules would also bring the game to a halt. It's beyond the scope of human knowability to have a DM review any possible ambiguity before it's brought to their attention. It's much more sensible that, upon an ambiguity becoming apparent to a player, that the payer asks for clarification on that one ambiguity, which isn't likely to bring the game to a halt.

[Composer99]

Here's the thing though, the shimmer effect produces zero light. Nothing in the spell states you are producing light with this effect, and spells tend to be pretty explicit on what they do and do not do. You can't cast shield of faith in a pitch black room and suddenly be able to see the person with Shield of Faith. Its not Faerie Fire, it doesn't do that. Since it produces zero light and has no actual mechanical effect, it can be dropped from the spell entirely and nothing would change. That's what makes it fluff. And since it can be dropped whenever, that means it can be changed without any actual change to the spell.

This is not quite correct.

The shimmering field may not emit light sufficient to be seen in darkness, nor should it necessarily give away the location of a hidden creature, but it is a perceptible effect of the spell (when the creature affected by it is perceptible). It does not have "no actual mechanical effect" - quite the contrary. Anyone who can see a creature under the effect of shield of faith knows that they are under the effect of a spell - possibly that specific spell if they're familiar with it. The shimmer cannot "be dropped whenever ... without any actual change to the spell."

[Segev]

I would say the DM made a poor call there, for two reasons:

1) While the spell does say "shimmer", nothing mentions it giving off any sort of light or making it easier to spot you. As such, this should have no effect on how well you can hide.

2) The shimmer bit is pure fluff, and absolutely shouldn't give a mechanical benefit or detriment to variety on person affected by it.

Now, how can you tell if something is fluff, and something is mechanical? Its pretty simple, remove it from the spell and see if anything changes. In the case of Shield of Faith, it gives you +2 to AC and causes a shimmer. If you remove the bit of +2 to AC, does it still have the same mechanical effect? No, you no longer have a higher AC, as such this is not fluff.

How about if you remove the shimmer? You still have the +2 to AC, therefore the mechanical effects of the spell are unchanged. This is fluff, and players can change the fluff to fit whatever they like. Meaning if they want to be more stealthy, they don't have to make it shimmer.

Remove the shimmer, and now people can't look at the target and tell that he has a protective shell. With the shimmer, they can. That IS a change.

[KorvinStarmast]

According to Merriam Webster, shimmer has two meanings.

"1 : to shine with a soft tremulous or fitful light : GLIMMER
2 : to reflect a wavering sometimes distorted visual image"

Given the way spells with light are written in 5e, the second definition seems much more plausible. I think if they had meant for it to glow, they would have used another term, like glimmer or glow, and given the light a radius, perhaps more like Faerie fire's "For the duration, objects and affected creatures shed dim light in a 10-foot radius."

I don't think it's reasonable to force the most unfavorable definition of shimmer on a player's spell without explicitly warning them first, especially when other spells that light a target say they do that, and shimmer has another, commonly accepted, definition that produces no light. Nice post. If the DM was familiar with both meanings and thought of them at the moment might help the DM make the more favorable ruling. Or pose disadvantage on a stealth check rather than saying "I see you!"

Note that I am reasonably fluent in English, it's my native language, but until you dragged the two definitions out side by side I hadn't thought to ask "which definition of shimmer are they working with here?" which seems to be how the DM in the example case reacted.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Nice post. If the DM was familiar with both meanings and thought of them at the moment might help the DM make the more favorable ruling. Or pose disadvantage on a stealth check rather than saying "I see you!"

Note that I am reasonably fluent in English, it's my native language, but until you dragged the two definitions out side by side I hadn't thought to ask "which definition of shimmer are they working with here?" which seems to be how the DM in the example case reacted.

And highlights the importance of a shared mental model between players and DM. I'd say that's 90% of most "bad ruling" issues--the player is imagining one thing and the DM another. Both are acting in good faith, trying to do what's right by the fiction and the game...but starting from different points.

The solution is open communication. Things like "uh, what?" And explaining consequences (at least those that the character would know about) before committing to actions. "Note that if you do so, they'll likely see you because shimmering. Is that what you want to do?"

[Unoriginal]

I find it it important for a DM to, in most situations when they go "are you sure?", they also remind the player of things the PC would know.

Like "are you sure? this spell has a V component, the guard is likely to hear you" or "are you sure? there are 5 guards obeying to the guy you want to threaten in the room with you."

Not the same as dispelling reasonable but wrong conclusions, though. For example, one of my players and their character is convinced that one of the NPCs is a Fragile Speedster type combatant. He's also convinced another of the NPCs is planning to take over the realm they're and that the help offered by said NPC can't be accepted because of it. He's quite wrong on both account, but since the group isn't aware of anything that would dispel the misconception, they're planning with those incorrect factors and it would be pretty meh if I used my omniscient narrator voice to go "actually, you're wrong".

[Demonslayer666]

...
"Shimmering" is ambiguous. You must ask the DM how it works.
I don't think this usage of Shimmering is ambiguous, if it was a light source, D&D would say it gives off light and list the radius "as a candle".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think this usage of Shimmering is ambiguous, if it was a light source, D&D would say it gives off light and list the radius "as a candle".

No. There are lots of things that give light but don't illuminate things. For example, faerie fire. If the area illuminated is less that a 5' square OR if the change in light level is not sufficient, it doesn't give off light for mechanical illumination purposes. That doesn't mean it doesn't give off any light. And a dark area doesn't mean there is no light at all--most moonlit nights count as mechanically darkness.



Characters face darkness outdoors at night (even most moonlit nights)


And on a moonlight night, something shimmering (in the reflective sense) absolutely is visible a darn long way off. Drive by a lake at night and you'll see it rather obviously. One of the major ways that scouts used to detect patrols and such was by the reflections off their gear from moonlight and other random light sources. Not enough to make out movements (ie still not "visible" by the combat abstraction), but still very noticeable and apt to draw attention.

[kazaryu]

Had a recent game in which, mirabile dictu, I actually got to play instead of DM, and had an interesting dispute arise.

Our party was hiding out in various places around the courtyard of a castle we were infiltrating. Playing a Rogue, like I usually do, I was hiding in a bush with the Warlock/Paladin, and we agreed that I should go and try to ambush the patrolling guard. The Warlock/Paladin player offered to cast a buff on me, and I agreed; he cast Shield of Faith. The DM had the other player read out the spell description:

A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the duration.

The DM asked if he definitely wanted to cast it, and he said yes. Upon casting, the DM then decided that the guard suddenly noticed a shimmering aura emanating from the bush; he came to investigate, and called over another two guards to investigate with him.

I thought the DM's ruling was perfectly reasonable; I thought it was amusing that I had forgotten about the shimmering part of the spell, and I generally like rolling with entertaining goofs. The other player was a little upset, but the DM stood by his ruling and the session went on. When talking after the game, I heard the other player give a curious reasoning for why he didn't think the DM's ruling was fair.

As I understood his argument, it was unreasonable to have the "shimmering field" part of the spell affect gameplay like that, because it was "just fluff", as if to say that the "crunch" part of the spell, the AC bonus, was the "real" spell effect. The DM stood by his claim that that's simply a plain reading of what the spell does.

Now, you may have your own opinions about this ruling and the player's complaint, which you are welcome to share, but that's not really what I'm starting this thread for. Instead, this instance got me thinking about the mental & rhetorical act of dividing game text into "crunch" and "fluff", typically with the implication that the crunch has a greater degree of reality than the fluff. But "crunch vs. fluff" is not actually a distinction that the game creates for itself. The game has number-crunchy rules, and it makes assertions about the in-game reality in terms of those rules, assertions like "you gain a +2 bonus to Armor Class." But it does not necessarily follow that only statements couched in those rules are meant to convey meaningful, actionable information about the reality of the game world.

I'm not advancing the argument that all "fluff" text needs to be taken as strictly binding. Rather, I'm going to begin by putting forth that it should be no more or less binding than the "rules" or "crunch"; that is to say, freely subject to the wishes & consent of the Dungeon Master and the players at the table. But I'm keen to hear others' thoughts and experiences on this matter! How do you think we should understand these two ideas? Should we think about them as truly separate at all?

Whatever your response, I encourage you to go back into the PHB and look for stuff you might not have read or thought about for a while because it's "just fluff". I'll certainly be doing so, in hopes of mining more interesting examples for this thread. In general I would like to see a general trend of people taking so-called "fluff" more seriously as a living, breathing part of the game. Cue Optimization threads about how Paladin Oath Tenets affect your DPR.

the only meaningful distinction i ever draw between 'fluff' and 'crunch' is that 'fluff' can be altered/customized by the player, but not erased. so like, no your EB doesn't have to be 'A beam of crackling energy'...but it does have to have an appearance. but i don't care if that appearance is you summoning a shadowy kunai and throwing it, or your eyeballs firing rainbow goo.

[sithlordnergal]

No. There are lots of things that give light but don't illuminate things. For example, faerie fire. If the area illuminated is less that a 5' square OR if the change in light level is not sufficient, it doesn't give off light for mechanical illumination purposes. That doesn't mean it doesn't give off any light. And a dark area doesn't mean there is no light at all--most moonlit nights count as mechanically darkness.


Actually, Faerie Fire does give off light, says so right in the spell. " For the Duration, Objects and affected Creatures shed dim light in a 10-foot radius." Which means everything within a 10ft radius of a creature affected by Faerie Fire is illuminated by dim light, and since it sheds Dim Light in a 10ft radius then it means you can see it in darkness.

Meanwhile, Shield of Faith doesn't say it gives off any light at all. Which means while there might be a shimmer, its not giving off any light.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Actually, Faerie Fire does give off light, says so right in the spell. " For the Duration, Objects and affected Creatures shed dim light in a 10-foot radius." Which means everything within a 10ft radius of a creature affected by Faerie Fire is illuminated by dim light, and since it sheds Dim Light in a 10ft radius then it means you can see it in darkness.

Meanwhile, Shield of Faith doesn't say it gives off any light at all. Which means while there might be a shimmer, its not giving off any light.

Ok, strike that example. But what about fireball or firebolt? Do those give off light (even if you can't actually see by it)? Or lightning bolt? If you restrict "gives off light" to "illuminates a 5' square or larger enough to see by it", you make lots of things in the fiction utterly screwy.

And anyway, a moonlit night is considered darkness. "Not enough light to see by" =/= no light at all. And somethign that shimmers absolutely is visible if there is any kind of other light at all. In fact, due to the (apparent) motion, it's more visible than a static thing would be.

[sithlordnergal]

Remove the shimmer, and now people can't look at the target and tell that he has a protective shell. With the shimmer, they can. That IS a change.

Allow me to correct myself then: You can remove the "shimmer" portion, and change it with, I don't know, "a blanket", and it has the same effects. It could be a literal shield floating next to your head, it could be you shimmer slightly as if protected by a barrier, it could be you're covered in spectral vines, or a blanket, or whatever you like. While you do still need some sort of visual cue to show its there, it does not actually need to be a shimmer, and you can replace "shimmer" with anything you like. And doing so won't change the effect of the spell.

That's what I meant by "you can remove that portion and it wouldn't change the spell". Heck, technically you don't even need to tell people what it looks like. They just need to know the target has +2 to AC.

[sithlordnergal]

Ok, strike that example. But what about fireball or firebolt? Do those give off light (even if you can't actually see by it)? Or lightning bolt? If you restrict "gives off light" to "illuminates a 5' square or larger enough to see by it", you make lots of things in the fiction utterly screwy.

Those do not give off any light when they go off. You can see the effect yes, but it doesn't create enough light to see anything else. If you were to cast it in a perfectly dark room, we're talking no windows, door closed, sealed up, no light what so ever, you would ONLY see the fireball. You wouldn't see anything else in the room and you wouldn't see any creatures caught by the blast. That said, the fire caused by a fireball would light things up, but that only happens after Fireball has gone off.

[Pex]

This sounds like the DM playing gotcha. That there is a shimmering aura is not in dispute, but that it means automatic exposure of the hiding spot is the issue. This is a case of the character knowing more about stuff than the player. The player can only read words on a page if he even bothers with the fluff. The player, not wrongly, cares about the effect of a spell. The player is not visualizing the spell as the DM does. The character, on the other hand, would know how bright the shimmering is and could expose their location. The DM should have warned the player that might happen. Even if the DM didn't want to be that explicit he could ask the common DM question "Are you sure?" Whenever the players hear that question their response must always be "No, never mind. I don't do that."

As much as DMs don't want players to exploit spells to do more than they're supposed to, neither should DMs themselves.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Those do not give off any light when they go off. You can see the effect yes, but it doesn't create enough light to see anything else. If you were to cast it in a perfectly dark room, we're talking no windows, door closed, sealed up, no light what so ever, you would ONLY see the fireball. You wouldn't see anything else in the room and you wouldn't see any creatures caught by the blast. That said, the fire caused by a fireball would light things up, but that only happens after Fireball has gone off.

But that's all that's required here. Enough light to see the effect. Doesn't have to illuminate the target of the spell, just enough for someone looking to say "hey, there's a shimmering thing over there, someone must have cast a spell!" and go investigate.

And that's whats' being denied. You can't meaningfully say that the "shimmering field" is less visible than a firebolt (the prompt bolt itself). Any allowances for reality you make for one have to be made for the other.

[Catullus64]

Those do not give off any light when they go off. You can see the effect yes, but it doesn't create enough light to see anything else. If you were to cast it in a perfectly dark room, we're talking no windows, door closed, sealed up, no light what so ever, you would ONLY see the fireball. You wouldn't see anything else in the room and you wouldn't see any creatures caught by the blast. That said, the fire caused by a fireball would light things up, but that only happens after Fireball has gone off.

Regardless of how reasonable this interpretation is (my take would be 'not very'), it's a very strong example of the kind of thinking I was pointing to earlier: because the game uses specific distances and terminology to articulate the light cast by some spells and effects, some want to conclude that any spell or effect which doesn't conform to that standard of articulation therefore doesn't emit light. I don't agree with it, but it's as crystal clear an example of the phenomenon as I could ask for, so I must sincerely thank sithlordnergal (Darth Nergal, to be more formal) for the clarity.

[animorte]

You can see the effect yes

I think that's the whole point. If the effect itself can be seen, it's worth taking into account.

[sithlordnergal]

I think that's the whole point. If the effect itself can be seen, it's worth taking into account.

It is worth taking into account, however the simple fact that something shimmers without creating any light would not, and should not, be enough to automatically fail a Stealth check because "you're emitting an aura of light". Because technically you aren't emitting any light at all with that shimmer.

[loki_ragnarock]

Ok, strike that example. But what about fireball or firebolt? Do those give off light (even if you can't actually see by it)? Or lightning bolt? If you restrict "gives off light" to "illuminates a 5' square or larger enough to see by it", you make lots of things in the fiction utterly screwy.

And anyway, a moonlit night is considered darkness. "Not enough light to see by" =/= no light at all. And somethign that shimmers absolutely is visible if there is any kind of other light at all. In fact, due to the (apparent) motion, it's more visible than a static thing would be.

Or, to give a non-magical example, the individual motes of dozens of fireflys.

Not every light needs to be something you can read by.

EDIT:
Rut-Roh.

We're approaching chat room speeds.

[animorte]

It is worth taking into account, however the simple fact that something shimmers without creating any light would not, and should not, be enough to automatically fail a Stealth check because "you're emitting an aura of light". Because technically you aren't emitting any light at all with that shimmer.

That's actually the first thing I commented. A Stealth check at least would have made sense. Someone else mentioned a Perception check from the guard. I agree with you, it should not have automatically caused detection.

[Ehcks]

Character knowledge and player knowledge are separate things. Just like you shouldn't metagame, your DM shouldn't force player error to become character incompetence.

A caster should know how their spells work. What they look like, how they sound, how loudly they have to speak to cast them. If a character is trying to act stealthily, and wants to provide a beneficial spell to an ally that will allow them to maintain the element of surprise, they will not cast a spell that gives away their position, and you need to make that very clear to the player if they're trying to do something else.

If they say "I cast Light" then the character has lost their wits and is sabotaging the group. If they say "I cast Shield of Faith" and you've decided that "shimmering" means "bright enough to give away your position through cover" you need to SAY that, because the character should know that.

[animorte]

If they say "I cast Light" then the character has lost their wits and is sabotaging the group. If they say "I cast Shield of Faith" and you've decided that "shimmering" means "bright enough to give away your position through cover" you need to SAY that, because the character should know that.

Unless they had never used it before, in which case maybe they get disadvantage on a Stealth check?

Learn from your mistakes.

[Segev]

Allow me to correct myself then: You can remove the "shimmer" portion, and change it with, I don't know, "a blanket", and it has the same effects. It could be a literal shield floating next to your head, it could be you shimmer slightly as if protected by a barrier, it could be you're covered in spectral vines, or a blanket, or whatever you like. While you do still need some sort of visual cue to show its there, it does not actually need to be a shimmer, and you can replace "shimmer" with anything you like. And doing so won't change the effect of the spell.

That's what I meant by "you can remove that portion and it wouldn't change the spell". Heck, technically you don't even need to tell people what it looks like. They just need to know the target has +2 to AC.

Fair enough, and I even agree with you. :smallbiggrin:

[heavyfuel]

If they say "I cast Light" then the character has lost their wits and is sabotaging the group. If they say "I cast Shield of Faith" and you've decided that "shimmering" means "bright enough to give away your position through cover" you need to SAY that, because the character should know that.

Or they've only used SoF in bright/dim light/magical darkness, where the light from the shimmer wasn't enough to affect things or be easily noticed.

It's perfectly reasonable that a character wouldn't have have realized that the very dim light would affect them when they were hiding

[sithlordnergal]

Or they've only used SoF in bright/dim light/magical darkness, where the light from the shimmer wasn't enough to affect things or be easily noticed.

It's perfectly reasonable that a character wouldn't have have realized that the very dim light would affect them when they were hiding

But why would it? Nothing in the spell states you are easier to spot. Otherwise it would say you have disadvantage on the stealth check, or state you are visible at all times when you're under the effects.

Because the thing is, it doesn't need to be a shimmer that produces light. It doesn't need to be a shimmer at all really. That's part of the fluff, and you can change it how you see fit. An Oath of the Ancients Paladin might have spectral vines covering a person, Oath of Devotion a small shimmer, Oath of the Crown a shield with the symbol of their lord.

[Reach Weapon]

The real kicker for me in a game I ran is the Message spell. It has verbal components, but the fluff says that the actual message is whispered.


Message still has to be successfully cast in order to whisper the message. The message and the casting of the spell are separate things.


COMPONENTS
V, S, M
You point your finger toward a creature within range and whisper a message. The target (and only the target) hears the message and can reply in a whisper that only you can hear.

From here it appears the verbal component is the message, which you must be able to whisper for you to cast the cantrip (and then specifies that verbalization is inaudible to anyone but the recipient) and the somatic component is a simple directional indication (that must be roughly correct).

I don't see any indication the spell text provided is not the explicit mechanical specification.

To broaden this towards the larger subject, it seems there is at least text that might be best understood as A) explicitly detailing a mechanic, B) clearly referencing a common mechanic (like the "stuffs now on fire" aspect of fireball) or C) not engaging with common mechanics.

When trying to disambiguate the meaning of terms, like the shimmering example, I do think it is a factor that it does not describe any properties of light emission or impact on overall visibility. As such, it may be more reasonable to infer the meaning that is merely distortive.

[catagent101]

Huh, this thread has given me a lot to think about.

I think maybe the delineation between crunch and fluff is that fluff is more... how should I put it... "extraneous". I don't think there should be any disagreement that the core product of D&D is the game itself, particularly in the PHB (well okay I suppose with the network effect this is somewhat more complicated but regardless). Fluff is often defined as setting stuff, but I think a better way to define it might be that it lies outside the rules, the example of fireball is pretty good I think. While the fact that it ignites things is technically crunch, it feels like fluff because there are no rules about what happens when things, be they PCs or objects, are set on fire, ergo it gets treated like fluff.

I think this is furthered by 5th editions 3e roots, and while there are people saying 5e is "rules lite" or using "rulings not rules" to describe it I don't really get that vibe. Like sure it's less fiddly than 3rd edition and I presume 4th edition, but it's still pretty rulsey. Part of this is that the system kinda limits your abilities to what you have on your character sheet, particularly in the combat sphere. This isn't an explicit rule insofar as I'm aware, but is very much implied by the existence of abilities that require investment in resources to be acquired; the fact that Reckless Attack is a barbarian class feature implies that by default one can't make a reckless attack. And I think this to some degree is why people ignore fluff. Not only does something have to be explicitly codified by default (particularly in a space like this forum where a common language of some kind must be spoken) but often fluff contradicts this to some degree. Not to rag on the poor barbarian, but the fluff of Danger Sense was brought up earlier in the thread, and while part of it is certainly that it reads like a justification as opposed to a description, another part of it I think is that this would conflict with this paradigm, since it would step on the toes of Perception, Alert, and similar abilities, so since it's fluff as opposed to crunch it get ignored by default.

Anyways, those are my thoughts.

[animorte]

According to Merriam Webster, shimmer has two meanings.

"1 : to shine with a soft tremulous or fitful light : GLIMMER
2 : to reflect a wavering sometimes distorted visual image"

According to the meaning of the words used in defining "shimmer":

Light - the natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible.
Shine - a quality of brightness, especially from reflected light.

I mean this doesn't further assist the discussion. The more technical we get, the overall purpose of the description becomes lost to context.

==========

But the real question is Crunch vs Fluff:

1. Crunch - while not always necessary for the game to run - it attempts to offer direct guidelines.
2. Fluff - while not always necessary for the game to run - it attempts to offer greater immersion.

[Captain Panda]

This is very much something that should be brought up before the actual session. A player (and a DM) should not be blindsided by this.

I land squarely on the "flavor is free, so long as the reflavor suits my setting" side of the fence. I'll be honest, I don't think I'd want to play in a game where a DM didn't allow creative reflavor of fluff; I think that's super lame and not fun. That said, it is up to the DM. If they enforce fluff, fluff is enforced. Their table, their rules.

Though the notion that there is no distinction between flavor and crunch? That's obviously false. There's a very clear distinction. Changing the visual of fireball from an explosion of fire to a pink fireworks display is not going to substantially impact gameplay. Almost no flavor change is going to impact anything but how much the player enjoys the game*, while mechanical changes are things that can dramatically alter gameplay balance and the impacts of such things can cause cascading problems that a DM does not foresee.

In the example given, I think the DM was pretty firmly in the wrong. While yes, as others have pointed out, there are firm mechanical reasons (vocal components) that should out the stealthed person, the 'shimmering shield' doing so? That pretty uncharitable DMing. Not just because the shimmering shield is fluff (which I'm not actually sold on, something being visible vs. invisible is mechanical, in my mind), but because there are charitable readings of what 'shimmering' means, how it would shape around the PC... and the DM shouldn't be ambushing the players with these sorts of things. Worse, he did it after the spell was cast. The player isn't casting the spell, the character is, and presumably the character would know if the spell is going to be a big sign that says 'HERE I AM!' to the enemy and wouldn't do it. At minimum a warning instead of a "they see you!" is in order.

*Obviously, within reason. Refluffing a human wizard into a transformer in a medieval setting? Of course not.

[Pex]

Fluff is for fun. I'm playing a warforged battlesmith artificer. His spells are just a function of how he works as a warforged. Firebolt mean a finger bends open and a flamebolt shoots out. Shield spell is activating a force field. Blur is fuzzying his image. When I do an Arcane Jolt his eyes glow and a beam of energy shoots out. All effects that govern game mechanics works as per the rules. Fluff is never used to gain any extra advantage or suffer disadvantage.

[Tanarii]

Though the notion that there is no distinction between flavor and crunch? That's obviously false. There's a very clear distinction. Changing the visual of fireball from an explosion of fire to a pink fireworks display is not going to substantially impact gameplay. Almost no flavor change is going to impact anything but how much the player enjoys the game*, while mechanical changes are things that can dramatically alter gameplay balance and the impacts of such things can cause cascading problems that a DM does not foresee.You claim its false, but then describe a rules change to fireball that's going to substantially affect gameplay.

[animorte]

Fluff is for fun. I'm playing a warforged battlesmith artificer. His spells are just a function of how he works as a warforged. Firebolt mean a finger bends open and a flamebolt shoots out. Shield spell is activating a force field. Blur is fuzzying his image. When I do an Arcane Jolt his eyes glow and a beam of energy shoots out. All effects that govern game mechanics works as per the rules. Fluff is never used to gain any extra advantage or suffer disadvantage.

Fresh Cut Grass is also a pretty good example of this.

[Segev]

You claim its false, but then describe a rules change to fireball that's going to substantially affect gameplay.

I'm not sure how what he describes substantially affects gameplay. Could you please elaborate?

[Mjolnirbear]

While I agree that RAW there is no separation between crunch and fluff, I distinguish between them.

To me, Crunch is the part that interacts with defined game mechanics. Damage, for example, is crunch, because it's purely a game mechanic, an abstract way of detailing harm. Damage type is crunch, it interacts with resistances and vulnerabilities and character traits.

How the spell appears or sounds is fluff unless the appearance is relevant to the spell. For example, Light or Faerie Fire explicitly make light, and that light interacts with mechanics. Thunderwave and Knock explicitly makes sounds that can be heard far away. Fireball has a thrown bead that can determine direction and reveal the location of the caster.

Then there are edge cases. Spiritual Weapon is one. The weapon is spectral, which conceivably could mean glowing. But it doesn't give off light measured in feet, which is how light is regulated in game mechanics. Shield of Faith shimmers, but doesn't give off light measured in feet. I would argue both are fluff. That these are purely descriptive terms to make the spells sound cooler. If my patron is The Raven Queen or Shar, then my Shield of Faith could be a cloak of visibly physical darkness. If my god is Thor is could be a crackling field of energy. If my god is Bahamut it could be spectral dragon wings folded around me.

I make the distinction because, in general, players get to describe how the character looks, smells, sounds, or feel. Maybe Sarah playing a paladin wants a chain-mail bikini or Grog wants a helmet with no obvious eyeholes for seeing so it seems more intimidating or the bard wants to make an instrument that doesn't exist IRL. I don't reduce Sarah's AC, make Grog blind or tell the bard it won't work as their focus. You want your players to have fun, and part of that is describing things in a cool way.

I find no reason to forbid that for class abilities or spells. If your warforged moon druid turns into a tiger made of rock and vines, I want to encourage that. If they want their fireball to glow blue like an electrified plasma, that sounds cool.

As for message, I agree, the writers simply forget the rules they're working with, or the rules changed and they didn't catch it in the edit, so message should be more subtle. That's just a consequence of being human.

[Catullus64]

I make the distinction because, in general, players get to describe how the character looks, smells, sounds, or feel. Maybe Sarah playing a paladin wants a chain-mail bikini or Grog wants a helmet with no obvious eyeholes for seeing so it seems more intimidating or the bard wants to make an instrument that doesn't exist IRL. I don't reduce Sarah's AC, make Grog blind or tell the bard it won't work as their focus. You want your players to have fun, and part of that is describing things in a cool way.

I find no reason to forbid that for class abilities or spells. If your warforged moon druid turns into a tiger made of rock and vines, I want to encourage that. If they want their fireball to glow blue like an electrified plasma, that sounds cool.


That "in general" at the beginning of the quoted section does a lot of work. There are reasonable limits within which a player gets to determine the aesthetics of their character, namely the DM's established vision for the setting and tone. The DM does the work to set up the world and create and adventure therein, so they have a certain prerogative to decide stuff like that, provided they express those limits clearly to the players. Of course a wise DM knows to compromise, and works to help the player realize a version of their concept that's compatible with the setting; but it's a reasonable ask that the players offer a similar level of compromise.

From personal experience, this is part of the reason I've had so much trouble in the past with the Artificer class, because the world-building text with which it is published clashes so much with my settings and preferred approach to magic. I've learned slowly how the class's mechanics can (mostly) be reflavored to make something more appropriate to my world, something that feels more like an authentic mystical craftsperson from real-world myth and legend than the magitek/gadgeteer archetype that the class text natively suggests. The class has actually proven an amazing fit for my Medieval Irish campaign setting, which is full of thematic connections between magic and the manual arts. But to do so requires a willing and gracious player with whom I can work closely, not something I can always rely upon in the many public-facing games I run (or, to be frank, even in my circle of personal acquaintances).

Thus, it would benefit me personally if people had more open minds about the relationship between mechanics and aesthetics (a terminology I like much better than "crunch vs. fluff") and accepted the DM's authority to make rulings on aesthetic matters in the same way they make rulings on mechanical ones.

[Captain Panda]

You claim its false, but then describe a rules change to fireball that's going to substantially affect gameplay.

How so? The crunch is the radius, damage type, saving throw... the flavor is the look and feel. And as described in my change, the only difference between base fireball and Fluffy Pink Princess Sparklesplosion Flavor Fireball is that in one description, the player says "...and it's PINK AND SPARKLES!" No change to the function at all.

[loki_ragnarock]

How so? The crunch is the radius, damage type, saving throw... the flavor is the look and feel. And as described in my change, the only difference between base fireball and Fluffy Pink Princess Sparklesplosion Flavor Fireball is that in one description, the player says "...and it's PINK AND SPARKLES!" No change to the function at all.

It does in the story, which is what players are interacting with.

[Captain Panda]

It does in the story, which is what players are interacting with.

But that's ignoring the actual argument. I'm not saying "changes to fluff are not changes at all," I'm saying "changes to fluff do not have mechanical impact, because they are clearly distinct," and that's still true. The difference between the pink fireworks and the fireball is purely a visual one. So yeah, it looks different in the story, but that was never a point of contention.

[Xetheral]

I entirely agree that there isn't always a clean distinction between what is fluff and what is crunch. But relying on that inherent messiness to claim that the distinction doesn't exist in the first place conflicts with the fact that the distinction can be useful for communication.

Specifically, as a DM, I don't want my players to view every piece of game text as equally binding. For example, on PHB 46 the text reads: "To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness." When considering potential character concepts, I don't want my players to consider themselves bound by that "rule", which would greatly limit the range of barbarian characters. At the same time, I do want my players to consider themselves bound by the damage dealt by Fireball, unless I explicitly indicate otherwise. Telling the players at my table that they may freely change fluff, but not crunch (and that we'll discuss any edge cases), has proven to adequately communicate the distinction I want my players to be making when designing their characters.

Is the distinction between fluff and crunch perfect? No. But it is useful despite its imperfections. To me, that utility suggests that the distinction must in fact exist and be meaningful, however fuzzy applying it might sometimes be.

[Willowhelm]

Define the terms and the argument goes away.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Define the terms and the argument goes away.

I have yet to hear a definition that didn't smuggle in the conclusion in the form of the definition. Or that could be applied without "I know it when I see it" subjectivity.

There are parts of the rules that matter more than other parts of the rules. But which part depends critically on the table and game, not on any objective parameter of the text. Labeling one part "fluff" and another "crunch" (or "unimportant/easy to vary" and "important/hard to vary") tells an observer lots about the one doing the labeling and their play style and very little about the actual text. It's a purely subjective thing inserted into the text, not a property of the text itself. Yet it's used as an argument-ender/conclusory argument and an attempt to tell other people that they're playing wrong.

[Malkavia]

I'm curious for all the people that think the shimmer part of the spell is as important as the +2 AC, would you now be okay with a player using Shield of Faith, a 60 ft ranged spell with no save and has no requirement for the target to be willing, on enemies to make it impossible for them to hide or go invisible? They are shimmering after all.

[Willowhelm]

I have yet to hear a definition that didn't smuggle in the conclusion in the form of the definition. Or that could be applied without "I know it when I see it" subjectivity.

Yes. That’s my point.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm curious for all the people that think the shimmer part of the spell is as important as the +2 AC, would you now be okay with a player using Shield of Faith, a 60 ft ranged spell with no save and has no requirement for the target to be willing, on enemies to make it impossible for them to hide or go invisible? They are shimmering after all.

Hide? Are you completely obscured? Then it doesn't matter. Are you partially visible? Then you can't hide anyway. And invisibility makes it all invisible, so no issue there.


Yes. That’s my point.

Glad we agree.

[Dr.Samurai]

I tend to agree that the descriptive text is as important as the rules text. I understand that some people are saying they are one and the same, but I think most tables have a far easier time changing what would be considered the "fluff" than the "rules", and I think that's because there is, on some level, a distinction between the two, even if the edition says there isn't.

I agree with Diplomancer and Pex that the particular example in the OP seems more of a bad call on the "gotcha" side of things. Things are not always clear for reasons already explained in the thread. DMs and players may be operating from a different assumption of what the words mean.

If the DM understands that the players want their characters to be stealthy, and the DM understands that Shield of Faith will butcher their stealth, then it should be apparent to the DM that there is a misunderstanding somewhere when the players say "we are going to cast Shield of Faith and sneak over", and the DM should work to clear things up. The narrative just becomes goofy after that "Oops, I meant to sneak up on this guard but instead I totally blew my cover and now I'm caught by myself scouting behind enemy lines".

[CapnWildefyr]

I'm curious for all the people that think the shimmer part of the spell is as important as the +2 AC, would you now be okay with a player using Shield of Faith, a 60 ft ranged spell with no save and has no requirement for the target to be willing, on enemies to make it impossible for them to hide or go invisible? They are shimmering after all.

No, and yes.

SoF can't make it impossible for you to hide. Harder perhaps, but impossible is incorrect (I can go into a room and lock a door for example). But I can't go invisible if I am shimmering (although TBH I am at work and I am not re-reading the invisibility spell, so if that spell does mention that it also makes invisible any light sources emanating from you, then you would be invisible).

[RSP]

I land squarely on the "flavor is free, so long as the reflavor suits my setting" side of the fence. I'll be honest, I don't think I'd want to play in a game where a DM didn't allow creative reflavor of fluff; I think that's super lame and not fun. That said, it is up to the DM. If they enforce fluff, fluff is enforced. Their table, their rules.

I know you mentioned discussing with DM prior to the session, however I did want to point out this came up mid session: a player saying at that specific time, something along the lines of “oh, by the way, my casting of SoF doesn’t create a shimmer”, doesn’t fly, nor should that reflect on the DM.

Not specific to Captain Panda, but thoughts on other thoughts in the thread:

If Fireball is a “fireworks display” or Firebolt a Warforged “mechanically shooting” from its finger, are you still casting a spell? Can it be Counterspelled? Can an Arcana check tell it was a spell and what was cast? If the S and V components are different, and the visual effect is different, how is that something others can know? Does the Arcanist Guild in Waterdeep pursue the character for illegal casting? Why would they, if it’s not a spell but a mechanical effect of the Warforged?

And those are all just off the top of my head: I’m sure there’s other ways the game may be impacted by such a rules change.

I remember a thread a while ago where the OP was a DM asking for help because they had allowed a Player to “refluff” their S components as “snapping their finger”. The DM was then running into trouble because the Player claimed tying their wrists up didn’t prevent them from casting (they could still snap).

They didn’t think changing the “fluff” was that big of a deal, however, it ended having consequences that they didn’t foresee.

Edit: another example from personal experience similar to the OP: had an Aasimar try to hide using nighttime darkness, while using Radiant Soul:

“Radiant Soul. Starting at 3rd level, you can use your action to unleash the divine energy within yourself, causing your eyes to glimmer and two luminous, incorporeal wings to sprout from your back.”

Wouldn’t “luminous” mean they’re creating light? Not enough, apparently, to change any lighting conditions, but that is what the word means. Doesn’t “refluffing” that have an obvious impact on the ability then?

[heavyfuel]

I'm curious for all the people that think the shimmer part of the spell is as important as the +2 AC, would you now be okay with a player using Shield of Faith, a 60 ft ranged spell with no save and has no requirement for the target to be willing, on enemies to make it impossible for them to hide or go invisible? They are shimmering after all.

That's very nice point. And sure! Why not?

You're spending a spell, a bonus action, your concentration, AND giving the enemy +2 AC

Plus, you need to be know the enemy is there, so this only works if they've already shown themselves. How many enemies rely on hiding/invisibility mid combat?

As an additional point, the enemy can still go Invisible, you will know which square they are in, but you still won't be able to see them to target them with other spells, and attacks made against them are very likely to miss as they will have +2 AC and attacks will be made with Disadvantage. They can also Hide if they are heavily obscured.

It's such a niche case that it's not not going to break anything by allowing. If anything, that's just smart thinking by the Paladin. As strangebloke said earlier in the thread: "if you're not leveraging the fluff for in-game purposes, you're not really using the ttrpg medium to its fullest potential"

[CapnWildefyr]

Don't forget, this is a game. If I'm playing Monopoly, and you land on Boardwalk, and I own it, and I forgot to collect, that's my mistake. Too bad. In this case, the player didn't think that "shimmering" could give you away. Ooops. yeah, we all interpret "shimmering" differently. But the DM DID try to prompt the player casting the spell. The player could have asked why, but didn't. Not even the original poster thought it was bad DMing.

Neither rules nor session 0's can cover every different interpretation of every possible spell and every possible action and everything else. At some point, there will always be a misunderstanding based on word interpretation. Always.

To the OP, I do not think there is anything in, say, a spell description or feature description that is all just "fluff" that can be ignored. I think the only places you have fluff are when they describe monsters, character classes, species, etc. Places where you or your players are going to be making their own choices anyway, like why their barbarian is a wizard. But in a spell, you have to think about all of it. It's all you have to go on, and there is not usually room to supply your own stamp on it, or if you do, it has to be approved by the DM first.

[Keltest]

I remember a thread a while ago where the OP was a DM asking for help because they had allowed a Player to “refluff” their S components as “snapping their finger”. The DM was then running into trouble because the Player claimed tying their wrists up didn’t prevent them from casting (they could still snap).

They didn’t think changing the “fluff” was that big of a deal, however, it ended having consequences that they didn’t foresee.

Honestly, i would say that this is as much a problem with the crunch as the fluff, because the restrained condition doesnt explicitly stop you from using somatic components, nor does any other condition that restricts movement without completely preventing actions, such as being grappled. The rules are, in fact, remarkably unclear as to how one would actually stop a spell's somatic components short of dismembering the caster.

[RSP]

Honestly, i would say that this is as much a problem with the crunch as the fluff, because the restrained condition doesnt explicitly stop you from using somatic components, nor does any other condition that restricts movement without completely preventing actions, such as being grappled. The rules are, in fact, remarkably unclear as to how one would actually stop a spell's somatic components short of dismembering the caster.

It’s not part of the Restrained condition, but technically, there’s this from the Component rules:

“…the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.”

I think, usually, it’s fair to say restraining the hands therefore prevents S components (the cast does not have “free use of at least one hand”).

[Dr.Samurai]

In my opinion there is no reason for the DM to be subtle about anything. The DM can ask a player to read the spell out loud because the DM is not familiar with what the spell does or hot it works. It doesn't necessarily mean something's amiss so I don't fault the player for not reading into the DM's request.

On the flip side, there was nothing subtle about the intention of the players; cast a buff spell and sneak in. For me it's poor form to know what the players are trying to do, and know that you're not going to let it work, and not be clear about it ahead of time. It's silly. What do you say "Oh, you thought you were going to be stealthy with this spell buff on you?" Uh... yeah, that's why we said we were going to cast it and sneak...

Whether there is a distinction between fluff and crunch is one thing, but there is certainly a distinction between player knowledge and character knowledge. And as Diplomancer explained earlier in the thread, the character would know that their shimmer would give them away, unless this is the first time they are casting it. So it makes little sense to hold the in-game character accountable for an out-of-character misunderstanding.

Bear in mind the assumption about DMs, particularly in another thread on this forum. The DM can be questioned, but only barely so, and their word is law. It seems strange then to assume that players should somehow intuit how DMs are going to interpret "fluff" wording. Better to be clear. It's one thing if it is discovered after the fact that there is a discrepancy in interpretation. But in this case the DM knew something was up and proceeded anyways, which doesn't make sense to me.

[Keltest]

In my opinion there is no reason for the DM to be subtle about anything. The DM can ask a player to read the spell out loud because the DM is not familiar with what the spell does or hot it works. It doesn't necessarily mean something's amiss so I don't fault the player for not reading into the DM's request.

On the flip side, there was nothing subtle about the intention of the players; cast a buff spell and sneak in. For me it's poor form to know what the players are trying to do, and know that you're not going to let it work, and not be clear about it ahead of time. It's silly. What do you say "Oh, you thought you were going to be stealthy with this spell buff on you?" Uh... yeah, that's why we said we were going to cast it and sneak...

Whether there is a distinction between fluff and crunch is one thing, but there is certainly a distinction between player knowledge and character knowledge. And as Diplomancer explained earlier in the thread, the character would know that their shimmer would give them away, unless this is the first time they are casting it. So it makes little sense to hold the in-game character accountable for an out-of-character misunderstanding.

Bear in mind the assumption about DMs, particularly in another thread on this forum. The DM can be questioned, but only barely so, and their word is law. It seems strange then to assume that players should somehow intuit how DMs are going to interpret "fluff" wording. Better to be clear. It's one thing if it is discovered after the fact that there is a discrepancy in interpretation. But in this case the DM knew something was up and proceeded anyways, which doesn't make sense to me.

Im generally of the opinion that its not the DM's job to play the game for the players. If they are uncertain that something is going to work, then they should ask about it. The DM prompted them to confirm, which should indicate to the players that there will be consequences to the decision. If the players forget to consider something or make a mistake without specifically checking to make sure their understanding was correct, well, thats them failing their responsibilities as players to make sure they understand what theyre doing.

[diplomancer]

It’s not part of the Restrained condition, but technically, there’s this from the Component rules:

“…the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.”

I think, usually, it’s fair to say restraining the hands therefore prevents S components (the cast does not have “free use of at least one hand”).

There's no specific game mechanic for tying someone's hands behind their back. It's definitely not the Restrained condition, as you're still capable of attacking (albeit with disadvantage) and your speed is 0.

One other useful distinction between fluff and crunch; When a player asks to change the fluff, but then later claims a mechanical advantage from it (like the snapping fingers caster), that's a NOPE.

Im generally of the opinion that its not the DM's job to play the game for the players. If they are uncertain that something is going to work, then they should ask about it. The DM prompted them to confirm, which should indicate to the players that there will be consequences to the decision. If the players forget to consider something or make a mistake without specifically checking to make sure their understanding was correct, well, thats them failing their responsibilities as players to make sure they understand what theyre doing.

Interestingly enough, this is a mistake that the NPCs will NEVER make, by definition (since it's the DM's interpretation that prevails). So, everyone in the world knows exactly how their abilities work, except the PCs.

[kyoryu]

Im generally of the opinion that its not the DM's job to play the game for the players. If they are uncertain that something is going to work, then they should ask about it. The DM prompted them to confirm, which should indicate to the players that there will be consequences to the decision. If the players forget to consider something or make a mistake without specifically checking to make sure their understanding was correct, well, thats them failing their responsibilities as players to make sure they understand what theyre doing.

I don't entirely agree.

The GM's interpretation of, well, anything is authoritative. If the GM suspects that their opinion is not in alignment with the player's, I think it's good form for them to be explicit about things if the characters would have this info.

Usually this is the case when the player says they're going to do something that is dumb or counter-productive.

if you don't do this, it can quickly become a game of gotchas and twenty questions.

If the bad outcome is due to unknown factors? That's a different situation. But in general we should assume PCs know what their spells do.

[Dr.Samurai]

Im generally of the opinion that its not the DM's job to play the game for the players.
This reads to me as a conflation of "parsing the language and make sure we understand it the same" and "play the game for the players". I don't agree this is what is happening.

If they are uncertain that something is going to work, then they should ask about it.
They weren't uncertain. They had no idea. They can't ask about something they don't know they should ask about.

The DM prompted them to confirm, which should indicate to the players that there will be consequences to the decision. If the players forget to consider something or make a mistake without specifically checking to make sure their understanding was correct, well, thats them failing their responsibilities as players to make sure they understand what theyre doing.
The players not knowing that the DM will treat "shimmering field" as "breaks stealth" is a mistake and a failure of their responsibilities? I completely disagree.

Look, I have the utmost respect for DMs and obviously the game can't exist without them. But this is sort of... too far. On the flip side, we expect players to divorce out-of-character knowledge from in-character knowledge. Don't metagame. But somehow expecting the DM to bridge out-of-character understanding of the rules with in-character decision making is beyond the pale? Come on.

The DM's word is law. There is some responsibility that comes with that I think.

[RSP]

There's no specific game mechanic for tying someone's hands behind their back. It's definitely not the Restrained condition, as you're still capable of attacking (albeit with disadvantage) and your speed is 0.

One other useful distinction between fluff and crunch; When a player asks to change the fluff, but then later claims a mechanical advantage from it (like the snapping fingers caster), that's a NOPE.

You’re creating the fluff/crunch distinction; as I and others have stated, the rules are the rules and aren’t written with such a distinction.

If you’re saying “you can change this about the rules, but I’ll not consider that change”: why make the change? Just be upfront with the Player.

I think this is a much worse situation, if the DM says “I approve this change in the rules for your character” then renegs on that and says “we’ll now that change I approved doesn’t work…”

Isn’t that just a “gotcha” DM move?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't entirely agree.

The GM's interpretation of, well, anything is authoritative. If the GM suspects that their opinion is not in alignment with the player's, I think it's good form for them to be explicit about things if the characters would have this info.

Usually this is the case when the player says they're going to do something that is dumb or counter-productive.

if you don't do this, it can quickly become a game of gotchas and twenty questions.

If the bad outcome is due to unknown factors? That's a different situation. But in general we should assume PCs know what their spells do.

I totally agree that DMs should do better about communicating, especially where there's likely differences in the internal model of the situation/spell.

On the other hand, that's a different thing, and one that can happen with so-called "crunch" as well as "fluff". You can't say that the DM was wrong because they relied on "fluff". You can say that the people involved had a miscommunication. But that doesn't make "fluff" less binding or less important. Or the distinction meaningful in the first place.

[sithlordnergal]

If Fireball is a “fireworks display” or Firebolt a Warforged “mechanically shooting” from its finger, are you still casting a spell? Can it be Counterspelled? Can an Arcana check tell it was a spell and what was cast? If the S and V components are different, and the visual effect is different, how is that something others can know? Does the Arcanist Guild in Waterdeep pursue the character for illegal casting? Why would they, if it’s not a spell but a mechanical effect of the Warforged?

And those are all just off the top of my head: I’m sure there’s other ways the game may be impacted by such a rules change.

I remember a thread a while ago where the OP was a DM asking for help because they had allowed a Player to “refluff” their S components as “snapping their finger”. The DM was then running into trouble because the Player claimed tying their wrists up didn’t prevent them from casting (they could still snap).

They didn’t think changing the “fluff” was that big of a deal, however, it ended having consequences that they didn’t foresee.


I mean, the answers to these are pretty simple:

Yeah, it may be a Fireworks display, and it may be mechanically shooting something from its finger, but those are still spells no matter how you fluff them, therefore they are Counterspellable.

As for the snapping, again, its a fluff change. Doesn't matter if their fluff is "just snapping", tying up their wrists in a way that would normally prevent Somatic components prevents them from being able to snap.

[RSP]

I mean, the answers to these are pretty simple:

Yeah, it may be a Fireworks display, and it may be mechanically shooting something from its finger, but those are still spells no matter how you fluff them, therefore they are Counterspellable.

As for the snapping, again, its a fluff change. Doesn't matter if their fluff is "just snapping", tying up their wrists in a way that would normally prevent Somatic components prevents them from being able to snap.

Except there is no fluff/crunch distinction.

If as a Player, the DM okays something about my character that isn’t the RAW, I expect that change to be consistent.

I’d fully understand something unexpected to result in a conversation with the DM along the lines of “hey, I didn’t anticipate this when I okayed the change from the RAW, so here’s what I propose instead…”

But the idea of “I’ll okay that for your character” and then pulling the rug out from the Player when that change matters, isn’t right: if you don’t want the change, don’t approve it.

If the fire coming out of the Warforged finger is the result of mechanics in the Warforged’s hand, then cool. How is that Counterspelled though? Do all firearms get Counterspelled? Does Alchemist’s Fire get Counterspelled?

If you’re changing how something works, then have that change be consistent.

[diplomancer]

You’re creating the fluff/crunch distinction; as I and others have stated, the rules are the rules and aren’t written with such a distinction.

If you’re saying “you can change this about the rules, but I’ll not consider that change”: why make the change? Just be upfront with the Player.

I think this is a much worse situation, if the DM says “I approve this change in the rules for your character” then renegs on that and says “we’ll now that change I approved doesn’t work…”

Isn’t that just a “gotcha” DM move?

No. Saying "I can cast with my hands tied because my somatic component is a snap of my fingers" is a "gotcha" player's move. Insist on that and you can get away with it once, but expect the DM to start breaking your character's fingers next time you're captured. "Hmm, I guess there are no spells that explicitly heal broken bones, you are gonna have to wait until they are healed naturally".

[sithlordnergal]

You’re creating the fluff/crunch distinction; as I and others have stated, the rules are the rules and aren’t written with such a distinction.

If you’re saying “you can change this about the rules, but I’ll not consider that change: why make the change? Just be upfront with the Player.

I think this is a much worse situation, if the DM says “I approve this change in the rules for your character” then renegs on that and says “we’ll now that change I approved doesn’t work…”

Isn’t that just a “gotcha” DM move?

Its really not a "gotcha" DM move. Now, it is prudent to make sure that players realize that their fluff changes have no effect on mechanics, but that's why the fluff/mechanic distinction exists. The only point of fluff is to make a character more distinct and stand out from other characters. That's why you can Counterspell a Fireball that's taken the form of a Fireball, or why a Renegade Fighter can shoot cabbages instead of regular bullets and have it all do the same amount of damage. Fluff has 0 effect on mechanics, and that's how it should be.

[RSP]

No. Saying "I can cast with my hands tied because my somatic component is a snap of my fingers" is a "gotcha" player's move. Insist on that and you can get away with it once, but expect the DM to start breaking your character's fingers next time you're captured.

How is that a “gotcha” move by the Player?!?

Literally they asked the DM if they could do something and the DM approved it! How is that then the Player trying to get away with something?

The DM approved the S=snap. Taking that away later is the situation unexpectedly changing: the “gotcha”. That’s being done, in this example, by the DM.

[diplomancer]

How is that a “gotcha” move by the Player?!?

Literally they asked the DM if they could do something and the DM approved it! How is that then the Player trying to get away with something?

The DM approved the S=snap. Taking that away later is the situation unexpectedly changing: the “gotcha”. That’s being done, in this example, by the DM.

Because the DM thought the player was just reflavouring his character, when he was aiming for a mechanical advantage. "Pulling a fast one" over the DM might work, once, but it's not what I consider "conductive to a wholesome playing experience". After that, were I the DM, if he gets captured again by someone who's seen him cast a Somatic spell? Broken fingers healed only naturally it is.

In a way, this is the same situation as the one in the OP, but reversed. In OP's situation, the DM did not make clear to the players the in-world consequences of his interpretation of the spell's text. In this situation, the player did not make clear to the DM the in-world consequence of how he was describing his somatic components. In both cases, there was a mismatch between expectations.

[sithlordnergal]

Except there is no fluff/crunch distinction.

If as a Player, the DM okays something about my character that isn’t the RAW, I expect that change to be consistent.

I’d fully understand something unexpected to result in a conversation with the DM along the lines of “hey, I didn’t anticipate this when I okayed the change from the RAW, so here’s what I propose instead…”

But the idea of “I’ll okay that for your character” and then pulling the rug out from the Player when that change matters, isn’t right: if you don’t want the change, don’t approve it.

If the fire coming out of the Warforged finger is the result of mechanics in the Warforged’s hand, then cool. How is that Counterspelled though? Do all firearms get Counterspelled? Does Alchemist’s Fire get Counterspelled?

If you’re changing how something works, then have that change be consistent.

There's no pulling the rug out from under the player. The player just needs to understand that you can change your fluff to be however you like, but the mechanics remain the exact same. I have never cared what a player does for their fluff, its why I allow a Renegade Fighter to shoot cabbages from their gun instead of bullets with 0 detriment or benefit to the player.

Why and how can the firebolt be counterspelled? Because no matter how you fluff it, Firebolt is a spell that deals xd10 Fire damage based on level. It doesn't matter how you fluff it, you could fluff it as "I use a wand as my spell focus, but my wand looks like a handgun and my spells come from it". Yeah, sure, you're free to do so. You shoot spells from a gun. But a spell is still a spell, no matter how you fluff it. It still deals the same damage, it still sets objects on fire, it is still able to be counterspelled because the ONLY things that matter for counterspell are:

- Is it a spell

- Can you see it being cast

The answer to both of those will always be yes, unless you have something special to avoid components.

[Willowhelm]

How is that a “gotcha” move by the Player?!?

Literally they asked the DM if they could do something and the DM approved it! How is that then the Player trying to get away with something?

The DM approved the S=snap. Taking that away later is the situation unexpectedly changing: the “gotcha”. That’s being done, in this example, by the DM.

Because by the logic used elsewhere in this thread they didn’t say “can I snap? Are you sure? You realise if I can just snap then I will be able to cast in <these situations> where I wouldn’t normally be able to? And do it behind my back and quietly and and and…”

Instead (in the gotcha view) they snuck in a rule change so they could gain a mechanical benefit without the DM realising.

This is a view that is alien to me because neither players nor DM should be trying to “gotcha” anyone. It’s a cooperative game! If you’re trying to beat the DM… you can’t.

[RSP]

Its really not a "gotcha" DM move. Now, it is prudent to make sure that players realize that their fluff changes have no effect on mechanics, but that's why the fluff/mechanic distinction exists.

Except it doesn’t, unless you’re just referring to a distinction you created.



The only point of fluff is to make a character more distinct and stand out from other characters. That's why you can Counterspell a Fireball that's taken the form of a Fireball, or why a Renegade Fighter can shoot cabbages instead of regular bullets and have it all do the same amount of damage. Fluff has 0 effect on mechanics, and that's how it should be.

That’s just creating more misunderstanding between DM and Player: DM approved X changes, but doesn’t actually consider those changes having been made? That’s supposed to help issues like what the OP mentioned?

DM at the start of the campaign: “I’ll allow your castings of SoF not to shimmer”

Paladin Player: “Awesome, thank you.”

[During 3rd session of the campaign the OP’s situation occurs]

DM: “the guards notice your shimmering.”

Paladin Player: “You said it was okay for my castings not to do that?”

DM: “I didn’t intend for me approving those changes to actually be taken as changes that occur in the game”

Paladin Player: ?!?

[sithlordnergal]

How is that a “gotcha” move by the Player?!?

Literally they asked the DM if they could do something and the DM approved it! How is that then the Player trying to get away with something?

The DM approved the S=snap. Taking that away later is the situation unexpectedly changing: the “gotcha”. That’s being done, in this example, by the DM.

Its a gotcha move by the player because they're trying to give a fluff change, snapping fingers for all somatic components, a mechanical benefit, casting spells with somatic components when you can't.

Again, the important thing to note is that changing fluff does not, in any way, shape, or form, change the mechanics. You're free to use finger snaps, but if your hands are tied up in a way to prevent somatic components, then you can't snap your fingers to cast a spell. It doesn't matter how they tied your hands up, just assume that you can't. Because fluff has 0 impact on mechanics.

I'm not taking away his ability to cast spells via snapping his fingers, he can still do that. But the player needs to realize that it doesn't matter if you're snapping your fingers, or using sign language to spell out the odyssey with every spell you cast. It all works exactly the same, takes the same amount of time, and can be stopped by the same things.

[Dr.Samurai]

RSP, you're speaking to unintended consequences of allowing a "fluff" change. People do draw a distinction between fluff and rules. The intention behind allowing a caster to snap their fingers for somatic components is to stylize their casting, make it something like that guy from Full Metal Alchemist (I don't recall his name but he's pretty cool). The intent is not to allow a player to fulfill somatic components when their wrists are bound.

Now your point is that this is the reason there is no distinction; if you change this "fluff" thing, it has real consequences in the game. I tend to agree. But in this conversation it is useful to delineate between intentions and unintended consequences. Because that's what they're speaking to.

[Pex]

If the fire coming out of the Warforged finger is the result of mechanics in the Warforged’s hand, then cool. How is that Counterspelled though? Do all firearms get Counterspelled? Does Alchemist’s Fire get Counterspelled?

If you’re changing how something works, then have that change be consistent.

My warforged's Fire Bolt can be countered because that's how the spell works. I accept it by virtue of playing the game. If there's a bother to matter how that works in fluff the magical energy of Counterspell interfered with the mechanisms in my finger that produces the heat to generate the fire. I got "zapped". There's no need to worry about firearms or alchemist fire. They're different things that do stuff in a different way. We can accept it because we just do. Fluff is just for the fun of playing.

[RSP]

Because by the logic used elsewhere in this thread they didn’t say “can I snap? Are you sure? You realise if I can just snap then I will be able to cast in <these situations> where I wouldn’t normally be able to? And do it behind my back and quietly and and and…”

Instead (in the gotcha view) they snuck in a rule change so they could gain a mechanical benefit without the DM realising.

This is a view that is alien to me because neither players nor DM should be trying to “gotcha” anyone. It’s a cooperative game! If you’re trying to beat the DM… you can’t.

Why is it on the Player to come up with every possible situation in which said change might come up at some point in the campaign? I don’t expect that from the DM, and the DM has a much better idea of what to expect.

I don’t think Players should try trick their DMs, nor do I think that was the case in citing the example: as I understood it, it was a honest request from the Player to have his character cast a certain way. Obviously, I don’t know either the Player or DM, though I also don’t think it’s fair to assume the Player was acting in bad faith.

[Catullus64]

There's no pulling the rug out from under the player. The player just needs to understand that you can change your fluff to be however you like, but the mechanics remain the exact same. I have never cared what a player does for their fluff, its why I allow a Renegade Fighter to shoot cabbages from their gun instead of bullets with 0 detriment or benefit to the player.


Yours is, I think, an extreme opinion. Most DMs I know want there to be some limits of tone and setting rules in their games, and want the descriptive, non-mechanical text to mean something. Druids-in-metal-armor is a decent example.

The snapping of fingers example, to me, points very clearly to how nobody can know for certain whether a given change will actually remain in the realm of "refluffing", or whether that change will someday come to have logical consequences that have a real impact on the game world. Assuming that there is such a thing as "just fluff" can, I think, blind us to such possibilities. To me, it would be deeply unsatisfying as a player to be told "yeah, you can change all the fluff want, just so long as none of it matters", which is what your claims often seem to amount to. At that point, I'd rather just be told to stick with the provided fluff.

[diplomancer]

Why is it on the Player to come up with every possible situation in which said change might come up at some point in the campaign? I don’t expect that from the DM, and the DM has a much better idea of what to expect.

I don’t think Players should try trick their DMs, nor do I think that was the case in citing the example: as I understood it, it was a honest request from the Player to have his character cast a certain way. Obviously, I don’t know either the Player or DM, though I also don’t think it’s fair to assume the Player was acting in bad faith.

If the player was not acting in bad faith, there will be no problem. Player and DM will work out together an explanation of why, despite usually casting spells by snapping his fingers, the character can't do that if their hands are bound. It's specially easy to do it when it's about magic, since it has no real world correspondence. Just say something like "snapping the fingers only releases the energy, but it still flows through your whole body and you can't access it if your wrists are constricted".

[sithlordnergal]

Except it doesn’t, unless you’re just referring to a distinction you created.


The distinction is pretty clearly there since you can pretty easily find the crunch and fluff of most, if not all, things. In fact, you can do this by a simple side by side comparison.

Take fireball: A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. It deals 8d6 fire damage in a 20ft radius, and gives creatures a Dex save

Now, lets say I changed that to 20d20, 200ft radius, and gives a Con save, but it still is a bright streak that flashes from your finger, and blossoms into an explosion of flame.

Does this have the same mechanical effect as Fireball? I.E. does it still deal 8d6 fire damage in a 20ft radius and has a Dex save? No, the mechanics have drastically changed. This is no longer fireball.


But lets say I changed it like this: A tiny chair shoots from your finger, and grows to a giant size before exploding. It deals 8d6, has a 20ft radius, and gives targets a Dex save.

Now does this have the same mechanics as fireball? I.E. does it still deal 8d6 fire damage in a 20ft radius and has a Dex save? Yes, it does. The mechanics have not changed a single bit. Does it look weird? Sure, but its still Fireball cause it steal deals the same damage in the same area with the same save.

Like it or not, a Fireball that blossoms into flame and a Fireball that is a chair that explodes have the exact same mechanical effects as each other. There is no actual, meaningful distinction between the two outside of making one fireball standout from the rest.



That’s just creating more misunderstanding between DM and Player: DM approved X changes, but doesn’t actually consider those changes having been made? That’s supposed to help issues like what the OP mentioned?

DM at the start of the campaign: “I’ll allow your castings of SoF not to shimmer”

Paladin Player: “Awesome, thank you.”

[During 3rd session of the campaign the OP’s situation occurs]

DM: “the guards notice your shimmering.”

Paladin Player: “You said it was okay for my castings not to do that?”

DM: “I didn’t intend for me approving those changes to actually be taken as changes that occur in the game”

Paladin Player: ?!?


It really doesn't make any confusion at all. Because:

A) The shimmer wouldn't cause you to be seen anyway, because the shimmer doesn't make you easier to be seen. Otherwise it'd be in the spell description.

but

B) The player will likely have changed the shimmer to something else. In which case the DM says "Ah yeah, you don't shimmer anymore. Well, the Guard noticed <insert whatever visual change was made here>."

And if they didn't, then the DM simply says "Oh yeah, I forgot it doesn't shimmer. Well, the guard spots you because of <insert why the player failed their stealth check here>"

[RSP]

Again, the important thing to note is that changing fluff does not, in any way, shape, or form, change the mechanics.

And this is part of the issue with the artificially created fluff/crunch distinction: you have changed the rules, but then want to also not have changed the rules. If a DM doesn’t want the in-game character able to cast spells using a snap as their S component, then don’t tell the PC that you’ll allow that.

The general consensus seems to be that the OP’s issue came about from the DM and Player not seeing eye-to-eye on how abilities work. Yet, here, you’re arguing for creating more difference in how the PC and DM view abilities, and arguing that the DM should actively cultivate these differences.

[sithlordnergal]

Yours is, I think, an extreme opinion. Most DMs I know want there to be some limits of tone and setting rules in their games, and want the descriptive, non-mechanical text to mean something. Druids-in-metal-armor is a decent example.

The snapping of fingers example, to me, points very clearly to how nobody can know for certain whether a given change will actually remain in the realm of "refluffing", or whether that change will someday come to have logical consequences that have a real impact on the game world. Assuming that there is such a thing as "just fluff" can, I think, blind us to such possibilities. To me, it would be deeply unsatisfying as a player to be told "yeah, you can change all the fluff want, just so long as none of it matters", which is what your claims often seem to amount to. At that point, I'd rather just be told to stick with the provided fluff.

I will agree I am probably on the extreme side of things. I actually do have a player that is a Renegade Fighter. He worships Brassica Prime, a parody deity from Runescape, in a world where Runescape is not, will not, and had never been a thing. He calls his Sniper Rifle a "Cabbage Cannon", and fires cabbages from it, and spreads the word of Brassica Prime to the corners of the land. The same player had a jokes character in my previous campaign called "Weeaboo Joe". He was a Battlemaster Fighter that used an anime body pillow for a shield.

And in a different campaign I had a Moon Druid Changeling that was literally just a dog. Yeah, the player could technically take on a Human form, but he was always in the form of a big, fluffy dog. And the player gave himself some fluff/RP disadvantages. For example, his could only ever say "Vox", which was his name. However, I never gave him any mechanical detriments. He could still cast spells while in dog form, provided he wasn't using Wild Shape at the time, despite having paws and only being able to say Vox. He could also be Counterspelled, and his spells were visible. My players weren't happy with me when I Disintegrated Vox, since I had basically murdered the party's dog

And yeah, I can see how that could be unsatisfying to a player...but at the same time, Fluff is just used to make a player stand out from your common casters. Why do you snap your fingers instead of doing complicated somatic components? Cause it looks cool. You don't need a mechanical benefit from "looking cool", looking cool or being special IS the end goal of changing fluff.

[RSP]

Fluff is just for the fun of playing.

All the rules are for the fun of playing.

[sithlordnergal]

And this is part of the issue with the artificially created fluff/crunch distinction: you have changed the rules, but then want to also not have changed the rules. If a DM doesn’t want the in-game character able to cast spells using a snap as their S component, then don’t tell the PC that you’ll allow that.

The general consensus seems to be that the OP’s issue came about from the DM and Player not seeing eye-to-eye on how abilities work. Yet, here, you’re arguing for creating more difference in how the PC and DM view abilities, and arguing that the DM should actively cultivate these differences.

Tell me, where have the rules changed in such a way that has a mechanical effect? Again, there is no mechanical difference between snapping your fingers for an S component, and doing a complicated gesture. As such, the player is free to just snap their fingers. Just don't expect some special secret mechanical advantage from snapping your fingers.

And no, my argument is that the shimmer does not, and should not, have mattered in any way, shape, or form when it came to how easy it is to spot the player. Because the shimmer does not have any mechanical effect that makes it easier to see the player. You could change the shimmer into a floating shield, a blanket, spectral vines, a shadow encompassing the player, whatever you like, and it will not change the fact that your AC increases by 2, and you're no harder to see now than you were before.

Because the fluff of the spell, the "shimmer", can be changed to whatever you like, and it won't change a single thing about how the spell works.

[Catullus64]

And yeah, I can see how that could be unsatisfying to a player...but at the same time, Fluff is just used to make a player stand out from your common casters. Why do you snap your fingers instead of doing complicated somatic components? Cause it looks cool. You don't need a mechanical benefit from "looking cool", looking cool or being special IS the end goal of changing fluff.

I personally don't do changes like that to 'look cool', but because I want a sense of my character as an individual. I want them to have texture, the impression of a real human being even if they are just an idea. If, for some reason, I thought that snapping for my spells was something that really added to the believability of my character (just rolling with the given example here), and the DM allowed it, I'd be a little bothered if they only tolerate it up to the point that it starts having real effects on the game.

When I was playing my hands-down favorite character, Gilgalion, the DM agreed to have each of my Bard spells correspond to an actual song that I composed. I also had heroic verses in praise of each party member when I wanted to Inspire them. By singing a snippet of the song, (and saying that I was playing the harp, if components demanded) I had a wonderfully immersive way to announce my castings. And it happened several times that it was useful to be able to pass my magic off as ordinary singing.

Now, was this intended from the beginning to be a mechanical change, effectively giving me a disguised spellcasting feature? No. Neither I or the DM intended that. Did it have a mechanical effect in play? Yes. Did it follow directly and sensibly from the flavor that I and the DM had agreed upon? Absolutely. Our game would have absolutely been the poorer if the DM had clamped down on that in the interest of preventing refluffing from having a mechanical effect.

[kyoryu]

No. Saying "I can cast with my hands tied because my somatic component is a snap of my fingers" is a "gotcha" player's move. Insist on that and you can get away with it once, but expect the DM to start breaking your character's fingers next time you're captured. "Hmm, I guess there are no spells that explicitly heal broken bones, you are gonna have to wait until they are healed naturally".

The "crunch" is in a lot of ways specific mechanical effects of the "fluff".

If you're changing the "fluff" the implicit assumption is that the mechanical interactions work as they did except with a different appearance. If you want to change those, that should be made explicit.

it's easy enough to handle that situation as a GM. "Yes, it's a finger snap, but it requires just enough hand movement that the normal restrictions on Somatic casting apply." Boom, done. If the player is acting in good faith, they'll be okay with this. If not, they won't.

(I'd consider swapping out scenarios that were prohibited/allowed to be fair play as well).

[sithlordnergal]

I personally don't do changes like that to 'look cool', but because I want a sense of my character as an individual. I want them to have texture, the impression of a real human being even if they are just an idea. If, for some reason, I thought that snapping for my spells was something that really added to the believability of my character (just rolling with the given example here), and the DM allowed it, I'd be a little bothered if they only tolerate it up to the point that it starts having real effects on the game.

When I was playing my hands-down favorite character, Gilgalion, the DM agreed to have each of my Bard spells correspond to an actual song that I composed. I also had heroic verses in praise of each party member when I wanted to Inspire them. By singing a snippet of the song, (and saying that I was playing the harp, if components demanded) I had a wonderfully immersive way to announce my castings. And it happened several times that it was useful to be able to pass my magic off as ordinary singing.

Now, was this intended from the beginning to be a mechanical change, effectively giving me a disguised spellcasting feature? No. Neither I or the DM intended that. Did it have a mechanical effect in play? Yes. Did it follow directly and sensibly from the flavor that I and the DM had agreed upon? Absolutely. Our game would have absolutely been the poorer if the DM had clamped down on that in the interest of preventing refluffing from having a mechanical effect.

You see, I would have called for a Deception check first to make sure people don't realize you're casting a spell. However, every other caster would be allowed to make a similar deception check at such a game. As far as I see it, its great that you went ahead and refluffed it as singing, and you actually sang in order to cast your spells. That absolutely makes things more memorable. But you shouldn't gain a special buff for it. You should be gaining the same benefits from your singing as the guy who just says "I cast Fireball" gains.

[Keltest]

I don't entirely agree.

The GM's interpretation of, well, anything is authoritative. If the GM suspects that their opinion is not in alignment with the player's, I think it's good form for them to be explicit about things if the characters would have this info.

Usually this is the case when the player says they're going to do something that is dumb or counter-productive.

if you don't do this, it can quickly become a game of gotchas and twenty questions.

If the bad outcome is due to unknown factors? That's a different situation. But in general we should assume PCs know what their spells do.

Grantee, but DMs aren't mind readers, and PCs do weird things for weird reasons sometimes. Unless it's obvious the player is misunderstanding something, (as opposed to simply not caring about stealth, for example) the DM isn't obligated to hold their hand through every decision, even the odd ones.

[Reach Weapon]

He calls his Sniper Rifle a "Cabbage Cannon", and fires cabbages from it
How much cabbage does the character typically have? Could this character feed the party with ricochet coleslaw? If an exploding chair fireball is cast in the same vicinity do the fragments skewer enough now grilled cabbage to serve as appetizers?

If all of this is inconsequential and handwaved away, in what was is it actually distinct or interesting?

[kyoryu]

Grantee, but DMs aren't mind readers, and PCs do weird things for weird reasons sometimes. Unless it's obvious the player is misunderstanding something, (as opposed to simply not caring about stealth, for example) the DM isn't obligated to hold their hand through every decision, even the odd ones.

You're right, they're not, but disconnects are often obvious because they're at odds with previously stated goals or "common sense". IOW, any time an action looks completely dumb, it's a good idea to try to clarify what the character knows the likely results would be.

The PCs live and breathe this stuff - the players don't.

Sometimes GMs will miss that, and that's fine too. But I find it a good guideline to follow - it keeps the players making the actually interesting decisions, not constantly querying for landmines.


How much cabbage does the character typically have? Could this character feed the party with ricochet coleslaw? If an exploding chair fireball is cast in the same vicinity do the fragments skewer enough now grilled cabbage to serve as appetizers?

If all of this is inconsequential and handwaved away, in what was is it actually distinct or interesting?

MY CABBAGES!!!

[RSP]

Tell me, where have the rules changed in such a way that has a mechanical effect? Again, there is no mechanical difference between snapping your fingers for an S component, and doing a complicated gesture. As such, the player is free to just snap their fingers. Just don't expect some special secret mechanical advantage from snapping your fingers.

I would imagine the most obvious difference is I don’t need free use of one hand to snap: I just need to be able to contact the thumb and middle finger.



And no, my argument is that the shimmer does not, and should not, have mattered in any way, shape, or form when it came to how easy it is to spot the player.

Then your argument has nothing to do with “fluff”. The DM clearly determined the shimmer was visible. You disagree with that ruling. Cool, but it’s that DM’s table and their ruling.

That ruling standing: you are now arguing that your change in “fluff” should also have mechanical changes: it’s now not noticeable as shimmering and therefore detrimental to sneaking up on the guard.



And in a different campaign I had a Moon Druid Changeling that was literally just a dog. …However, I never gave him any mechanical detriments.

Did the in-game world react to him as a dog? Did NPCs react to him like a dog? Was he not allowed into certain places where a dog wasn’t allowed? Was he able to enter places where a dog wouldn’t be noticed like a humanoid would?

[Tanarii]

How so? The crunch is the radius, damage type, saving throw... the flavor is the look and feel. And as described in my change, the only difference between base fireball and Fluffy Pink Princess Sparklesplosion Flavor Fireball is that in one description, the player says "...and it's PINK AND SPARKLES!" No change to the function at all.
Because someone observing the visual display cannot identify it as a Fireball spell.

[Willowhelm]

The distinction is pretty clearly there since you can pretty easily find the crunch and fluff of most, if not all, things. In fact, you can do this by a simple side by side comparison.

Take fireball: A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. It deals 8d6 fire damage in a 20ft radius, and gives creatures a Dex save

Now, lets say I changed that to 20d20, 200ft radius, and gives a Con save, but it still is a bright streak that flashes from your finger, and blossoms into an explosion of flame.

Does this have the same mechanical effect as Fireball? I.E. does it still deal 8d6 fire damage in a 20ft radius and has a Dex save? No, the mechanics have drastically changed. This is no longer fireball.


But lets say I changed it like this: A tiny chair shoots from your finger, and grows to a giant size before exploding. It deals 8d6, has a 20ft radius, and gives targets a Dex save.

Now does this have the same mechanics as fireball? I.E. does it still deal 8d6 fire damage in a 20ft radius and has a Dex save? Yes, it does. The mechanics have not changed a single bit. Does it look weird? Sure, but its still Fireball cause it steal deals the same damage in the same area with the same save.

Like it or not, a Fireball that blossoms into flame and a Fireball that is a chair that explodes have the exact same mechanical effects as each other. There is no actual, meaningful distinction between the two outside of making one fireball standout from the rest.


I’ll ignore that you’re ignoring the setting things on fire part.

Your different “fluff” examples have mechanical differences.

A bright streak sheds light and is a visible path back to the caster. A low roar and an explosion are audible effects. Having to point your finger is a visible sign of this spell.

A tiny chair that grows doesn’t mention sound or light or a path tracing back to the caster.

Let’s get a little silly now because people do love their RAW…

It also grows to giant size before exploding. What if it can’t? Does it not explode? How big is this tiny chair? Is it spectral? Does it grow at a constant rate? Does this affect the route/path it can take to the destination? Can I fire through a keyhole?

Your simple “fluff” changes change more than you seem to think. How it would play out in game could be very different. (None of which is to say I wouldn’t allow it at my table)

[Segev]

Because someone observing the visual display cannot identify it as a Fireball spell.

Why not? If they should recognize "a fireball spell," and the refluff is not a change that hsould mechanically disguise what the spell is, the DM should tell them what their PCs know: "That is a strange-looking fireball spell."

[sithlordnergal]

How much cabbage does the character typically have? Could this character feed the party with ricochet coleslaw? If an exploding chair fireball is cast in the same vicinity do the fragments skewer enough now grilled cabbage to serve as appetizers?

If all of this is inconsequential and handwaved away, in what was is it actually distinct or interesting?

He carries a seemingly limitless supply of cabbages cause I don't really bother with ammo tracking. And while he has used cabbages for different things, such as gifts, having unlimited cabbages has never changed the broad strokes of a scene. It can change the precise details of how a scene works out, but the end of the scene is typically unchanged.

And the same holds true with other situations. At one point the party was trapped in an Ankheg nest due to hiding in it from a sandstorm. They had accidentally alerted the Ankheg's, but had some time to figure out a way to block the path. The party had come up with various ideas, from collapsing the tunnel, to casting spells like Leomund's Tiny Hut or Rope Trick to block/avoid the Ankhegs. It was then, after the party had come up with actual, conventional methods of sealing off the tunnel that two players asked if they could instead use magic to make a bunch of food, create a small wall of cabbages, and then freeze the cabbages to block off the Ankhegs.

The party loved the idea, went all in, and I let it work. Why? Cause the broad strokes of "sealing off the tunnel to keep the Ankhegs out", remained unchanged. Collapsing the tunnel to seal off the Ankhegs would have accomplished the same exact goal as creating a frozen wall of cabbages with food on the other side to serve as a distraction.

[Keltest]

I’ll ignore that you’re ignoring the setting things on fire part.

Your different “fluff” examples have mechanical differences.

A bright streak sheds light and is a visible path back to the caster. A low roar and an explosion are audible effects. Having to point your finger is a visible sign of this spell.

A tiny chair that grows doesn’t mention sound or light or a path tracing back to the caster.

Let’s get a little silly now because people do love their RAW…

It also grows to giant size before exploding. What if it can’t? Does it not explode? How big is this tiny chair? Is it spectral? Does it grow at a constant rate? Does this affect the route/path it can take to the destination? Can I fire through a keyhole?

Your simple “fluff” changes change more than you seem to think. How it would play out in game could be very different.

Sure, if you were looking to invent a new spell instead of a cosmetic reflavoring of an existing one. But we have a base to work with, so it behaves identically to the fireball spell except that it looks like a chair.

This seems like a solution in search of a problem, except I'm not sure there's a solution here either.

[Pex]

I would imagine the most obvious difference is I don’t need free use of one hand to snap: I just need to be able to contact the thumb and middle finger.



Actually, no. The snap sound is the middle finger forcibly hitting the hand at the fleshy part just below the thumb. If there's an obstruction there, such as rope due to being tied up, the snap can't be completed so the spell can't be cast.

[sithlordnergal]

I’ll ignore that you’re ignoring the setting things on fire part.

Your different “fluff” examples have mechanical differences.

A bright streak sheds light and is a visible path back to the caster. A low roar and an explosion are audible effects. Having to point your finger is a visible sign of this spell.

A tiny chair that grows doesn’t mention sound or light or a path tracing back to the caster.

Let’s get a little silly now because people do love their RAW…

It also grows to giant size before exploding. What if it can’t? Does it not explode? How big is this tiny chair? Is it spectral? Does it grow at a constant rate? Does this affect the route/path it can take to the destination? Can I fire through a keyhole?

Your simple “fluff” changes change more than you seem to think. How it would play out in game could be very different. (None of which is to say I wouldn’t allow it at my table)


Ehh, not really. That bright streak doesn't shed any light, same with the explosion itself. If it did, it would mention how much light is created, like Moonbeam created. Same with the explosion, yeah it says its a small roar, but that roar is no louder than any other spell. Casting Fireball creates the same amount of noise as casting Catapult, Burning Hands, Chill Touch, or Dissonant Whispers. If it was meant to create a bunch of extra noise then it would mention that in the spell, like how Thunderwave and Thunder Step specifically mention they make a sound audible up to X feet away.

As for the questions about the chair, the answer there is pretty simple. "Can a normal Fireball do it? If yes, then so can the chair." Can a Fireball go through a keyhole? Ehh, depends on the keyhole's size, bit if it can then the mini chair can. Can a Fireball explode in a room smaller than a 20 by 20ft radius? Yes, as such the chair can too.

As for the rest, such as how big is the chair, is it spectral, does it grow at a constant rate, that's all up to you, the player.

[RSP]

Why not? If they should recognize "a fireball spell," and the refluff is not a change that hsould mechanically disguise what the spell is, the DM should tell them what their PCs know: "That is a strange-looking fireball spell."

How do they recognize “fireball spell” when it is not, in fact, a fireball spell?


Actually, no. The snap sound is the middle finger forcibly hitting the hand at the fleshy part just below the thumb. If there's an obstruction there, such as rope due to being tied up, the snap can't be completed so the spell can't be cast.

A little of rubbing the thumb and a little hitting the base of the thumb. However, tying one’s wrists, which secures the hands against “free use”, is not the same as tying their palms.

[sithlordnergal]

I would imagine the most obvious difference is I don’t need free use of one hand to snap: I just need to be able to contact the thumb and middle finger.


Ehh, you need to be able to contact the thumb and middle finger with some kind of force, and move your thumb and middle finger in a very specific way. That would certainly be enough to constitute as "free use of one hand".



Then your argument has nothing to do with “fluff”. The DM clearly determined the shimmer was visible. You disagree with that ruling. Cool, but it’s that DM’s table and their ruling.

That ruling standing: you are now arguing that your change in “fluff” should also have mechanical changes: it’s now not noticeable as shimmering and therefore detrimental to sneaking up on the guard.



I think you misunderstand something, or maybe I worded it poorly:

I do disagree with the DM's ruling. And I think its because the fluff of Shield of Faith, which is the shimmer, should have nothing to do with how noticeable something is because it does not state that the shimmer makes you easier to see in the spell.

Furthermore, for those who tried to argue that a shimmer gives off light, I am arguing that you can change the word "shimmer" into whatever you want, and it still would not have any noticeable change to the spell. That is to say you could change the word "shimmer" to "a cloak of shadows", and it should not, and would not, have any mechanical benefit or detriment in the game. You would not gain any more bonuses to stealth from a "cloak of shadow" Shield of Faith than you would from a "shimmering" Shield of Faith.





Did the in-game world react to him as a dog? Did NPCs react to him like a dog? Was he not allowed into certain places where a dog wasn’t allowed? Was he able to enter places where a dog wouldn’t be noticed like a humanoid would?

I'll be honest...it never really came up...He was able to enter the same places that the rest of the party could, and didn't really run into anyone that would chase him off just because he was a dog. That said, I can't be sure if that was a conscious decision by me, or if it was the setting, as we were playing Tomb of Annihilation, and Chult really only cares if Dinos enter a place or not.

As for the NPCs, it fully depended on how he RP'd. If he had Vox act like a dog, then they treated him as a dog, offering him treats and such. When he acted more like a Humanoid Druid, such as during combat or if they had seen him in combat, they treated him more like they would any other party member.

[GooeyChewie]

The distinction is pretty clearly there since you can pretty easily find the crunch and fluff of most, if not all, things. In fact, you can do this by a simple side by side comparison.



Because the fluff of the spell, the "shimmer", can be changed to whatever you like, and it won't change a single thing about how the spell works.

This reasoning seems circular to me. You argue that you can tell the difference between crunch and fluff by determining whether changing something has an impact on the mechanical effects within the game. Then you argue that "shimmer" is fluff and therefore won't change a single thing about how the spell works. But you haven't actually established that "shimmer" is fluff. In fact, I would argue that by your definition, the "shimmer" is crunch. At a minimum, it describes a visual effect which can be seen, which is a mechanical effect (albeit one which rarely matters... unless you're in the exact situation described in the original post).


I'm curious for all the people that think the shimmer part of the spell is as important as the +2 AC, would you now be okay with a player using Shield of Faith, a 60 ft ranged spell with no save and has no requirement for the target to be willing, on enemies to make it impossible for them to hide or go invisible? They are shimmering after all.
I know this one is from a few pages back, but I'm just catching up. As a DM, I would first double-check the spell because I thought it required a willing target. But I was wrong! You can absolutely cast this spell on an enemy, and if I had a player do so with the goal of making it harder for the enemy to hide I would not only allow it (probably via giving the target disadvantage on stealth), I would likely give that player DM inspiration for creative thinking (the first time, at least). It does seem like a very niche use, since it takes a bonus action, a spell slot and your concentration and you are boosting their AC to boot, but I could see it working in a "we need to follow that guy rather than defeat them" scenario.

[Mjolnirbear]

That "in general" at the beginning of the quoted section does a lot of work. There are reasonable limits within which a player gets to determine the aesthetics of their character, namely the DM's established vision for the setting and tone. The DM does the work to set up the world and create and adventure therein, so they have a certain prerogative to decide stuff like that, provided they express those limits clearly to the players. Of course a wise DM knows to compromise, and works to help the player realize a version of their concept that's compatible with the setting; but it's a reasonable ask that the players offer a similar level of compromise.



Of course there are limits. Nothing I said implies a DM should lose control over the table in the face of player wishes.

If a player wants to change the look of something and otherwise follows all related rules, I am generally inclined to permit it unless I have reason not to. I'm still the one who makes the decision.

As for the person who mentioned components, no, re-fluffing a spell doesn't change the components. I might change the components. I did for sorcerer as a class ability. But that's a houserule, not re-fluffing.

Inasmuch as we can define it, my definition of fluff is the stuff that can change without affecting the rules at all. An artificer can still get his spells dispelled. A verbal component will risk being revealed while sneaking. If you changed fireball into invisible heatwaves it still does fire damage and the targets still get a Dex save and the barbarian with danger sense still gets advantage on the save.

That's my line: it's not re-fluffing if it affects how the rules work.

[RSP]

Ehh, you need to be able to contact the thumb and middle finger with some kind of force, and move your thumb and middle finger in a very specific way. That would certainly be enough to constitute as "free use of one hand".

I can fully snap my fingers with my wrists secured. However, with my wrists secured, I do not have free use of either hand.



I do disagree with the DM's ruling. And I think its because the fluff of Shield of Faith, which is the shimmer, should have nothing to do with how noticeable something is because it does not state that the shimmer makes you easier to see in the spell.

Furthermore, for those who tried to argue that a shimmer gives off light, I am arguing that you can change the word "shimmer" into whatever you want, and it still would not have any noticeable change to the spell.

And again, none of this is true if you go off the DM’s ruling that the shimmer is noticeable and impacts hiding.

So, the DM’s ruling standing, you can’t then change shimmer to another word without changing how the spell impact the in-game world.



I'll be honest...it never really came up...He was able to enter the same places that the rest of the party could, and didn't really run into anyone that would chase him off just because he was a dog. That said, I can't be sure if that was a conscious decision by me, or if it was the setting, as we were playing Tomb of Annihilation, and Chult really only cares if Dinos enter a place or not.

As for the NPCs, it fully depended on how he RP'd. If he had Vox act like a dog, then they treated him as a dog, offering him treats and such. When he acted more like a Humanoid Druid, such as during combat or if they had seen him in combat, they treated him more like they would any other party member.

Was he a medium sized dog? Could he, as a dog, use his paws as if he had an opposable thumb?

Could a small-sized character use him as a mount?

Did his form, longer than tall (as opposed to humans who tend to be taller than long), ever effect how he interacted with cover? A wall that is only tall enough to supply 3/4 cover to a human, may well provide full cover to a dog, even a medium sized dog.

I don’t know if others just don’t care that much about RP and interacting with the in-game world, but all these “fluff” changes absolutely have affects.

Could someone speak to him using Speak with Animals?


If you changed fireball into invisible heatwaves it still does fire damage and the targets still get a Dex save and the barbarian with danger sense still gets advantage on the save.

Do all Barbarian see invisible things? When cast using Subtle Metamagic does no one know who cast the Invisible Heat Wave spell?

[sithlordnergal]

This reasoning seems circular to me. You argue that you can tell the difference between crunch and fluff by determining whether changing something has an impact on the mechanical effects within the game. Then you argue that "shimmer" is fluff and therefore won't change a single thing about how the spell works. But you haven't actually established that "shimmer" is fluff. In fact, I would argue that by your definition, the "shimmer" is crunch. At a minimum, it describes a visual effect which can be seen, which is a mechanical effect (albeit one which rarely matters... unless you're in the exact situation described in the original post).
.

May I ask how its circular logic?

My first statement is saying that you can figure out what is fluff and what is crunch by doing a side by side comparison of the same spell after making changes to it.

My second statement is that the shimmer is purely fluff, because you can change it without changing what the spell does or how it works.


Let do an example. Is there a difference between a Shield of Faith that says:

"A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the Duration."

and

"Spectral vines appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the Duration."


Is there a mechanical difference between these two spells in a purely white room scenario? Don't bring story or rp into it. All we need to care about is the physical mechanic of "+2 bonus to AC for the Duration". Has that changed in any way, shape, or form between the two spells? If it has not changed, then "A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature" is fluff. And as such, you can change that part of the spell while having no impact on how mechanically effective the spell is.


Now lets make another change:

"A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the Duration."

or

"A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, granting it a +7 bonus to AC for the Duration."


Is there a mechanical difference between these two spells in the same white room scenario? Again, no bringing up story or rp things. We still only care about the mechanical effect of "+2 bonus to AC for the Duration". Has that changed at all between the two spells? Is there a mechanical difference between +2 to AC and +7 AC? If there is a mechanical difference, then that means "+2 bonus to AC for the Duration" is the crunch of the spell. And if you change that, then you end up massively changing how powerful the spell is.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll give another example of something that, by all the definitions here, should be totally "fluff" but could reasonably have in-world consequences if you're actually running a living world (rather than cardboard).

Character height and weight.

My current party consists of a group of really tall folk (despite all being Medium). The shortest is 5'10"; the tallest is 6'6". All are human or human-adjacent (except the Tabaxi). In an area where most people aren't nearly that tall (being normal height for humans, so 5'4" - 5'8"). With buildings sized to suit. Could that matter? Absolutely. Especially if I'm trying to be "realistic" about things like hiding. Takes a very different obstacle to hide behind when you're 6'6" than when you're a 2'5" halfling (that player's character in our previous campaign was a min-height halfling).

And rivers that are neck-high obstacles to a 3'10" gnome aren't much of one to a 8' goliath. You bet your buttons I'm going to say that wading through a 2' deep river is difficult terrain for the gnome but not for the goliath. Yet height is one of the classic "fluff" parameters.

And if you're a 400+ lb goliath and you're trying to find a place to walk on a rickety floor, that's very different than if you're a 30 lb gnome.

And an aasimar or tiefling that can "pass" as human is going to get a very different reception than one who can't. And if you're trying to remain anonymous, the tiefling's gonna have to deal with having a tail. Which kinda...stands out...when you're in a mostly human area.

Fluff matters. Fluff matters as much or more than mechanics, because "fluff" (as much as you can define it) is tied directly into the underlying fiction, bypassing the UI.

[Segev]

How do they recognize “fireball spell” when it is not, in fact, a fireball spell?Who says it was not, in fact, a fireball spell?

"That looked like a pink and frizzy fireball, and you're positive that other than looks, that's what it was," is perfectly reasonable.

[Tanarii]

Fluff matters. Fluff matters as much or more than mechanics, because "fluff" (as much as you can define it) is tied directly into the underlying fiction, bypassing the UI.I think what we're really running in to is folks really caring about Player-facing vs DM-facing.

And the case is that a player-facing decision made about "description" may (if not will) impact a DM-facing decision on resolution of some kind. That doesn't necessarily mean that a DM can or should bar the decision to "refluf", but it does mean that players need to consider the impact of it and not just assume they're free to do so without either running into DM concerns about appropriateness for their world, concerns about impact on resolutions, or actual DM resolutions they may not have considered or like very much.


Who says it was not, in fact, a fireball spell?

"That looked like a pink and frizzy fireball, and you're positive that other than looks, that's what it was," is perfectly reasonable.The original description used was "pink fireworks display" not "Fluffy Pink Princess Sparklesplosion Flavor Fireball".

[OldTrees1]

The original description used was "pink fireworks display" not "Fluffy Pink Princess Sparklesplosion Flavor Fireball".

Have you considered fireball used for display?
Fireworks are explosions. Fireball is an explosion.
Fireworks are launched and then detonates. Fireball is launched and then detonates.
Fireworks can be red/orange. Fireball can be red/orange.

Honestly consider the poor magus NPC that is brewing new ways of using fireball in their yearly fireball display completion.

[Malkavia]

Because someone observing the visual display cannot identify it as a Fireball spell.

I'm not following this line of thought at all. This is literally word for word from Tasha's

"Regardless of what type of spellcaster you’re playing, you can customize the cosmetic effects of your character’s spells. Perhaps you wish the effects of your caster’s spells to appear in their favorite color, to suggest the training they received from a celestial mentor, or to exhibit their connection to a season of the year. The possibilities for how you might cosmetically customize your character’s spells are endless. However, such alterations can’t change the effects of a spell."

What Pex is doing fit's this exactly. He's cosmetically customizing his spells while ensuring that the alterations do not change the effects of the spell.

[Tanarii]

I'm not following this line of thought at all. This is literally word for word from Tasha's
Tasha's isn't core rules, and put together with considering the poor quality, I don't really care what it has to say.

[Malkavia]

Tasha's isn't core rules, and put together with considering the poor quality, I don't really care what it has to say.

Fair enough, though it sounds like you may be playing a different game than the rest of us. Tasha’s is allowed and accepted at every table I play at.

[PhantomSoul]

I'm not following this line of thought at all. This is literally word for word from Tasha's

"Regardless of what type of spellcaster you’re playing, you can customize the cosmetic effects of your character’s spells. Perhaps you wish the effects of your caster’s spells to appear in their favorite color, to suggest the training they received from a celestial mentor, or to exhibit their connection to a season of the year. The possibilities for how you might cosmetically customize your character’s spells are endless. However, such alterations can’t change the effects of a spell."

What Pex is doing fit's this exactly. He's cosmetically customizing his spells while ensuring that the alterations do not change the effects of the spell.

Putting aside any debate of what counts as "the effect" as a potential game term (conventionally whatever's in the description, so including the fluff haha), I'd say recognisability is an important in-world consequence/effect. But that could just mean fluffing that this person can infer/recognise/intuit the probable effects of the spell despite the fluff changes, so that there isn't a meaningfully different implication for the spell due to the refluffing (what's only supposed to be fluff as a change can be fixed with fluff). That's not to say more niche interactions can't be fun, but, e.g., fluff that would have considerable implications may need to either come with a caveat or be rejected.


Fair enough, though it sounds like you may be playing a different game than the rest of us. Tasha’s is allowed and accepted at every table I play at.

Funny, the games I'm in are all more like Tanarii's! (Comparing something to Tasha's is basically an overt insult in some groups at this point.)

[RSP]

"…However, such alterations can’t change the effects of a spell."

What Pex is doing fit's this exactly. He's cosmetically customizing his spells while ensuring that the alterations do not change the effects of the spell.

First, Tasha’s is optional. Second, changing in-world features can still have in-world effects. Third, it’s not true that Pex’s post “fits this exactly.” I kept the relevant bit of the rules you quoted. Here’s the RAW on spells from the Basic Rules:

“Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell’s name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell’s effect.”

Bolded for emphasis. Now here’s the spell’s effect for Fireball:

“A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature
in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.”

So, no, the option rule in Tasha’s does not state you can change what’s written above, which is the entirety of the spell’s effect.

So saying Fireball is now Fireworks Display is not permitted by the Tasha’s rule cited.

[Malkavia]

Putting aside any debate of what counts as "the effect" as a potential game term (conventionally whatever's in the description, so including the fluff haha), I'd say recognisability is an important in-world consequence/effect. But that could just mean fluffing that this person can infer/recognise/intuit the probable effects of the spell despite the fluff changes, so that there isn't a meaningfully different implication for the spell due to the refluffing (what's only supposed to be fluff as a change can be fixed with fluff). That's not to say more niche interactions can't be fun, but, e.g., fluff that would have considerable implications may need to either come with a caveat or be rejected.



Funny, the games I'm in are all more like Tanarii's! (Comparing something to Tasha's is basically an overt insult in some groups at this point.)

I just don’t see an issue with reflavoring magic missile to be flying skulls or flying butterflies. As long as the mechanical effects of the spell aren’t changed, it’s still the same spell to me.


As to another point I’ve seen made in this thread about spell identification, or “If you change what it looks like, how will I know what spell it is?” I’d say this is most likely wanting to metagame, or if not intentionally wanting to metagame, it’s unintentionally not being able to draw the line between what you, the player, knows as the description of fireball and what the character can recognize as fireball. Xanathar’s (unless we’re banning that too now since we don’t like it) explicitly has rules for spell identification.

“If the character perceived the casting, the spell’s effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spell’s level. If the spell is cast as a class spell and the character is a member of that class, the check is made with advantage.”

So, regardless of whether my fireball looks like pink fireworks or my magic missile looks like butterflies, there’s an in-game rule to identify it as a character.

Edit: Sorry if it’s not clear, but second point about spell identification is not directed at you, PhantomSoul, but the thread in general.

[Tanarii]

Tashas and Xan content can't be banned. The parts a DMs chooses to include are allowed. The default situation is they're not included as part of the rules, since they're all optional.

Spell identification based on the character observing it and knowing what they're seeing is the exact opposite of metagaming.

You've got these things back to front.

[RSP]

I just don’t see an issue with reflavoring magic missile to be flying skulls or flying butterflies. As long as the mechanical effects of the spell aren’t changed, it’s still the same spell to me.

How does a PC know to cast Shield to avoid the flying butterflies?



I’d say this is most likely wanting to metagame, or if not intentionally wanting to metagame, it’s unintentionally not being able to draw the line between what you, the player, knows as the description of fireball and what the character can recognize as fireball. Xanathar’s (unless we’re banning that too now since we don’t like it) explicitly has rules for spell identification.

There’s a reason some rules are optional, like the spell identification rule. Do you consider it “banning” the DMG if a table doesn’t use Flanking rules, or Spell Point Variant?



“If the character perceived the casting, the spell’s effect, or both, the character can make an Intelligence (Arcana) check with the reaction or action. The DC equals 15 + the spell’s level. If the spell is cast as a class spell and the character is a member of that class, the check is made with advantage.”

So, regardless of whether my fireball looks like pink fireworks or my magic missile looks like butterflies, there’s an in-game rule to identify it as a character.


Incorrect. First, see my previous post describing what’s wrong about believing the Tasha’s rule allows you to change a spell’s effect.

Second, Changing in-game-world effects, can have itself an in-game-world changing effect, regardless of whether that initial change is allowed by the rules or not.

Third, if you change a spell’s effect (which isn’t allowed by the Tasha’s rule, btw), or it’s casting (like allowing the finger snap example), how does that interact with identifying the spell? Why would someone see the finger snap and say “oh that’s Fireball, or “oh that’s Bless”? If the spell effect is now Fireworks Display, then you’re not seeing a Fireball effect, which is required based on the rule you quoted to try to identify the spell.

[Malkavia]

Tashas and Xan content can't be banned. The parts a DMs chooses to include are allowed. The default situation is they're not included as part of the rules, since they're all optional.

Spell identification based on the character observing it and knowing what they're seeing is the exact opposite of metagaming.

You've got these things back to front.

I’m saying it’s metagaming to want to recognize the spell as a player based on it’s description. When the DM explains fiery pink fireworks and you say “Hey! That’s not fair how you changed the way fireball looks. If you had described it as ‘ A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame,’ I (the player) would have known which spell it was and this my character would have magically known too.”

The spell identification method in Xanathar’s is the character recognizing the spell based on mechanical rules, and as you said, is the very opposite of metagaming. Sorry if I was unclear in the first post.

[Malkavia]

How does a PC know to cast Shield to avoid the flying butterflies?

By using the spell identification rules in Xanathar’s guide to everything. Before Xanathar’s, I think a fairly common ruling would be to make an Arcana check.




There’s a reason some rules are optional, like the spell identification rule. Do you consider it “banning” the DMG if a table doesn’t use Flanking rules, or Spell Point Variant?

This may be a gap in my own knowledge, so forgive me if it is, but where does it state that rules in Xanathar’s and Tasha’s are optional? I only use DnDBeyond, so it’s possible that I’ve missed this while jumping from link to link.


Edit: I found it in Tasha’s, and now agree that these are all optional, not core. My mistake. Still, see my point about the rule of cool below.

Everything in this book is optional. Each group, guided by the DM, decides which of these options, if any, to incorporate into a campaign. You can use some, all, or none of them. We encourage you to choose the ones that fit best with your campaign’s story and with your group’s style of play.

Whatever options you choose to use, this book relies on the rules in the Player’s Handbook, Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master’s Guide, and it can be paired with the options in Xanathar’s Guide to Everything and other D&D books.”



Incorrect. First, see my previous post describing what’s wrong about believing the Tasha’s rule allows you to change a spell’s effect.

Second, Changing in-game-world effects, can have itself an in-game-world changing effect, regardless of whether that initial change is allowed by the rules or not.

Third, if you change a spell’s effect (which isn’t allowed by the Tasha’s rule, btw), or it’s casting (like allowing the finger snap example), how does that interact with identifying the spell? Why would someone see the finger snap and say “oh that’s Fireball, or “oh that’s Bless”? If the spell effect is now Fireworks Display, then you’re not seeing a Fireball effect, which is required based on the rule you quoted to try to identify the spell.

I’d argue you’d recognize it the in a similar way to how we can recognize cover songs. If the musician changes the key, is it no longer the same song? What if they play the guitar part on piano? Is it still the same song? I would say “yes”. Now how does that relate to spells in game? My 20 intelligence wizard with training in Arcana knows way more than I do about spells, and so I imagine he can pick up on enough similarities between my butterfly magic missile and the PHB magic missile or the snapping your fingers version of a spell vs. the PHB version.

Similarly, must all full plate armor look identical to be full plate armor? What if the helmets are shaped different. Is the rapier being wielded by the enemy a rapier if the pointy end is 36 inches instead of 40 inches (I know nothing about rapiers and those dimensions may be plain silly. Please forgive me if so). My point is, the characters can recognize many things that exactly identical. There’s enough similarities for them to figure it out.

Lastly, I’ll just say that my primary motivation for wanting butterfly magic missiles has absolutely nothing to do with Tasha’s, and me and my fellow players have been doing this forever. It just falls under “the rule of cool”, and it makes for an environment where everyone is having more fun. No one I’ve played with has ever cared about making cosmetic changes to things. In fact, the response is usually more along the lines of “woah! That was really cool” The game was mechanically unchanged and yet the players had more fun. What more could you want?

[Keltest]

This may be a gap in my own knowledge, so forgive me if it is, but where does it state that rules in Xanathar’s and Tasha’s are optional? I only use DnDBeyond, so it’s possible that I’ve missed this while jumping from link to link.

Theoretically everything outside of the PHB, DMG and Monster Manual are optional, as well as select content inside those core books, like feats. But I really dislike that train of thought because there is no other official stance in the core rules to use as an alternative, therefore the "optional" rules are all we have to work with. You may choose not to use the content from those books at your table, but that doesnt mean there isnt an official stance here.

[strangebloke]

Honestly 99% of 'metagaming' accusations aren't actually about metagaming, they're about someone being rude and/or immature. If I as a DM object to a player going "thats a fireball" then I'm being a jerk. Who really cares? The player can't help knowing what they know. If a player goes "what that was a fireball, but it didn't work like it was supposed to" then they're being the jerk.

Mature players and DMs will simply get over it.

[sithlordnergal]

I can fully snap my fingers with my wrists secured. However, with my wrists secured, I do not have free use of either hand.


Even if you can snap your fingers IRL with your wrists tied, the fact that your wrists are tied means you do not have a free hand to cast a spell. It doesn't matter if your somatic component is just snapping your fingers, the fact remains that the crunch says you need a free hand, that means your hands have to be unbound to snap your fingers to cast a spell. I know it may mess with your verisimilitude, but what can I say? Verisimilitude was shot the moment they made it possible for a spider or an animated 3 inch doll be capable of grappling a 3 foot tall Halfling because the Doll is Tiny, and the Halfling is Small.




And again, none of this is true if you go off the DM’s ruling that the shimmer is noticeable and impacts hiding.

So, the DM’s ruling standing, you can’t then change shimmer to another word without changing how the spell impact the in-game world.


If you go off the DM's ruling, then you're right. That said, I feel the DM's ruling was wrong, plain and simple. Yeah, any DM can make any ruling they like, and at their table their ruling stands. But this is more about if the DM was right with their call, not if their call should stand.




Was he a medium sized dog? Could he, as a dog, use his paws as if he had an opposable thumb?

Could a small-sized character use him as a mount?

Did his form, longer than tall (as opposed to humans who tend to be taller than long), ever effect how he interacted with cover? A wall that is only tall enough to supply 3/4 cover to a human, may well provide full cover to a dog, even a medium sized dog.

I don’t know if others just don’t care that much about RP and interacting with the in-game world, but all these “fluff” changes absolutely have affects.

Could someone speak to him using Speak with Animals?

He was a Medium sized dog, her could use his paws as if he had opposable thumbs. In fact, he liked to use a quarterstaff for a lot of things.

Ehh, he never used cover, but it would have given 3/4 cover like a Human.

And no, you couldn't speak with him via Speak with Animals, as he technically was a Changling when it came to the crunch. He also didn't want to be understood via Speak With Animals. The players had to figure out another way to communicate with him via Detect Thoughts.

[Captain Panda]

Yours is, I think, an extreme opinion. Most DMs I know want there to be some limits of tone and setting rules in their games, and want the descriptive, non-mechanical text to mean something. Druids-in-metal-armor is a decent example.

The snapping of fingers example, to me, points very clearly to how nobody can know for certain whether a given change will actually remain in the realm of "refluffing", or whether that change will someday come to have logical consequences that have a real impact on the game world. Assuming that there is such a thing as "just fluff" can, I think, blind us to such possibilities. To me, it would be deeply unsatisfying as a player to be told "yeah, you can change all the fluff want, just so long as none of it matters", which is what your claims often seem to amount to. At that point, I'd rather just be told to stick with the provided fluff.

The option given was very extreme, which is why I'd always caveat as a DM that fluff is pending approval and has to fit the setting. Cabbage gun? A bit over the top, I'd decline that. Though you then follow up by pointing to one of the least popular fluff-enforcement bits in the entirety of 5e. There's a pretty huge amount of middle ground between enforcing the fluff description of each class as equally binding as the rules for attack rolls and allowing people to use Bugs Bunny style fluff.

There are also a couple problems here that keep getting rolled into the argument. Manacles/being restrained don't really prevent somatic components, so baking that assumption into the argument is a problem with the example. However, if we assume they did and the player purely as fluff has 'finger snapping' somatic components, the bound hands would stop somatic components. No need to take it any further than that. That isn't a gotcha, that's the player being unreasonable and accepting the limits of what fluff changes can do.

Spell is flavored differently and looks another way? Still counterspell-able. If a player repeatedly try to use refluffing as a way to get mechanical advantages, I think at that point you'd need to discuss whether they should just stick to the default fluff, but that should not apply to most players, most of the time.

I don't think the problems being raised here are ones a reasonable DM with sane players will really find difficult to deal with.

[Captain Panda]

how does that interact with identifying the spell? Why would someone see the finger snap and say “oh that’s Fireball, or “oh that’s Bless”? If the spell effect is now Fireworks Display, then you’re not seeing a Fireball effect, which is required based on the rule you quoted to try to identify the spell.

If you're talking about counterspell, you don't even get that far. You don't know what the spell you're countering is, by raw, ever. You hear "X is casting a spell." You can counter, or not. By the time you get to the butterflies or fireworks or vanilla fluff it's already too late.

[GooeyChewie]

May I ask how its circular logic?

My first statement is saying that you can figure out what is fluff and what is crunch by doing a side by side comparison of the same spell after making changes to it.

My second statement is that the shimmer is purely fluff, because you can change it without changing what the spell does or how it works.
The first statement claims that the game makes a distinction between crunch and fluff. You use this statement to to claim the second statement, that the "shimmer" is purely fluff. Then you use the second statement to claim the first statement, that the game makes a distinction between crunch and fluff, restarting the circle.


Let do an example. Is there a difference between a Shield of Faith that says:

"A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the Duration."

and

"Spectral vines appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the Duration."

Is there a mechanical difference between these two spells in a purely white room scenario? Don't bring story or rp into it. All we need to care about is the physical mechanic of "+2 bonus to AC for the Duration". Has that changed in any way, shape, or form between the two spells? If it has not changed, then "A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature" is fluff. And as such, you can change that part of the spell while having no impact on how mechanically effective the spell is.
Why do we only need to care about the "+2 bonus to AC for the Duration" part? All you've shown me here is that you've decided that you've decided that part is crunch (because it has numbers) and the rest is fluff (because it doesn't). The game itself makes no such distinction. The game itself isn't played in a purely white room scenario, and story and role-playing do matter in this tabletop roleplaying game.

Besides, I can easily come up with a counterexample. "No visual effect appears, you choose a creature within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the Duration." At a minimum, the "shimmer" provides the "crunch" of "the spell creates a visual effect which surrounds a creature," which is the important part for the original post.



Now lets make another change:

"A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the Duration."

or

"A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, granting it a +7 bonus to AC for the Duration."


Is there a mechanical difference between these two spells in the same white room scenario? Again, no bringing up story or rp things. We still only care about the mechanical effect of "+2 bonus to AC for the Duration". Has that changed at all between the two spells? Is there a mechanical difference between +2 to AC and +7 AC? If there is a mechanical difference, then that means "+2 bonus to AC for the Duration" is the crunch of the spell. And if you change that, then you end up massively changing how powerful the spell is.

Or, "A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, imposing a -2 penalty on all rolls compared against the creature's AC." Mechanically this ability has the exact same result as the original spell. So that part's just fluff, right? (Rhetorical question)

Obviously I had to choose the alternate effect carefully to make sure it had the same mechanical result as the original spell. Importantly, the same was true when you picked an alternate effect for "shimmering field." You made sure to choose something which wasn't too different. Really you just picked a more specific shape for the shimmering field. If you had instead chosen an olfactory or auditory effect, or simply no effect at all, the spell would have a mechanical difference in whether or not creatures could tell that the spell had been cast or which spell had been cast.

[Pex]

The first statement claims that the game makes a distinction between crunch and fluff. You use this statement to to claim the second statement, that the "shimmer" is purely fluff. Then you use the second statement to claim the first statement, that the game makes a distinction between crunch and fluff, restarting the circle.


Why do we only need to care about the "+2 bonus to AC for the Duration" part? All you've shown me here is that you've decided that you've decided that part is crunch (because it has numbers) and the rest is fluff (because it doesn't). The game itself makes no such distinction. The game itself isn't played in a purely white room scenario, and story and role-playing do matter in this tabletop roleplaying game.

Besides, I can easily come up with a counterexample. "No visual effect appears, you choose a creature within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the Duration." At a minimum, the "shimmer" provides the "crunch" of "the spell creates a visual effect which surrounds a creature," which is the important part for the original post.




Or, "A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, imposing a -2 penalty on all rolls compared against the creature's AC." Mechanically this ability has the exact same result as the original spell. So that part's just fluff, right? (Rhetorical question)

Obviously I had to choose the alternate effect carefully to make sure it had the same mechanical result as the original spell. Importantly, the same was true when you picked an alternate effect for "shimmering field." You made sure to choose something which wasn't too different. Really you just picked a more specific shape for the shimmering field. If you had instead chosen an olfactory or auditory effect, or simply no effect at all, the spell would have a mechanical difference in whether or not creatures could tell that the spell had been cast or which spell had been cast.

Accepting the spell provides a shimmering effect that is visual, that alone does not mean the PCs should automatically be noticed in the bushes. The PCs being creatures are visual just for existing but have already hidden themselves to be out of view. If a PC takes something out of his pocket or backpack that doesn't mean autodetection of their hiding spot because the object wasn't out in view when the initial hide event happened. The brightness of the shimmer is undefined. It doesn't have a glow radius to be spotted. The DM gave it one and bright enough to autoruin being hidden. It was a bad call. If you absolutely cannot accept autosuccess of keep hidden, the better solution would have been to call for another stealth check justified by the shimmer and also the verbal component necessary to cast the spell. Despite the noise of verbalization, even accepting the guard overheard it by autosuccess fiat that doesn't mean he knows where it came from or for sure he heard anything significant. That's what the check is for to determine.

[sithlordnergal]

The first statement claims that the game makes a distinction between crunch and fluff. You use this statement to to claim the second statement, that the "shimmer" is purely fluff. Then you use the second statement to claim the first statement, that the game makes a distinction between crunch and fluff, restarting the circle.

There's no circular logic at all though. The two quotes you're using are:

"The distinction is pretty clearly there since you can pretty easily find the crunch and fluff of most, if not all, things. In fact, you can do this by a simple side by side comparison."

and

"Because the fluff of the spell, the "shimmer", can be changed to whatever you like, and it won't change a single thing about how the spell works."


The first statement is explaining how you can find the distinction between fluff and crunch. The second statement is talking about how to use the above statement. Its less circular logic and more "Here's the hypothesis and here's the test" or "Here's the equation followed by how to use it". What you're claiming would be like saying circular logic is used when someone explains how a math formula works, then does a math problem using that formula.



Why do we only need to care about the "+2 bonus to AC for the Duration" part? All you've shown me here is that you've decided that you've decided that part is crunch (because it has numbers) and the rest is fluff (because it doesn't). The game itself makes no such distinction. The game itself isn't played in a purely white room scenario, and story and role-playing do matter in this tabletop roleplaying game.

Besides, I can easily come up with a counterexample. "No visual effect appears, you choose a creature within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the Duration." At a minimum, the "shimmer" provides the "crunch" of "the spell creates a visual effect which surrounds a creature," which is the important part for the original post.


Because the only part of the spell that matters ARE the numbers and duration. I point you to my little group of examples. Is there ANY meaningful change to the spell if you change the word "shimmers" to "spectral vines"? And a follow up question, if you feel there IS a meaningful change, then should we have a spell that covers you in spectral vines and provides a +2 bonus to AC? Would there be any point to such a spell existing at all?

The game actually does end up making that distinction, particularly in Tasha's. I get that you'll probably claim that Tasha's rules are "optional", but the fact remains they were printed in an official WotC book as rules for the game. They're as optional as Feats are, and from what I've seen of the Forum, we tend to assume feats are automatic. Specifically, Tasha's states you can change the description of a spell however you like, as long as you do not change the spell effects. The "effects" in this case being the numbers.

And hell, if you want I guess you could remove the visual effect of the spell entirely. They'll still end up realizing that there's a spell protecting you, but if you're with a DM that doesn't care about how you change the description of a spell, then its fine to do. And while yes, the OP's post was specifically about a DM that used some pointless fluff to cause a person to unfairly automatically fail stealth checks, I hold to the fact that said DM was incorrect.





Or, "A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, imposing a -2 penalty on all rolls compared against the creature's AC." Mechanically this ability has the exact same result as the original spell. So that part's just fluff, right? (Rhetorical question)

Obviously I had to choose the alternate effect carefully to make sure it had the same mechanical result as the original spell. Importantly, the same was true when you picked an alternate effect for "shimmering field." You made sure to choose something which wasn't too different. Really you just picked a more specific shape for the shimmering field. If you had instead chosen an olfactory or auditory effect, or simply no effect at all, the spell would have a mechanical difference in whether or not creatures could tell that the spell had been cast or which spell had been cast.


I would say no, a -2 to attack rolls against the creature is VERY different from a +2 to AC. While it theoretically accomplishes the same goal, the fact of the matter is having a +2 bonus to a, mostly, unchanging number, AC, is going to have a far different effect then having a -2 penalty to a d20 roll.

As for how I changed the description, I mostly chose those options because they are reasonable changes. That said, I will fully admit I am on the extreme end of things when it comes to changing the description of something. Its why I allow my fighter to shoot cabbages at people instead of using a regular gun and still have those cabbages do the same amount of damage. If you came to most DMs and said "I want my Shield of Faith to only smell like roses, and have no visual effect at all." I'm sure most would say "Can you come up with something more reasonable".

I, personally, would say "Sure, have at it! Just know that people will still figure out that you cast Shield of Faith with a standard DC 11 Arcana check cause its still Shield of Faith". I would have the same answer if you asked for it to be auditory only, or have no visual/auditory/olfactory clues at all. Every single one of my answers would be "Sure, just know they can still figure out what spell you cast with a standard DC 11 Arcana check."

Because you're free to change the description of the spell to whatever the hell you like in my book. I do not care what your spell looks like, sounds like, smells like, or any of that. All I care about is does it still give you a +2 bonus to AC. If it does, you're golden.

[Tanarii]

Despite the noise of verbalization, even accepting the guard overheard it by autosuccess fiat that doesn't mean he knows where it came from or for sure he heard anything significant. That's what the check is for to determine.
To be clear, are you claiming that a successful Dexterity (Stealth) check allows someone to cast a V component spell within hearing range while remaining hidden?

[RSP]

If you're talking about counterspell, you don't even get that far. You don't know what the spell you're countering is, by raw, ever. You hear "X is casting a spell." You can counter, or not. By the time you get to the butterflies or fireworks or vanilla fluff it's already too late.

I’m not. I was specifically mentioning Xanathars rule about identifying spells by seeing their effects. If you change the effects, then what are characters identifying? Why would a character see a fireworks display and think “oh that’s Fireball!” I mean, that’s literally the effect of another spell:

“Fireworks. The target explodes with a dazzling display of colors. Each creature within 10 feet of the target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or become blinded until the end of your next turn.”



The game actually does end up making that distinction, particularly in Tasha's. I get that you'll probably claim that Tasha's rules are "optional", but the fact remains they were printed in an official WotC book as rules for the game. They're as optional as Feats are, and from what I've seen of the Forum, we tend to assume feats are automatic. Specifically, Tasha's states you can change the description of a spell however you like, as long as you do not change the spell effects. The "effects" in this case being the numbers.

I’ll re-address this as it seems to be a source of confusion.

Tasha’s doesn’t say what you think it says. Here’s the quote provided earlier:

“Regardless of what type of spellcaster you’re playing, you can customize the cosmetic effects of your character’s spells. Perhaps you wish the effects of your caster’s spells to appear in their favorite color, to suggest the training they received from a celestial mentor, or to exhibit their connection to a season of the year. The possibilities for how you might cosmetically customize your character’s spells are endless. However, such alterations can’t change the effects of a spell.”

That last line is the most important:

“However, such alterations can’t change the effects of a spell.”

It’s important to know that a spell’s effects are all of the written “body” of the spell.

So Tasha’s specifically states you can’t change change what’s written there.

Now, things like the color of a fireball can be changed, because the spell effect doesn’t include a color (and I’d argue this was already up to DM/Player choice as it’s not, RAW, any given color), and therefore isn’t changed.

Here’s another one I’ve used:

Mage Armor:

“You touch a willing creature who isn't wearing armor, and a protective magical force surrounds it until the spell ends. The target's base AC becomes 13 + its Dexterity modifier. The spell ends if the target dons armor or if you dismiss the spell as an action.”

What does “a protective magical force” look like? It doesn’t say. I assume most just assume it’s invisible, but that’s not in the RAW. Currently, I’m playing a melee Sorc that has it appear as plate armor. That neither goes against RAW, nor changes the written spell effect.

Changing “shimmer” to not be in the effect of Shield of Faith, is, however, against the spell effect, therefore, the Tasha’s rule wouldn’t apply to changing it.

[Malkavia]

“Regardless of what type of spellcaster you’re playing, you can customize the cosmetic effects of your character’s spells. Perhaps you wish the effects of your caster’s spells to appear in their favorite color, to suggest the training they received from a celestial mentor, or to exhibit their connection to a season of the year. The possibilities for how you might cosmetically customize your character’s spells are endless. However, such alterations can’t change the effects of a spell.”

That last line is the most important:

“However, such alterations can’t change the effects of a spell.”

It’s important to know that a spell’s effects are all of the written “body” of the spell.

So Tasha’s specifically states you can’t change change what’s written there.

Now, things like the color of a fireball can be changed, because the spell effect doesn’t include a color (and I’d argue this was already up to DM/Player choice as it’s not, RAW, any given color), and therefore isn’t changed.


I think you may be being overly restrictive of what can or can't be changed based on Tasha's. In the PHB, fireball is described explicitly as "an explosion of flame". The example in Tasha's changes it to "a burst of red lightning". An explosion of flame and red lightning are clearly not the same. If you're describing the written description as "the effect", then Tasha's is explicitly giving an example changing that effect.

Unfortunately, we're not mind readers, but I think we can agree that the intent of Tasha's optional rule here is to leave "the effect" unchanged while personalizing the spell by changing "the fluff". If that's the case, then not all of the spell text is being considered as "the effect" by the writers of Tasha's.

[RSP]

Accepting the spell provides a shimmering effect that is visual, that alone does not mean the PCs should automatically be noticed in the bushes.

I think it’s worth re-stating the given circumstances:



Our party was hiding out in various places around the courtyard of a castle we were infiltrating. Playing a Rogue, like I usually do, I was hiding in a bush with the Warlock/Paladin, and we agreed that I should go and try to ambush the patrolling guard.

This isn’t as straightforward as some make it seem. Remember the rules of Hiding, specifically:

“You can’t hide from a creature that can see you clearly, and you give away your position if you make noise, such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase...

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.”

So if the PCs are hiding in a courtyard, and there are guards (presumably specifically there to make sure people like the PCs don’t do what the PCs are trying to do), then coming out of hiding, even without the shimmer, is still going to reveal the PC, unless the DM decides it’s a certain circumstance, like the guard being distracted, that allows the PC to approach the guard and maintain their Hidden status.

Obviously, at least with the shimmer, the DM did not feel that was the case. I don’t think it’s fair to attack them so for their decision when it’s, RAW, the default which requires a “certain circumstance” to avoid.

[Mjolnirbear]

?



Do all Barbarian see invisible things? When cast using Subtle Metamagic does no one know who cast the Invisible Heat Wave spell?

You're clearly not paying attention to the actual argument.

It works like a fireball, because it's a fireball. Unless the barbarian is blinded, he will see it, because it's a fireball. Nothing is changed about the mechanics. It has the same damage type, same range, still sets things on fire. It's a purely cosmetic change.

I clearly, very clearly, said it doesn't affect the mechanics. The player gains no mechanical advantage from his description of his spell, his components, his appearance, or his class abilities.

He doesn't get permanent advantage on persuasion checks because his character looks super handsome or beautiful. Doesn't matter if you whisper your verbal components, someone nearby can still hear it. Doesn't matter if you describe it as near-invisible shadow, the light level of the room doesn't change and you make the same perception roll to see it.

Because I think it's awesome when a cleric of Shar's Shield of Faith looks different than a cleric of Talos.

MY descriptions are mechanical. I'm describing the world. The players need to understand what they're seeing and react to it based on that understanding.

Their descriptions are for fun. I want them engaged and interested. If you want to super-sayan your Rage ability, it still takes a bonus action instead of three sessions.

In the event there is cognitive dissonance, like a heat wave fireball being harder to see, well, there isn't, because I explained at session zero that changing how it appears doesn't change how it works, unless the appearance is part of the spell's function (disguise self, light, faerie fire). But if somehow there still was, I'd tell the barbarian "this nearly-invisible ball of heat is still noticed by you, no perception roll necessary." I'd tell all the players that.

How a fireball looks doesn't change its function.

[Keltest]

If you need an excuse as to how people can still identify it as Fireball, making the arcana check lets you see into the Magic Code (tm) which governs the effects of the spell. They can read this code and see tiny invisible words that say "0Fireball, 3rd level."

Or alternatively, they can look at it and go "wow, that was an explosion in a 20 foot radius sphere that set everything on fire! Just like Fireball does!"

[GooeyChewie]

Accepting the spell provides a shimmering effect that is visual, that alone does not mean the PCs should automatically be noticed in the bushes.
I agree that based on what was written in the original post, the DM was pretty harsh in making the enemies automatically notice the player and could have more clearly explained the consequences to the players. That said, I do agree with the DM that Shield of Faith has a visual effect which could be seen by the enemies and that ignoring that effect by dismissing it as "pointless fluff" is wrong.


Because the only part of the spell that matters ARE the numbers and duration.
This statement is the conclusion you are trying to prove. You are also using it as part of the basis for drawing that conclusion. That's why I'm seeing it as circular reasoning. Your conclusion about what is fluff and what is crunch depends on already agreeing with your conclusion about what is fluff and what is crunch.


I point you to my little group of examples. Is there ANY meaningful change to the spell if you change the word "shimmers" to "spectral vines"? And a follow up question, if you feel there IS a meaningful change, then should we have a spell that covers you in spectral vines and provides a +2 bonus to AC? Would there be any point to such a spell existing at all?

The game actually does end up making that distinction, particularly in Tasha's. I get that you'll probably claim that Tasha's rules are "optional", but the fact remains they were printed in an official WotC book as rules for the game. They're as optional as Feats are, and from what I've seen of the Forum, we tend to assume feats are automatic. Specifically, Tasha's states you can change the description of a spell however you like, as long as you do not change the spell effects. The "effects" in this case being the numbers.

And hell, if you want I guess you could remove the visual effect of the spell entirely. They'll still end up realizing that there's a spell protecting you, but if you're with a DM that doesn't care about how you change the description of a spell, then its fine to do. And while yes, the OP's post was specifically about a DM that used some pointless fluff to cause a person to unfairly automatically fail stealth checks, I hold to the fact that said DM was incorrect.
The "effects" are not just the numbers. Tasha's allows you to change how the spell appears. Tasha's does not tell you that you can ignore the fact that the spell has an appearance. The visual effect is not "pointless fluff;" it actually matters when creatures might see the effect. I question the DM jumping straight to "they see you with no check required," but the DM is absolutely correct that the spell creates a visual effect that enemies who are visually perceiving their surroundings might notice.



I would say no, a -2 to attack rolls against the creature is VERY different from a +2 to AC. While it theoretically accomplishes the same goal, the fact of the matter is having a +2 bonus to a, mostly, unchanging number, AC, is going to have a far different effect then having a -2 penalty to a d20 roll.
I would point out that this hypothetical change would still have no impact on what die rolls have what results. The point I am trying to make is that just because you can make a specific change without altering how a spell plays out doesn't mean that the part of the spell you changed is "fluff."


As for how I changed the description, I mostly chose those options because they are reasonable changes. That said, I will fully admit I am on the extreme end of things when it comes to changing the description of something. Its why I allow my fighter to shoot cabbages at people instead of using a regular gun and still have those cabbages do the same amount of damage. If you came to most DMs and said "I want my Shield of Faith to only smell like roses, and have no visual effect at all." I'm sure most would say "Can you come up with something more reasonable".

I, personally, would say "Sure, have at it! Just know that people will still figure out that you cast Shield of Faith with a standard DC 11 Arcana check cause its still Shield of Faith". I would have the same answer if you asked for it to be auditory only, or have no visual/auditory/olfactory clues at all. Every single one of my answers would be "Sure, just know they can still figure out what spell you cast with a standard DC 11 Arcana check."

Because you're free to change the description of the spell to whatever the hell you like in my book. I do not care what your spell looks like, sounds like, smells like, or any of that. All I care about is does it still give you a +2 bonus to AC. If it does, you're golden.
Some creatures have advantage on perception checks based on certain senses, often smell or hearing. Changing the visual effect to another type of effect does mechanically change the spell. If you want to accept those changes when you're the DM, that's perfectly fine. I don't think it significantly changes the balance level of the spell. Just recognize that when you do so, you are actually making a change to the spell.


It works like a fireball, because it's a fireball. Unless the barbarian is blinded, he will see it, because it's a fireball. Nothing is changed about the mechanics. It has the same damage type, same range, still sets things on fire. It's a purely cosmetic change.

And if the barbarian can see it, it isn't invisible. RSP is right. You can change the appearance of the Fireball, but you can't change the fact that it has a visual appearance by calling it "invisible." In the original post, the player wanted NPCs to ignore the visual effect on the basis of that effect being "fluff," which falls outside the bounds of the changes allowed by Tasha's.

[RSP]

You're clearly not paying attention to the actual argument.

It works like a fireball, because it's a fireball. Unless the barbarian is blinded, he will see it, because it's a fireball. Nothing is changed about the mechanics. It has the same damage type, same range, still sets things on fire. It's a purely cosmetic change.

So you play to intentionally break verisimilitude and have Players metagame against the in-world fiction? If that works for your table, cool. Not at mine though. And, apparently, not at the DM in the OP’s statement. So arguing that they (or I) need to change how we play to your style, isn’t a great argument.

Using Tasha’s as a rule that lets a Player “decide they don’t shimmer” at the moment when shimmer is detrimental, doesn’t work, as I’ve shown.

So I’m not sure, other than stating you’re intentionally deceiving your players with false descriptions, what your point is.



I clearly, very clearly, said it doesn't affect the mechanics. The player gains no mechanical advantage from his description of his spell, his components, his appearance, or his class abilities.

Yet the changes described, do, in fact, have changes, such as “an invisible heat wave”. How do you tell who cast it, or if a spell was cast at all, as there’s no visible effect? How does the Barb see it, if it’s invisible, to use Danger Sense, which requires seeing it?

With a RAW Fireball, you see “a bright streak flashes from [the caster’s] pointing finger.” So how does that change, and yet not change? What’s the point of “allowing” that “fluff” change, if you’re not actually allowing it? When your Player asks you, “Hey, can I change the fluff on X to Y?” You smile and say “sure” while secretly knowing you’re not actually allowing it?

What’s the point of that?

[Dr.Samurai]

Using Tasha’s as a rule that lets a Player “decide they don’t shimmer” at the moment when shimmer is detrimental, doesn’t work, as I’ve shown.
It's more that there isn't an understanding that the descriptive part of the spell will have an in-world effect beyond the +2 AC.

Bear in mind, that something that shimmers can still be hidden by obscurement or cover. So if the player would have otherwise been hidden behind the bushes, but suddenly because they have Shield of Faith they are not hidden, it's unreasonable to expect the player to know that is automatically the case. I can have a shimmering forcefield and still hide behind a barrel, as an example.

Nothing in the description of the spell suggests a "detrimental" effect, so saying the player is trying to game the system here is preposterous.

Yet the changes described, do, in fact, have changes, such as “an invisible heat wave”. How do you tell who cast it, or if a spell was cast at all, as there’s no visible effect? How does the Barb see it, if it’s invisible, to use Danger Sense, which requires seeing it?

With a RAW Fireball, you see “a bright streak flashes from [the caster’s] pointing finger.” So how does that change, and yet not change? What’s the point of “allowing” that “fluff” change, if you’re not actually allowing it? When your Player asks you, “Hey, can I change the fluff on X to Y?” You smile and say “sure” while secretly knowing you’re not actually allowing it?

What’s the point of that?
Because the DM and the player will deal with these edge cases when they arise. It's not a big deal. If you never fight creatures with Danger Sense, you never have to worry about it :smallwink:. And even if you do, there's an understanding that this particular enemy, can still react quick enough to have Advantage. No biggie.

[Malkavia]

So you play to intentionally break verisimilitude and have Players metagame against the in-world fiction? If that works for your table, cool. Not at mine though. And, apparently, not at the DM in the OP’s statement. So arguing that they (or I) need to change how we play to your style, isn’t a great argument.

Using Tasha’s as a rule that lets a Player “decide they don’t shimmer” at the moment when shimmer is detrimental, doesn’t work, as I’ve shown.

So I’m not sure, other than stating you’re intentionally deceiving your players with false descriptions, what your point is.



Yet the changes described, do, in fact, have changes, such as “an invisible heat wave”. How do you tell who cast it, or if a spell was cast at all, as there’s no visible effect? How does the Barb see it, if it’s invisible, to use Danger Sense, which requires seeing it?

With a RAW Fireball, you see “a bright streak flashes from [the caster’s] pointing finger.” So how does that change, and yet not change? What’s the point of “allowing” that “fluff” change, if you’re not actually allowing it? When your Player asks you, “Hey, can I change the fluff on X to Y?” You smile and say “sure” while secretly knowing you’re not actually allowing it?

What’s the point of that?

Ways characters can know who cast what spell:

1. The guy in robes waved his hands like a maniac while chanting and suddenly everything caught on fire
2. Characters feel a dangerous wave of heat/arcane energy emanating from the caster and immediately decide to take cover (reflex save)

3. The character has seen similar before and recognize it as fireball, though obviously with a signature touch to it

4. The character remembers from their time in the academy/learning from books with trial and error/fighting baddies the arcane signature of the spell being cast, and it's coming from that person over there

I'm not very creative. I bet others could come up with a number of other way for the characters to figure this out.

As for needing to match the exact description of the spell so the player can recognize it, let's use the example of magic missile and shield that I think you brought up to me earlier.

Let's say I'm a brand new player to D&D 5e, and it's my 1st session as a level 1 wizard. The bad guy cast a spell matching the description of magic missile word for word. Do you, the DM, require me, the new player, to recognize that it's magic missile based on the description in order to know that I can use shield to protect myself from it? Or would you rule on character competence and say "You recognize this spell as magic missile, and you may have a spell that protects you from it."

I would do the latter. Given that I would do the latter, it makes no difference if magic missile meets the description of the spell word for word or not, I'm going to assume character competence to identify it. It could be butterflies, baseballs, the weird cabbage example someone gave earlier, just about anything really. I would also rule the same way for fireball. I expect we probably disagree on how we'd treat the new player, and subsequently we disagree about the importance or non-importance of the spell's fluff.

[Malkavia]

It's more that there isn't an understanding that the descriptive part of the spell will have an in-world effect beyond the +2 AC.

Bear in mind, that something that shimmers can still be hidden by obscurement or cover. So if the player would have otherwise been hidden behind the bushes, but suddenly because they have Shield of Faith they are not hidden, it's unreasonable to expect the player to know that is automatically the case. I can have a shimmering forcefield and still hide behind a barrel, as an example.

Nothing in the description of the spell suggests a "detrimental" effect, so saying the player is trying to game the system here is preposterous.

Because the DM and the player will deal with these edge cases when they arise. It's not a big deal. If you never fight creatures with Danger Sense, you never have to worry about it :smallwink:. And even if you do, there's an understanding that this particular enemy, can still react quick enough to have Advantage. No biggie.

I'd take this a step further and try to understand what I think the intent of the spell is. The spell clearly states "Buff' under "Damage/Effect". I don't believe it was the intent of the authors to treat the +2 AC part of the spell as a buff but the shimmer part of the spell as a debuff. The intent was almost certainly to treat the whole spell as a buff and the shimmer part was just supposed to make it look cool.

Caveat: We can never know the true intent of the writers. This is why DMs exist, but damn if it isn't frustrating having to decode this stuff. A better written book would not have such extremely opposing interpretations for so many rules.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'd take this a step further and try to understand what I think the intent of the spell is. The spell clearly states "Buff' under "Damage/Effect". I don't believe it was the intent of the authors to treat the +2 AC part of the spell as a buff but the shimmer part of the spell as a debuff. The intent was almost certainly to treat the whole spell as a buff and the shimmer part was just supposed to make it look cool.

Caveat: We can never know the true intent of the writers. This is why DMs exist, but damn if it isn't frustrating having to decode this stuff. A better written book would not have such extremely opposing interpretations for so many rules.
Well, the way I read it is that there is a shimmering field of force around you. I take this to mean it's visually noticeable. If you walk into a room with Shield of Faith on, people can notice that there is some magical effect currently on you.

So to change that is to change the way the world interacts with it. I get that, I agree with those that say this.

I don't think "visually noticeable" automatically means "breaks stealth checks", and that's where I disagree with the particular DM ruling in the OP, and the characterization in the thread that the player is trying to get over on anyone.

And I do think the DM has a responsibility to predict that these types of misunderstandings will come up, and be clear about how they interpret something, especially if it is clear to them that the players intend to do something that should be obvious to them won't work if they were operating under the DM's same assumptions.

[Tanarii]

The spell clearly states "Buff' under "Damage/Effect".
5e doesn't have a damage/effect section. Are you looking at 3e?

SHIELD OF FAITH
1st-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S, M (a small parchment with a bit of holy text written on it)
Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes
A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the duration.

[heavyfuel]

Are you looking at 3e?

More likely looking at the spell on dndbeyond. They categorize spells and have added the "buff" tag to it

[Malkavia]

5e doesn't have a damage/effect section. Are you looking at 3e?

SHIELD OF FAITH
1st-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S, M (a small parchment with a bit of holy text written on it)
Duration: Concentration, up to 10 minutes
A shimmering field appears and surrounds a creature of your choice within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the duration.

I think this is a DnDBeyond thing. My bad.

[Tanarii]

I think this is a DnDBeyond thing. My bad.
I'm not really sure it impacts your idea about the shimmer probably not being intended as a debuff, other than not having a claim to direct authority to back it up.

It's still indirect authority, in the same way that Tasha's and Xan are. (Ie some people may not care, but at least it's coming out of official sources.)

[Malkavia]

Well, the way I read it is that there is a shimmering field of force around you. I take this to mean it's visually noticeable. If you walk into a room with Shield of Faith on, people can notice that there is some magical effect currently on you.

So to change that is to change the way the world interacts with it. I get that, I agree with those that say this.

I don't think "visually noticeable" automatically means "breaks stealth checks", and that's where I disagree with the particular DM ruling in the OP, and the characterization in the thread that the player is trying to get over on anyone.

And I do think the DM has a responsibility to predict that these types of misunderstandings will come up, and be clear about how they interpret something, especially if it is clear to them that the players intend to do something that should be obvious to them won't work if they were operating under the DM's same assumptions.

I think we largely agree here, except that I don't care if visually noticeable means shimmering diamonds, a shimmer of cleanliness that only a devotion paladin can truly embody, or even changing the shimmer to a dark aura of abjuration. The only part of the shimmer that stands out as important to me is "people know you have a spell cast on you."

[Malkavia]

I'm not really sure it impacts your idea about the shimmer probably not being intended as a debuff, other than not having a claim to direct authority to back it up.

It's still indirect authority, in the same way that Tasha's and Xan are. (Ie some people may not care, but at least it's coming out of the company.)

It doesn't impact my overall feelings on the spell, but it does impact my attempt to understand what the author's intention is. If anything it emphasizes the below even more.


"Caveat: We can never know the true intent of the writers. This is why DMs exist, but damn if it isn't frustrating having to decode this stuff. A better written book would not have such extremely opposing interpretations for so many rules."

[RSP]

By using the spell identification rules in Xanathar’s guide to everything. Before Xanathar’s, I think a fairly common ruling would be to make an Arcana check.

That, I believe, creates a big issue, as I believe the Xanathars identification rule uses a Reaction, as does casting Shield to block the pseudo-Magic Missile. So you basically have:

DM: “Butterflies shoot towards you!”

Player: “What the heck is that? Do I know if that’s magic or a spell or something?”

DM: “Give me an Arcana check.”

Player rolls, if unsuccessful, they get hit with MM which they should have been able to block with Shield. If successful, they get informed it’s really just MM, but now they no longer have a Reaction to cast shield to block it.



I’d argue you’d recognize it the in a similar way to how we can recognize cover songs.

Green Fireball is different than Fireworks Display, Exploding Chair, or Butterfly Missiles. Green Fireball you could reasonably make the “cover song” argument. The others are too far different to do that, in my opinion.

At least two of those, Fireworks Display and the Butterfly one, are more closely recognizable as different spells (Pyrotechnics and either Infestation or a summon spell).



Lastly, I’ll just say that my primary motivation for wanting butterfly magic missiles has absolutely nothing to do with Tasha’s, and me and my fellow players have been doing this forever. It just falls under “the rule of cool”, and it makes for an environment where everyone is having more fun. No one I’ve played with has ever cared about making cosmetic changes to things. In fact, the response is usually more along the lines of “woah! That was really cool” The game was mechanically unchanged and yet the players had more fun. What more could you want?

I have no issue with whatever works at your table. The game is working as intended if you’re having fun.

However, the argument that changing spell effects doesn’t change anything else, is a faulty one, as I see it.

Nor should it be used as a pass for what the OP stated: the DM ruled the shimmer was visible and impacted the PC hiding. Whether one agrees with that ruling or not, the answer, in my opinion, is not “you can just refluff that to a blanket.”



I don't think "visually noticeable" automatically means "breaks stealth checks", and that's where I disagree with the particular DM ruling in the OP, and the characterization in the thread that the player is trying to get over on anyone.

For the record, I don’t think the characterization of the Player in the OP is one of the player trying to get one over on the DM. I think the characterization of the responses of “they can just refluff it” is trying to get one over on the DM.

That is, there’s a difference to pre-game, determining with the DM that a spell will present a certain way, different than the RAW; and deciding that the current presentation is inconvenient to a PC at a given time, so they’ll just refluff it.

[GooeyChewie]

I'd take this a step further and try to understand what I think the intent of the spell is. The spell clearly states "Buff' under "Damage/Effect". I don't believe it was the intent of the authors to treat the +2 AC part of the spell as a buff but the shimmer part of the spell as a debuff. The intent was almost certainly to treat the whole spell as a buff and the shimmer part was just supposed to make it look cool.

Caveat: We can never know the true intent of the writers. This is why DMs exist, but damn if it isn't frustrating having to decode this stuff. A better written book would not have such extremely opposing interpretations for so many rules.

I believe the intent of the shimmering field is to give creatures a visual indicator that a creature is affected by Shield of Faith. It only turned out to be a "debuff" in the original post because the creature affected was trying very specifically not to give any visual indictors to the enemies at all.

[Malkavia]

That, I believe, creates a big issue, as I believe the Xanathars identification rule uses a Reaction, as does casting Shield to block the pseudo-Magic Missile. So you basically have:

DM: “Butterflies shoot towards you!”

Player: “What the heck is that? Do I know if that’s magic or a spell or something?”

DM: “Give me an Arcana check.”

Player rolls, if unsuccessful, they get hit with MM which they should have been able to block with Shield. If successful, they get informed it’s really just MM, but now they no longer have a Reaction to cast shield to block it.

I don't want to rehash what I said in another reply to you, but I gave some other examples of how a character could identify spells.


Green Fireball is different than Fireworks Display, Exploding Chair, or Butterfly Missiles. Green Fireball you could reasonably make the “cover song” argument. The others are too far different to do that, in my opinion.

At least two of those, Fireworks Display and the Butterfly one, are more closely recognizable as different spells (Pyrotechnics and either Infestation or a summon spell).

I'd argue that's because you don't live in the same world where people can actually cast fireballs and magic is abundant.
edit: After rereading my response, I think I'm not being clear here at all. We can recognize variations of the same song with ease because we live in a world where music is abundant and songs get changed all the time. I'm suggesting that if we lived in world of magic that we could have the same intuition about magic. Our characters do live in a world with abundant magic, and some of them even trained in it. There's other ways that seeing the same visual indicators to recognize a spell.

[RSP]

Even if you can snap your fingers IRL with your wrists tied, the fact that your wrists are tied means you do not have a free hand to cast a spell. It doesn't matter if your somatic component is just snapping your fingers, the fact remains that the crunch says you need a free hand, that means your hands have to be unbound to snap your fingers to cast a spell.

Except, no, as in this example, the rules for S component were changed to “snap one’s fingers”. That’s the new definition of the S component: that is, you don’t now need to do both snap your fingers and the RAW S component. The one replaced the need for the other.

That was the issue that threads OP had (as I remember it): they thought it was just a cool change that wouldn’t matter, however, changing the rules had other effects.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For the record, I don’t think the characterization of the Player in the OP is one of the player trying to get one over on the DM. I think the characterization of the responses of “they can just refluff it” is trying to get one over on the DM.

That is, there’s a difference to pre-game, determining with the DM that a spell will present a certain way, different than the RAW; and deciding that the current presentation is inconvenient to a PC at a given time, so they’ll just refluff it.

This. Very much this.

You want to say, up front, that all your fire spells produce green/black/blue/purple flames? Great. We can do that. You want to say that all your fire spells produce butterflies? Do it up front and we can discuss how that changes things. It's all homebrew/houserules/rulings, but it can be made to be consistent.

Deciding in the moment that your spell actually behaves differently than written, especially to try to avoid some inconvenience/gain some benefit? Yeah, not so much. Players don't get to houserule things unilaterally.

In the OP's specific case, there was a mis-communication, a difference in shared models of the world. That should have been resolved in either direction by stopping the narration sequence once it was clear there was a difference and aligning/allowing the player to pick something else to do. A warning like "as I see it, the shimmering effect will make him visible and your character would know that. Do you want to still do that?" would have been enough. DM's shouldn't (IMO) just rely on "are you sure", because it's not specific enough.

None of the OP's situation is really about fluff or crunch--it's about failed communication.

[sithlordnergal]

I agree that based on what was written in the original post, the DM was pretty harsh in making the enemies automatically notice the player and could have more clearly explained the consequences to the players. That said, I do agree with the DM that Shield of Faith has a visual effect which could be seen by the enemies and that ignoring that effect by dismissing it as "pointless fluff" is wrong.


And that's where I disagree with you. That effect is pointless fluff simply because you can change it without affecting the spell in any meaningful way. You can argue all day about how "Changing the word shimmer to something else has a meaningful effect in the RP", but that simply does not matter. I can go ahead and do whatever I LIKE in RP, within the bounds set by the DM of course. If I want to make a Noble of Waterdeep, but they're a Goblin, I can. Hell, I have! If I want to make a Druid that despises nature and wants to see the natural world burn, I can. It doesn't matter what the "fluff" of the Druid class says "Druids revere nature above all". I can very easily make a Wildfire Druid that hates nature, and wants a fully industrialized world in order to make money, powered by bound elementals. As long as its not going directly against whatever rules the DM s

So when I say that the shimmer is pointless fluff, yeah, it is. That shimmer is not, will not, and should not make it easier for a person under the effects of Shield of Faith be easier to be seen. Why? Because

A) Shimmer can be changed to whatever you like

and

B) Nowhere in the spell does it state you are easier to be seen while under the effects of this spell. If I'm wrong, please point me to the specific passage that talks about you having Disadvantage on Stealth checks, or shimmering brightly enough that you create some radius of light.



This statement is the conclusion you are trying to prove. You are also using it as part of the basis for drawing that conclusion. That's why I'm seeing it as circular reasoning. Your conclusion about what is fluff and what is crunch depends on already agreeing with your conclusion about what is fluff and what is crunch.

Wouldn't that then make all logic circular if you based it solely on if you agree or disagree with the premise? For example, you're arguing that the description of "A shimmering field appears and surrounds" is just as much crunch as "a creature of your choice within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the Duration." And your argument is that "Creatures will see and interact with that visual cue, thus automatically making it crunch".

I disagree with that basic premise, because creatures would not act with that visual cue in any meaningful way. That visual cue doesn't give them any advantages or disadvantages on any form of ability check, it doesn't shed light in any way, shape, or form that would create dim or bright light, it does not interact with the world in any meaningful way what so ever. If it did, then the spell would clearly state that it does, and state how it interacts with the world.




The "effects" are not just the numbers. Tasha's allows you to change how the spell appears. Tasha's does not tell you that you can ignore the fact that the spell has an appearance. The visual effect is not "pointless fluff;" it actually matters when creatures might see the effect. I question the DM jumping straight to "they see you with no check required," but the DM is absolutely correct that the spell creates a visual effect that enemies who are visually perceiving their surroundings might notice.

Yeah, the effects of the spell are just the numbers. Please point me to the passage in Shield of Faith that states the shimmer has any special effect. Does it blind creatures? Shed off any dim or bright light in even a 5ft radius? Does it give disadvantage to some ability checks or saves in any way? Unless the visuals are adding a very specific effect laid out in the spell itself, then the nature of the effect is 100% "pointless fluff". And the reason I call it such is because you can change that fluff to whatever you like and the spell effect will not change.



I would point out that this hypothetical change would still have no impact on what die rolls have what results. The point I am trying to make is that just because you can make a specific change without altering how a spell plays out doesn't mean that the part of the spell you changed is "fluff."

So, while the end results themselves may remain the same, there's still a pretty big difference between "adding 2 to a static value" and "subtracting 2 from a varied value". I'll admit I'm not an expert at statistics, so I'm not the best to explain how the difference occurs, I can tell you that there is a mathematical difference here. I can see what point you're trying to make, but your point falls flat because there is a tangible, mathematical difference between the two. Where as changing the word shimmer to vines/shadows/whatever has no actual mathematical value.




Some creatures have advantage on perception checks based on certain senses, often smell or hearing. Changing the visual effect to another type of effect does mechanically change the spell. If you want to accept those changes when you're the DM, that's perfectly fine. I don't think it significantly changes the balance level of the spell. Just recognize that when you do so, you are actually making a change to the spell.


There would be no change in how such creatures interact with the spell, since the spell doesn't interact with them in any way, shape, or form at all in the first place. A creature that has advantage on perception checks based on certain senses will keep that advantage regardless of what effect the player chooses to have for their spell. Changing the spell effect does absolutely nothing at all to it.

[sithlordnergal]

Except, no, as in this example, the rules for S component were change to “snap one’s fingers”. That’s the new definition of the S component: that is, you don’t now need to do both snap your fingers and the RAW S component. The one replaced the need for the other.

That was the issue that threads OP had (as I remember it): they thought it was just a cool change that wouldn’t matter, however, changing the rules had other effects.

So, unless the DM removed the need for having "one free hand to cast", and they allowed the player to cast while having both hands full, be it with weapons and a shield, grappling, or anything else, then yeah, you still need one free hand to cast. Now, if the DM did change the rules to where you don't need one free hand to cast, then that's fully on the DM, you can cast with your hands bound. But as long as the rule states you need a free hand to cast, then it doesn't matter if your S components are signing the Iliad and the Odyssey, snapping your fingers, or just wiggling your pinky once, you still need your hands to be unbound to do it. And if your wrists are bound in such a way that you can't cast a spell with S components, then you just can't cast them, even if your wrists are bound.

Does/can it mess with verisimilitude? Maybe. But as I said in a previous post, verisimilitude was shot the moment they allowed a 3 inch tall, animated doll be capable of grappling a 3 foot tall halfling with no disadvantage to the doll or advantage to the halfling within RAW. Because the Doll is Tiny, the Halfling is Small, and you can grapple any creature that's one size category larger than you.

[diplomancer]

Maybe one way of clearing away the "shimmering" issue, is to consider a slightly different situation from the one in the OP; Suppose, instead of trying for Stealth, the players had decided to try Deception. PC is going to approach openly and with "hands up", try to get close, and then kill NPC as silently and as fast as possible. They might lose surprise, but if their initiative is high enough, the plan might work.

And then they decide to buff the PC with Shield of Faith. In this case, there WILL be a noticeable magical effect on the PC and that will alert the guard.

But what if they'd refluffed the shimmer? I see 3 different opinions here:

1- you can't refluff the shimmer
2- if you refluff the shimmer, the world will react differently, maybe not recognising the spell. Some people say option 1 because, if they allowed it, they would then feel obliged, for consistency sake, to get to option 2. Some that choose this option still allow it, though, because they don't think it's that much of an advantage.
3- you can refluff the shimmer, but this makes no difference to how the world reacts. People who'd see the shimmering will recognize whatever it is they see as magical, even if it's not obviously so. People with enough Arcana training to recognize immediately that the spell is Shield of Faith because of the shimmer will still recognize it whatever is the new fluff.

I tend to go with option 3, and I agree that this is a bit like changing the arrangement or tuning of a song.

[Pex]

To be clear, are you claiming that a successful Dexterity (Stealth) check allows someone to cast a V component spell within hearing range while remaining hidden?

It would apply to any noise, not specifically just because a spell has a verbal component, and if it mattered to the DM a noise happened. If a noise is loud enough it can get anyone's attention automatically. I wouldn't say the verbal component is that loud, but that is what the check is for. Did the guard hear it? The player can have his character whisper but not low enough to autowin keep stealth because Subtle Spell needs value for the Sorcerer. Stealth vs Perception opposed roll if the guard is actively looking or the guard's passive perception otherwise, and any heavy armor disadvantage to stealth would not apply. For the OP incident in question I oppose the ruling of autofail keeping stealth but would not have objected to an opposed roll check. A Sorcerer using Subtle Spell would autowin keep hidden.

[Mjolnirbear]

So you play to intentionally break verisimilitude and have Players metagame against the in-world fiction? If that works for your table, cool. Not at mine though. And, apparently, not at the DM in the OP’s statement. So arguing that they (or I) need to change how we play to your style, isn’t a great argument.

{Scrubbed}

What I said is how I run it in MY game. YOU appear to be the one telling us we're wrong and having badwrongfun because you can't grasp the concept of a purely cosmetic change.


Using Tasha’s as a rule that lets a Player “decide they don’t shimmer” at the moment when shimmer is detrimental, doesn’t work, as I’ve shown.

So I’m not sure, other than stating you’re intentionally deceiving your players with false descriptions, what your point is.

It's not a false description. I don't usually bother describing such a spell at all. But since it doesn't give either dim or bright light at any distance, that shimmer doesn't actually interact with any rules at all. Anymore than a blue fireball is different than a green one.


Yet the changes described, do, in fact, have changes, such as “an invisible heat wave”. How do you tell who cast it, or if a spell was cast at all, as there’s no visible effect? How does the Barb see it, if it’s invisible, to use Danger Sense, which requires seeing it?

{Scrubbed} it works EXACTLY as if you had cast a normal fireball. You can tell who cast it, you can see it, you can dodge it.



With a RAW Fireball, you see “a bright streak flashes from [the caster’s] pointing finger.” So how does that change, and yet not change? What’s the point of “allowing” that “fluff” change, if you’re not actually allowing it? When your Player asks you, “Hey, can I change the fluff on X to Y?” You smile and say “sure” while secretly knowing you’re not actually allowing it?

What’s the point of that?

Seriously? Not allowing it? {Scrubbed} I'm allowing you to describe the spell, not change how it works. {Scrubbed}

"It looks like an invisible heat wave" doesn't change that players can counter it, identify it, see where it came from, dodge it or anything else. Play it like you would if it's a normal fireball. Exactly like you would. It looks like a heat wave, or kitten, or a zombified dragon skull, that's all. Purely cosmetic.

The way you're arguing, it sounds like if a player wanted a high elf with white hair and dark purple skin, you'd tell them no, that's a drow, and you can't be a drow cause you're a high elf.

Or the other argument seems to be the only way to use cosmetic changes is "okay, so now you're a drow, not a high elf, and you have improved dark vision and the faerie fire spell."

I just let them have purple skin.

[RSP]

And that's where I disagree with you. That effect is pointless fluff simply because you can change it without affecting the spell in any meaningful way.

Except, as already detailed, it is, in fact, a meaningful change.

[Malkavia]

Maybe one way of clearing away the "shimmering" issue, is to consider a slightly different situation from the one in the OP; Suppose, instead of trying for Stealth, the players had decided to try Deception. PC is going to approach openly and with "hands up", try to get close, and then kill NPC as silently and as fast as possible. They might lose surprise, but if their initiative is high enough, the plan might work.

And then they decide to buff the PC with Shield of Faith. In this case, there WILL be a noticeable magical effect on the PC and that will alert the guard.

But what if they'd refluffed the shimmer? I see 3 different opinions here:

1- you can't refluff the shimmer
2- if you refluff the shimmer, the world will react differently, maybe not recognising the spell. Some people say option 1 because, if they allowed it, they would then feel obliged, for consistency sake, to get to option 2. Some that choose this option still allow it, though, because they don't think it's that much of an advantage.
3- you can refluff the shimmer, but this makes no difference to how the world reacts. People who'd see the shimmering will recognize whatever it is they see as magical, even if it's not obviously so. People with enough Arcana training to recognize immediately that the spell is Shield of Faith because of the shimmer will still recognize it whatever is the new fluff.

I tend to go with option 3, and I agree that this is a bit like changing the arrangement or tuning of a song.

I'd pick 3 as well. I think you've got me figured out!

[RSP]

I never once said you need to change your game and you're disingenuous to claim that.

Just let them have purple skin.

The last sentence here seems to disprove your first sentence.

More to the thread, however, the discussion is about the OP and those saying “just refluff it!” are, in fact, stating that the DM in that situation should play their way.

Edit: I saw your edit after your original post. But my comment still stands.

[GooeyChewie]

And that's where I disagree with you. That effect is pointless fluff simply because you can change it without affecting the spell in any meaningful way. You can argue all day about how "Changing the word shimmer to something else has a meaningful effect in the RP", but that simply does not matter.
Even if I agreed with you on the RP point, I've demonstrated to you that ignoring what you are calling fluff has a mechanical impact. Imagine if you were fighting an enemy and had access to Dispel Magic, but the DM decided that the super-obvious visual cue of the shimmering field was "pointless fluff" and didn't give you any indication that the opponent had a magical effect on them? Or imagine the original post in reverse. Players are walking along and the DM asks for their passive perceptions. At least one player has a high enough PP, and the DM tells them they notice a shimmer coming from one of the bushes. Do you think that player is going to pipe up and say "actually Mr. DM sir the shimmering field is just pointless fluff and shouldn't have any mechanical effect on anything so I shouldn't get to notice that enemy."


So when I say that the shimmer is pointless fluff, yeah, it is. That shimmer is not, will not, and should not make it easier for a person under the effects of Shield of Faith be easier to be seen. Why? Because

A) Shimmer can be changed to whatever you like

and

B) Nowhere in the spell does it state you are easier to be seen while under the effects of this spell. If I'm wrong, please point me to the specific passage that talks about you having Disadvantage on Stealth checks, or shimmering brightly enough that you create some radius of light.
Point A is not true. You can make the shimmering field take on other appearances, but you cannot make it appear as nothing.

If Point A were true, then Point B would be false because "whatever you like" could include shimmering bright enough to shed some radius of light.

The spell effect does not specify that you have Disadvantage on Stealth checks or that the shimmering creates a radius of light. But it does specify that the spell has a visual effect ("a shimmering field appears"), and the ability to see things is a mechanical effect. An Owl would have advantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks to see the shimmering field because it relies on sight; a Wolf would not have advantage on such a check because sensing the effect does not depend on hearing or smelling.


Wouldn't that then make all logic circular if you based it solely on if you agree or disagree with the premise? For example, you're arguing that the description of "A shimmering field appears and surrounds" is just as much crunch as "a creature of your choice within range, granting it a +2 bonus to AC for the Duration." And your argument is that "Creatures will see and interact with that visual cue, thus automatically making it crunch".
Logic is circular if the premise depends on the conclusion being true. To put it in logical premise form, I am saying this:

Premise A: If a Spell says it does something, it does the thing it describes.
Premise B: Shield of Faith says a shimmering field appears.
Conclusion: Shield of Faith makes a shimmering field appear.

(Please note I did not use the terms "fluff" and "crunch" because the game's rules do not ever reference or define these terms.)

My understanding of your argument is this:

Premise A: You can change and/or ignore the shimmering field on Shield of Faith because it is fluff.
Conclusion: The shimmering field on Shield of Faith is fluff because you can change and/or ignore it.



I disagree with that basic premise, because creatures would not act with that visual cue in any meaningful way. That visual cue doesn't give them any advantages or disadvantages on any form of ability check, it doesn't shed light in any way, shape, or form that would create dim or bright light, it does not interact with the world in any meaningful way what so ever. If it did, then the spell would clearly state that it does, and state how it interacts with the world.
The spell clearly states that "a shimmering field appears." It interacts with the world by being a visual indication of the spell which was cast. Things being visible is a mechanic in the game. That's why we have an Invisibility spell.


Yeah, the effects of the spell are just the numbers. Please point me to the passage in Shield of Faith that states the shimmer has any special effect. Does it blind creatures? Shed off any dim or bright light in even a 5ft radius? Does it give disadvantage to some ability checks or saves in any way? Unless the visuals are adding a very specific effect laid out in the spell itself, then the nature of the effect is 100% "pointless fluff". And the reason I call it such is because you can change that fluff to whatever you like and the spell effect will not change.
The special effect is that it creates a visual effect. Creatures which can see have a visual indication of the spell cast. Creatures which cannot see do not.


So, while the end results themselves may remain the same, there's still a pretty big difference between "adding 2 to a static value" and "subtracting 2 from a varied value". I'll admit I'm not an expert at statistics, so I'm not the best to explain how the difference occurs, I can tell you that there is a mathematical difference here. I can see what point you're trying to make, but your point falls flat because there is a tangible, mathematical difference between the two. Where as changing the word shimmer to vines/shadows/whatever has no actual mathematical value.
Basic algebra tells us that there's no difference between adding 2 to the AC and subtracting 2 from all rolls made against the AC. If before SoF is cast the attacker has +5 to their attack and the defender had 16 AC, the number needed on the die went from 11 to 13 regardless of whether you treat it as D20 +3 >= 16 or D20 +5 >= 18. The only difference is that it's easier for our human brains to process adding 2 to the target than subtracting 2 from rolls made against the target. Likewise, changing "shimmering field" to "spectral vines" or "fleeting shadows" works as long as there's still a visual effect. The "whatever" part doesn't work, because "whatever" includes things like "no visual effect" and "visual effect which emits a radius of light," which the spell does not do.


There would be no change in how such creatures interact with the spell, since the spell doesn't interact with them in any way, shape, or form at all in the first place. A creature that has advantage on perception checks based on certain senses will keep that advantage regardless of what effect the player chooses to have for their spell. Changing the spell effect does absolutely nothing at all to it.
Such creatures specifically have mechanics which change how their Perception (Wisdom) checks interact with visual effects versus auditory or olfactory effects.

[Dr.Samurai]

For the record, I don’t think the characterization of the Player in the OP is one of the player trying to get one over on the DM. I think the characterization of the responses of “they can just refluff it” is trying to get one over on the DM.
I think part of the reason you think that is because you don't seem to accept "there's no mechanical changes" as just that.

Because you say there are no distinctions between the fluff and the mechanics, you can't parse "just refluff" and so it seems like a risk at having the wool pulled over your eyes.

But if someone says to me "there's no mechanical changes", the meaning is pretty clear to me, even if later in the game we run across an edge case that needs to be adjudicated.

If I say "Instead of a shimmering forcefield, can my skin look like it turns to metal like Colossus?" and the DM says "Yeah, but there's no mechanical changes", I understand that Shield of Faith is still granting a +2 bonus to AC and all the other parameters of the spell are the same. If later we come across an ooze that eats metal and I'm running Shield of Faith, I won't expect that it is going to eat my skin now, just like I won't expect to be able to wrestle an ooze that eats organic material because now my skin looks like metal.


That is, there’s a difference to pre-game, determining with the DM that a spell will present a certain way, different than the RAW; and deciding that the current presentation is inconvenient to a PC at a given time, so they’ll just refluff it.
Well, I may have missed part of the conversation where someone is suggesting it's okay to start making changes on the fly when it's mechanically advantageous.

[Mjolnirbear]

The last sentence here seems to disprove your first sentence.

More to the thread, however, the discussion is about the OP and those saying “just refluff it!” are, in fact, stating that the DM in that situation should play their way.

Edit: I saw your edit after your original post. But my comment still stands.

My very first comment was RAW does not distinguish between crunch and fluff. I then followed with my definition. I'd not have ruled the spell makes him glow and immediately visible, because Shimmer is not a game term and doesn't mean glows anyways. It refers to how light plays on or through a surface. A pearl shimmers, for example. Stars shimmer. Heat waves shimmer.

On the other hand I'd have ruled that the casting of the spell would possibly reveal them, because verbal component. Assuming I bothered to read the components, because I usually don't bother.

Reskinning is a DM tool that has been around for... Well, every edition I can think of. This thug and that thug can be entirely different races, ages, sizes, different weapons, different armour, and more. This fire-breathing wyrmling can be reskinned into that baby Cerberus hound.

Re-fluffing something is merely a downsized player-friendly version of that which maintains all relevant rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My very first comment was RAW does not distinguish between crunch and fluff. ...
Re-fluffing something is merely a downsized player-friendly version of that which maintains all relevant rules.

The first part is true. So any difference is entirely extra-RAW and is a houserule at best.

The second part isn't true, except in the rare cases where players are given explicit authority to do so. "Fluff" is just as much relevant rules as is "crunch". Because there is no RAW distinction between the two.

[Unoriginal]

The Tasha's optional rule is specifically about the cosmetic aspect of the spells, within the caveat that it cannot be mistaken for another spell.

Is someone making the argument that cosmetic aspect = fluff?

[Xetheral]

The second part isn't true, except in the rare cases where players are given explicit authority to do so. "Fluff" is just as much relevant rules as is "crunch".

At every table I've ever played at, players are expected to build characters that don't necessarily conform to the class description in the PHB. Only occasionally has that expectation ever taken the form of "explicit author", and even when it has, such authorization has been provided merely to reinforce the general presumption that such refluffing is acceptable. My anecdotal experience can't prove or disprove anything, but based on my experience I strongly doubt your claim that it is is rare for players to have some authority to refluff.

Similarly, I can't agree that fluff rules are always just as relevant as crunch rules. In my opinion, a player who doesn't ask the DM's permission before playing a Barbarian who appreciates civilization is in a very different situation rules-wise than a player who doesn't ask the DM's permission before adding extra damage dice to the [I]Fireball spell.

[Tanarii]

My favorite example of what some people think is crunch and other fluff is a "refluffing" a rapier as a katana.

Meanwhile, another player wants to refluff a Longsword as a katana.

Which one is a Katana? Longsword or Rapier?

Then the DM hands out a Katana +1. Which stats does it use? Does each player get to decide, or the DM?

[PhantomSoul]

My favorite example of what some people think is crunch and other fluff is a "refluffing" a rapier as a katana.

Meanwhile, another player wants to refluff a Longsword as a katana.

The Titanic is less of a classic than this it seems!


Which one is a Katana? Longsword or Rapier?

Schrodinger's Katana -- both and neither until it's been decided for that world and/or instance!


Then the DM hands out a Katana +1. Which stats does it use? Does each player get to decide, or the DM?

The DM, with potential for persuasion (but for a Magic Weapon like a +1, clearly the DM haha). That's the easy one :P

[Keltest]

My favorite example of what some people think is crunch and other fluff is a "refluffing" a rapier as a katana.

Meanwhile, another player wants to refluff a Longsword as a katana.

Which one is a Katana? Longsword or Rapier?

Then the DM hands out a Katana +1. Which stats does it use? Does each player get to decide, or the DM?

I have literally never heard of anybody wanting to use anything other than a longsword for a katana. Is this a thing youve seen happen?

[Unoriginal]

I have literally never heard of anybody wanting to use anything other than a longsword for a katana. Is this a thing youve seen happen?

I've seen "katana should be finesse weapons", I'm pretty sure.

[Dr.Samurai]

And again... what is the big deal for the DM to decide it's a katana better suited to the Rogue, or a katana better suited to the Fighter?

[strangebloke]

DND weapon terms are hilariously imprecise anyway

[RSP]

I think part of the reason you think that is because you don't seem to accept "there's no mechanical changes" as just that.

Except there is a very clear mechanical advantage: in one instance of the OP situation the PC remains unnoticed and is still hidden (no shimmer), in the other, they are noticed and no longer hidden.

That’s a pretty significant change.



Well, I may have missed part of the conversation where someone is suggesting it's okay to start making changes on the fly when it's mechanically advantageous.

It’s all the suggestions that the PC in the OP situation should have just “refluffed” SoF to not have shimmer.

[Keltest]

I've seen "katana should be finesse weapons", I'm pretty sure.

Ive seen "longswords should be finesse weapons" too. I dont think ive ever seen anyone say that the rapier is the best starting point for the katana.

[Tanarii]

It would apply to any noise, not specifically just because a spell has a verbal component, and if it mattered to the DM a noise happened. If a noise is loud enough it can get anyone's attention automatically. I wouldn't say the verbal component is that loud, but that is what the check is for. Did the guard hear it? The player can have his character whisper but not low enough to autowin keep stealth because Subtle Spell needs value for the Sorcerer. Stealth vs Perception opposed roll if the guard is actively looking or the guard's passive perception otherwise, and any heavy armor disadvantage to stealth would not apply. For the OP incident in question I oppose the ruling of autofail keeping stealth but would not have objected to an opposed roll check. A Sorcerer using Subtle Spell would autowin keep hidden.
I mean, DM call and all that.

But if you allow someone to disguise a V component with a Dexterity (Stealth) check, you should probably allow someone to disguise normal volume speaking with a Dexterity (stealth) check. Not to mention that Dexterity seems like a weird ability check to be making to hide speaking anyway.

[Dr.Samurai]

Except there is a very clear mechanical advantage: in one instance of the OP situation the PC remains unnoticed and is still hidden (no shimmer), in the other, they are noticed and no longer hidden.
A "shimmer" doesn't impact whether you can hide or not though. The rules tell us how you can be hidden from someone, it doesn't say a shimmer prevents it or breaks the Hidden condition.

That's a DM call. Plenty of DMs would not even consider that Shield of Faith has any impact on Stealth due to the wording. In fact, this is the first time I've ever seen it mentioned in all the years 5E has been out.

That’s a pretty significant change.
Yes, the DM has a pretty significant interpretation of how the spell works.

It’s all the suggestions that the PC in the OP situation should have just “refluffed” SoF to not have shimmer.
I'll take your word for it; I haven't seen it.

[Telok]

Ive seen "longswords should be finesse weapons" too. I dont think ive ever seen anyone say that the rapier is the best starting point for the katana.

Previously I don't think they were effectively a "piercing longsword". Of course AD&D was the last edition that really cared about accurately modeling anything significant. Now a days you get damage die, damage type, handedness, dex option, and 5' or 10' reach. Got a 17' pike? Congrats, its a lance, suck it up buttercup. Got a 2" pocket knife? Congrats, its a dagger and its balanced for throwing.

[Pex]

My favorite example of what some people think is crunch and other fluff is a "refluffing" a rapier as a katana.

Meanwhile, another player wants to refluff a Longsword as a katana.

Which one is a Katana? Longsword or Rapier?

Then the DM hands out a Katana +1. Which stats does it use? Does each player get to decide, or the DM?

The DM should have done his job and solve the conflict before play started. The more logical solution, to me, is to ask the rapier player if he's happy to fluff the rapier as a wakizashi. If yes, problem solved. If no, DM has to make a decision and one player will be disappointed. If the player rage quits over this that's a player not worth playing with. There are things a player is right to quit over. This is not it. Given the scenario, the DM needs to be more specific if it's a katana long sword +1 or a katana rapier + 1. The DM is responsible for whatever magic items appear in the game.


I mean, DM call and all that.

But if you allow someone to disguise a V component with a Dexterity (Stealth) check, you should probably allow someone to disguise normal volume speaking with a Dexterity (stealth) check. Not to mention that Dexterity seems like a weird ability check to be making to hide speaking anyway.

I didn't write it in my response, but I was considering it would be a Stealth (CH) check.

[Tanarii]

The DM should have done his job and solve the conflict before play started. The more logical solution, to me, is to ask the rapier player if he's happy to fluff the rapier as a wakizashi. If yes, problem solved. If no, DM has to make a decision and one player will be disappointed. If the player rage quits over this that's a player not worth playing with. There are things a player is right to quit over. This is not it. Given the scenario, the DM needs to be more specific if it's a katana long sword +1 or a katana rapier + 1. The DM is responsible for whatever magic items appear in the game.But refluffing is the players right, without unfair DM interference!



I didn't write it in my response, but I was considering it would be a Stealth (CH) check.
Fair enough. Coming up with which ability score resolving hiding your voice from detection is a difficult one IMO. Hiding your hand waving S component (if allowed) is easier to decide on.

[diplomancer]

But refluffing is the players right, without unfair DM interference!



Fair enough. Coming up with which ability score resolving hiding your voice from detection is a difficult one IMO. Hiding your hand waving S component (if allowed) is easier to decide on.

I'm not sure I'd make it Stealth. Either Performance (because I believe this is the skill that regulates how much control you have over your voice) or Arcana (because this skill would tell you how soft your spell can be before you ruin it by speaking too softly). Or maybe even just a random die roll against the guards PP, with advantage or disadvantage depending on the circumstances.

[RSP]

Re-fluffing something is merely a downsized player-friendly version of that which maintains all relevant rules.

Why isn’t something shimmering a relevant rule? Just because Mjolnirbear decided it’s not?

In the OP the DM didn’t think it was irrelevant. But the argument is still, “it should be refluffed!”

If the player “refluffed” SoF to actually be giving off light (essentially embracing the DM’s ruling), would you still say that’s irrelevant?

That is, if we flip the OP example and say the Player and DM decided before the game to “refluff” SoF as “shine with a soft tremulous light” (note: this is Google’s definition of shimmer) would they be autonoticed by the guard?

Or, even though they’re giving off light now, do they still get to hide in the darkness of night?


Ways characters can know who cast what spell:

1. The guy in robes waved his hands like a maniac while chanting and suddenly everything caught on fire

Other spells do this as well: why would this signal Fireball?



2. Characters feel a dangerous wave of heat/arcane energy emanating from the caster and immediately decide to take cover (reflex save)

Fireball doesn’t emanate from the caster.



3. The character has seen similar before and recognize it as fireball, though obviously with a signature touch to it

Again, why would they “recognize Fireball” if the perceivable effect isn’t recognizable to Fireball?



4. The character remembers from their time in the academy/learning from books with trial and error/fighting baddies the arcane signature of the spell being cast, and it's coming from that person over there

What are “arcane signatures”? How do they work? If a Fireball is Transmutation Metamagicked into Ice Ball, is it still the same Arcane Signature? Does Subtle remove Arcane Signature? Can you fake an Arcane Signature?

This would equal a significant change to the in-game world for a supposed “no change” “refluff” as I’ve never heard of Arcane Signatures before in 5e (though perhaps I’ve missed it).



Nothing in the description of the spell suggests a "detrimental" effect, so saying the player is trying to game the system here is preposterous.


The description, indeed, describes an effect. It doesn’t need to suggest a detrimental effect: the DM decides whether an effect is detrimental or not given the circumstances. Detrimental is subjective:

If I Fireball a group of kobolds, that is detrimental to them, but not to me.

Can a Protector Aassamir hide in darkness while using Radiant Soul? RAW they can not as the wings give off light (“Starting at 3rd level, you can use your action to unleash the divine energy within yourself, causing your eyes to glimmer and two luminous, incorporeal wings to sprout from your back.” - luminous means “full of or shedding light; bright or shining, especially in the dark.”)

Would “refluffing” that ability not have a mechanical change? Does that ability suggest a detrimental effect?

[Malkavia]

Why isn’t something shimmering a relevant rule? Just because Mjolnirbear decided it’s not?

In the OP the DM didn’t think it was irrelevant. But the argument is still, “it should be refluffed!”

If the player “refluffed” SoF to actually be giving off light (essentially embracing the DM’s ruling), would you still say that’s irrelevant?

That is, if we flip the OP example and say the Player and DM decided before the game to “refluff” SoF as “shine with a soft tremulous light” (note: this is Google’s definition of shimmer) would they be autonoticed by the guard?

Or, even though they’re giving off light now, do they still get to hide in the darkness of night?



Other spells do this as well: why would this signal Fireball?



Fireball doesn’t emanate from the caster.



Again, why would they “recognize Fireball” if the perceivable effect isn’t recognizable to Fireball?



What are “arcane signatures”? How do they work? If a Fireball is Transmutation Metamagicked into Ice Ball, is it still the same Arcane Signature? Does Subtle remove Arcane Signature? Can you fake an Arcane Signature?

This would equal a significant change to the in-game world for a supposed “no change” “refluff” as I’ve never heard of Arcane Signatures before in 5e (though perhaps I’ve missed it).



The description, indeed, describes an effect. It doesn’t need to suggest a detrimental effect: the DM decides whether an effect is detrimental or not given the circumstances. Detrimental is subjective:

If I Fireball a group of kobolds, that is detrimental to them, but not to me.

Can a Protector Aassamir hide in darkness while using Radiant Soul? RAW they can not as the wings give off light (“Starting at 3rd level, you can use your action to unleash the divine energy within yourself, causing your eyes to glimmer and two luminous, incorporeal wings to sprout from your back.” - luminous means “full of or shedding light; bright or shining, especially in the dark.”)

Would “refluffing” that ability not have a mechanical change? Does that ability suggest a detrimental effect?

Why wouldn’t magic have signatures, arcane energy, or whatever. The monsters manual never indicates (i think) that bears make any sound, yet we make them roar in game. We make hundreds of other assumptions about how things work in D&D that explicitly written out for us in the books. I’m simply trying to give other possible ways to identify or recognize a spell apart the narrow view of “Wizards who spend years studying magic and have absurdly high intelligence can only identify a spell by visually looking at it. Also, every fireball cast by every subclass of wizard, subclass of sorcerer, demonic warlocks, and light clerics will look EXACTLY THE SAME, and if it doesn’t look EXACTLY THE SAME the poor characters will become 100% incapable of deducing what the spell is.”

I lean on the side of character competence and the fact that they actually live in the fantasy world. They’re as familiar with magic as we are with music, and as a result have no issue recognizing when a spell isn’t 100% identical.

I also don’t see how how things being 100% identical helps anyone (or rather not being 100% identical hurts anyone). I gave the below example last time:


Let's say I'm a brand new player to D&D 5e, and it's my 1st session as a level 1 wizard. The bad guy cast a spell matching the description of magic missile word for word. Do you, the DM, require me, the new player, to recognize that it's magic missile based on the description in order to know that I can use shield to protect myself from it? Or would you rule on character competence and say ‘You recognize this spell as magic missile, and you may have a spell that protects you from it.’

Making magic missile identical to the PHB would not have aided the player in any way, and not making it identical to the PHB doesn’t hurt the character, because again, I assume they are competent. That same competence allows them to recognize spells that are refluffed.

We clearly have completely opposing ideas on fluff and crunch and would hopefully find out at session zero that we would not have fun playing together. We are not going to convince each other that one of us is right and of us is wrong.

[Mjolnirbear]

Why isn’t something shimmering a relevant rule? Just because Mjolnirbear decided it’s not?

Oh! Why didn't you tell me that Shimmer is defined in the PHB? What page was that?

Wait. It's not there. Hmmm. Does it say that it emits bright or dim light, which are both defined by the rules? Nope....

Seems to me Shimmer is only a description within a spell, and doesn't have any actual rules or ways to interact with it as a keyword.

Which is what I meant.




In the OP the DM didn’t think it was irrelevant. But the argument is still, “it should be refluffed!”

If the player “refluffed” SoF to actually be giving off light (essentially embracing the DM’s ruling), would you still say that’s irrelevant?

I think you'll find, if you go back and read the comments, we've largely said we would have regarded Shimmer as a purely descriptive term and capable of being refluffed. I disagree with OP's DM. Many of us do. That doesn't mean we're trying to run OP's DM's table.

Because with the exception of Tasha's, there is no rule in the RAW for re-fluffing, and even with Tasha's there is barely a useful description of fluff.

Not sure how the others would do it, but if a player refluffed his spell to be a shining glowing aura, yes, I would still say it's irrelevant, because regardless of how the player fluffs it, it's treated like a normal spell. The spell does not give off bright or dim light at any range, and so works exactly the same.

If the player wanted the spell to give off bright light, I would tell them one of two things: it's light only they can see and nothing that they can use to see by; or that if they want actual light the party can see by, they have to use a spell that actually produces bright or dim light. Edit: we might actually change the spell depending on how the player wanted it to work. However, given that Light, Dancing Lights, Faerie Fire and other such spells exist, I probably wouldn't, because that two spell picks for the price of one.




That is, if we flip the OP example and say the Player and DM decided before the game to “refluff” SoF as “shine with a soft tremulous light” (note: this is Google’s definition of shimmer) would they be autonoticed by the guard?

Or, even though they’re giving off light now, do they still get to hide in the darkness of night?

If the player and DM decided together to do that, then sure. I personally would consider it changing the spell beyond the definition of fluff, because they are adding a mechanical interaction that doesn't exist in the OG spell.

Whether they could hide would then depend on the table, because they have changed the spell, and would have to decide how it works. I would guess, with the caveat that I cannot think for them, that if they did change the spell this way that no, the player would have disadvantage at hiding at the very least.



Again, why would they “recognize Fireball” if the perceivable effect isn’t recognizable to Fireball?

Because it's a game and that's how I'd rule it. The spell is still called fireball. It still works like fireball.

Identifying a spell has no guidance. It's a simple Arcana check, with no modifiers if the spell is cast by chanting a line from religious ritual or if they recite mathimagical formulas, or if the bard simply sings "Fireball!!!!" as the (edit: I meant verbal) component. They are all recognized as fireball no matter how the player describes their components.

Because no matter the form, verbal, somatic and material components are recognized as such, even by non-casters. Your average shopkeeper might not know it's a fireball, but they'd know it was a spell.




What are “arcane signatures”? How do they work? If a Fireball is Transmutation Metamagicked into Ice Ball, is it still the same Arcane Signature? Does Subtle remove Arcane Signature? Can you fake an Arcane Signature?

This would equal a significant change to the in-game world for a supposed “no change” “refluff” as I’ve never heard of Arcane Signatures before in 5e (though perhaps I’ve missed it).

No rules that I'm aware, though I've considered making some for some time as it's a popular literary trope and would make an Eberron Inquisitive story that much more interesting.

So it would depend on the rules that person invented for their table.


Can a Protector Aassamir hide in darkness while using Radiant Soul? RAW they can not as the wings give off light (“Starting at 3rd level, you can use your action to unleash the divine energy within yourself, causing your eyes to glimmer and two luminous, incorporeal wings to sprout from your back.” - luminous means “full of or shedding light; bright or shining, especially in the dark.”)

Would “refluffing” that ability not have a mechanical change? Does that ability suggest a detrimental effect?

Luminous does indeed mean lit or glowing. However, it still fails to give off either bright or dim light or say how far it goes in feet. So I'd speak to the player and we'd decide together. "Hey buddy, the description says luminous, but doesn't say bright light or dim light or how many feet the light travels. By all the rules of light, it's not actually light. Do you want it to be light? Because if you say yes, it will affect things like your ability to hide. I'm personally inclined to say it's not real light and doesn't affect hiding. Maybe some kind of religious light only your god's followers can see?"

Which, really, OP's DM could have done to avoid confusion. But they didn't, so here we are.

[Mjolnirbear]

Hey, how many of you in the No Such Thing As Fluff camp would let Daylight hurt vampires, blind drow, or otherwise act as sunlight? That spell is famous for not actually producing daylight despite its name.

[Mjolnirbear]

The DM should have done his job and solve the conflict before play started. The more logical solution, to me, is to ask the rapier player if he's happy to fluff the rapier as a wakizashi. If yes, problem solved. If no, DM has to make a decision and one player will be disappointed. If the player rage quits over this that's a player not worth playing with. There are things a player is right to quit over. This is not it. Given the scenario, the DM needs to be more specific if it's a katana long sword +1 or a katana rapier + 1. The DM is responsible for whatever magic items appear in the game.



I didn't write it in my response, but I was considering it would be a Stealth (CH) check.

Why not make them slightly different katanas? It works like the weapon they are proficient in. Not that I have any problem with your solution either.

Or as DM I'd pick one. Possibly rapier would be Katana, because being finesse doesn't prevent a strength wielder from using Strength with it. But it would definitely get resolved as soon as both players decided they wanted a different weapon to equal the same weapon.

And I doubt I'd include a magic katana at all; if I did I'd certainly resolve this conundrum before it was discovered.

[RSP]

Oh! Why didn't you tell me that Shimmer is defined in the PHB? What page was that?


This is very important to our discussion: is your argument that only words specifically defined in the PHB have meaning? Because I’m not sure you can play the game without using common English definitions for words.

So if you discount any definition for every word not specifically defined in the PHB, it’s going to be a rough go.

That this is your argument for why shimmer doesn’t matter is not convincing.