Isn't "reflavoring" just another word for min/maxing?

[Schwann145]

Assuming you're sticking to the mechanics as printed and allowed by the rules... isn't it?

If you wanna be a Rogue who fights with a dagger, but daggers suck so you use a Rapier and just call it a dagger...
You're not breaking any rules. Nothing about said choice is broken or imbalanced or anything like that. Rogues can certainly use rapiers as much as they can use daggers. Sure, you can't throw it but throwing is a terrible strategy anyway so you weren't going to to begin with.

But at the crux of it, aren't you just saying, "2 points of average damage is more important to me than actually using a dagger on my dagger Rogue?"

Shouldn't reflavoring be limited to like-for-like (ie: longsword into katana)? Otherwise, what's the point of including all these options if we just reflavor them into the BiS choices?

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Honestly, you said it yourself, who cares if they're using d8 mechanics while fluffing as a dagger.

Yeah. The rogue gets to deal 1d8 for their weapon instead of 1d4. But why does that matter? Why is that any different than my Bladesinger who flavors their combat as wielding an estoc two handed sword while still using the basic rapier stats?

[strangebloke]

*scrubbed*

to answer the question: no. Not at all. Your example is nothing like what people actually mean when they talk about reflavoring, and I've never seen anyone argue for that. Daggers are very different weapons from rapiers and I can't think of anyone who would argue to make a rapier into a dagger.

Reflavoring is stuff like "can my fireball look like a big flaming skull instead of a literal ball." If it has a mechanical or narrative impact beyond aesthetics, its not a reflavoring, its homebrew and/or a ruling on the part of the DM.

[animorte]

Not necessarily. I often think of re-flavoring as changing the color/shape/fluff of something.

The best example I can think of is built directly into a class found under the Swarmkeeper Ranger: "Also at 3rd level, you learn the Mage Hand cantrip if you don't already know it. When you cast it, the hand takes the form of your swarming nature spirits."

I mean, sometimes I've seen it used in the way you're referring to, but not often enough to ever be considered an issue.

Also this:

Reflavoring is stuff like "can my fireball look like a big flaming skull instead of a literal ball." If it has a mechanical or narrative impact beyond aesthetics, its not a reflavoring, its homebrew and/or a ruling on the part of the DM.

[Falconcry]

I believe when you are changing the flavour of something you are not making any mechanical change. You want change a dagger into a rapier? That is changing from gumbo to steak tartare. You want to change your dagger into a 1d4 throwing star? You are swapping chicken for beef stock.

[JNAProductions]

Also, daggers are good for Rogues. Thrown and Light means you can SA at (short) range and TWF if you miss with your first attack.
The meager damage boost from a rapier is only rarely worth it.

But to the meat of the question... See what Strangebloke said.

[Jervis]

wow, a completely insipid question, phrased in a manner sure to enrage a lot of people. I'm sure you'll manage to get like 10 pages off this one.

to answer the question: no. Not at all. Your example is nothing like what people actually mean when they talk about reflavoring, and I've never seen anyone argue for that. Daggers are very different weapons from rapiers and I can't think of anyone who would argue to make a rapier into a dagger.

Reflavoring is stuff like "can my fireball look like a big flaming skull instead of a literal ball." If it has a mechanical or narrative impact beyond aesthetics, its not a reflavoring, its homebrew and/or a ruling on the part of the DM.

You gave me flashbacks to 3.5 where you needed a feat to do that. I mean, it gave +1 CL, too, but still.

[Tanarii]

Changing one existing weapon into another existing weapon while retaining the same stats isn't reflavoring, that's house ruling.

Changing the stats of an existing weapon into something else isn't reflavoring, that's house ruling.

If a DM hands out a Rapier+1, that's d8 finesse piecing weapon unless they say otherwise. If they hand out a dagger+1, it's a d4 thrown 20/60 finesse weapon unless they say otherwise. The player doesn't get to "reflavor" the rapier+1 as a dagger, or the dagger+1 as a rapier, unless the DM agrees to the house rule. IMO after which all daggers or rapiers should behave that way, for consistency ... but the DM might decide otherwise. At the very least, if it's a custom magic item (also DM choice), it should behave the same for any characters that picks it up. If it's a magical dagger +1 that does d8, requires rapier proficiency and can't be thrown, it should be that for any character that uses it.

Same if the DM house rules your character has a special kind of "dagger" that does d8 damage, requires rapier proficiency, and can't be thrown. That rule should follow the item. If the character loses it, they shouldn't just be able to take a dagger from their friend and start using it with those stats.

[ender241]

Isn't "reflavoring" just another word for min/maxing?

No? Reflavoring is making changes that have no impact mechanically.

[Kane0]

I can reflavor a sling to be a leather belt.
I can reflavor an aasimar to be a fallen angel.

I can't reflavor a sling to be a 1d6 twohanded piercing weapon with a range of 80/320.
I can't reflavor an aasimar to be a celestial.

[Scots Dragon]

You gave me flashbacks to 3.5 where you needed a feat to do that. I mean, it gave +1 CL, too, but still.

You could technically do it without the feat, and there's information to that effect in the Dungeon Master's Guide, but spell thematics affected every spell you cast to give them a unified theme and modified the casting methods of spells so much that they were harder for enemy casters to identify and counter even on top of the +1 CL spells.

[ImproperJustice]

No.

*Prepares fire and acid to lob onto the troll once it hits 0hp.

[Willowhelm]

No.

*Prepares fire and acid to lob onto the troll once it hits 0hp.

Betteridge's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

[Greywander]

I think people might be missing the point of the OP. It can basically be summed up as, "I like the aesthetics of X, but Y has better stats, so I'm just going to use Y but refluff it to look like X."

Is that minmaxing? Not really? The choice to use a rapier instead of a dagger might be part of an attempt to minmax, but the refluffing itself is not, I don't think. If anything, I think it shows that the player does care about more than just getting high numbers.

However, 5e doesn't have as clear of a distinction between fluff and crunch. For example, I can take a race that doesn't have a tail, and refluff them to having a tail. That's just aesthetics, right? Well, maybe it is, until my character is all tied up but their tail is free, and they use it to grab the key and/or untie the knot and/or break the rope/chain. A thing to remember is that roleplaying games are both part game but also part roleplay. Something doesn't need to have a mechanical (read: game) effect in order to be useful. In fact, outside of combat, you're mostly interacting with non-mechanical things.

I think I'm more bothered by the implication that there's something wrong with minmaxing. So what if it was minmaxing? Optimizing your character isn't a bad thing at all. Adventuring is dangerous work, of course you'd want to make sure you were as well equipped for it as you could be. While there can be fun in playing a weak character, becoming stronger is baked into the very foundation of D&D. It's why leveling up exists, and a huge amount of design space is dedicated toward providing players with ways to make their characters stronger. There's no virtue in being weak, and being strong is considered ideal. With this in mind, it seems silly to criticize a player for making their character too strong; it's like criticizing someone for being too good at their job.

Optimization is a skill that can be quite helpful when you come up with a character concept that isn't strong, as by optimizing that character you can take a weak concept and make it competitive. This allows you to play the character you wanted while also making your character competent.

[strangebloke]

Is that minmaxing? Not really? The choice to use a rapier instead of a dagger might be part of an attempt to minmax, but the refluffing itself is not, I don't think. If anything, I think it shows that the player does care about more than just getting high numbers.

Yeah, even in the ridiculous cited example, its not minmaxing. Minmaxing is using the rules to build a specialized character.

What this is, is powergaming. Trying to get special treatment from the DM by asking for special little buffs here and there. I have a player like this who will just ask "hey do I get advantage on this attack" even when there's no reason to get advantage, just on the offchance I decide to throw him a bone. It's a silly behavior and when pushed to the limits its sorta toxic, but...

that's not reflavoring, and certainly not minmaxing. OP is using terms he doesn't understand.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Better question, is it really min maxing? Does an average of 2 damage per attack matter when you're talking somewhere between 6 dmg per attack at level 1 up to 37 average at level 19? In exchange you can't use it for ranged at all.

If I had a player who proposed this I'd place the "dagger" as something of a Main agauche or large bowie. Or an Aiel "dagger"

[Sigreid]

It depends? If you're literally just reflavoring things for a mechanical advantage, sure. But, if you're reflavoring just for style, no. An example of style would be Player X wants to paly a pistoleer. DM decides he doesn't want to use the firearms in the DMG but he's ok with the player buying a hand crossbow and calling it a pistol without changing the combat stats? Clearly not. White dragon sorcerer wants to have a fireball, but to be on theme they want it to be an ice burst? Sounds fine to me.

[sambojin]

If you're a Moon Druid, yes. Or any druid really.

"Reflavouring" a Deinonychus into a Giant Honey Badger or Cassowary, and a Frilled Deathspitter into a Dire Skunk, is perfectly acceptable (there's a blurb in DMG or MM about it), but it's really just an excuse to use these forms in wildshape if there's no dinos in your world and you've never been to Ixalan.

They're pretty amazing summons too. You can "reflavour" heaps of animals to justify that statblock having been seen by you or existing in your world. T-Rex? Giant Giant Moa. Polymorph just got better, even if T-Rex as don't exist. Huge Polar Bear? Dire Ape, lvl6 just got better. Etc etc

[Kane0]

Betteridge's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

Today I learned.

[Greywander]

I feel like a much better example of what the OP is talking about can be found in a conundrum I wrestled with a while back. Basically, I wanted a priest-type of character, and I wanted the aesthetics of not using a shield, but still wanted to get that sweet, sweet AC bonus. There was pretty much zero benefit to not using a shield, so it simply didn't make sense mechanically. I wondered if I could simply refluff the shield into something else, but eventually settled on introducing a homebrew item that works similarly to a shield, such that 95% of the time you won't notice a difference, but it's not mechanically identical. And that's how I invented the Clerics Sacred Chimes (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612895-Cleric-s-Sacred-Chimes-(shield-holy-symbol-alternative)) (updated version in third post of that thread).

In fact, this is a somewhat common issue I run into. A couple of times I've tried to work out a good super hero build, but what I have in mind is more Superman and less Captain America, so a shield doesn't really fit the aesthetic. But it's just too good not to give up. It doesn't help that the aesthetic is also to fight unarmed, so you're not even getting the benefit of a two-handed weapon. And again, it's more Superman than Flash, so paladin seems a better chassis than monk. I'm left in the same place where I want the aesthetics of not using a shield but there's no mechanical reason not to. And sacred chimes won't help me here.

Not everything has to be perfectly optimized, but if I'm giving something up, I'd like to at least get something else in return, even if it's not as strong. Going from a rapier to a dagger at least allows you to throw it or use TWF, for example. Wearing a breastplate (or using some kind of Unarmored Defense) instead of halfplate or plate allows you to sneak better. And so on. I just want to get something useful in exchange.

[Ogre Mage]

I am "reflavoring" the Peace Domain into what I call the Community Domain. I am not changing anything mechanically, just giving a different vibe for ethos of the domain. I do not see how this is "min/maxing."

[Jervis]

I am "reflavoring" the Peace Domain into what I call the Community Domain. I am not changing anything mechanically, just giving a different vibe for ethos of the domain. I do not see how this is "min/maxing."

TBH using Peace Domain is already kinda min/maxing all things considering.

[Chaos Jackal]

Amusingly, the provided example is neither reflavoring nor min/maxing.

But to the point. Reflavoring is turning your fireball's fiery boom into a green bursting skull and your eldritch blast red and black. It's calling your tiefling a half-fiend and your aasimar an angel walking among mortals. It's altering the Hexblade's thematics to describe King Arthur. It's changing around names and themes in a setting-specific background so that it makes sense in your homebrew setting.

Using a rapier is using a rapier. Using a dagger is using a dagger. I'm not gonna say that there are no people who "reflavor" rapiers into daggers (though I'm at least pretty sure that they're rare), but nobody reasonable is calling that reflavoring.

Reflavoring is, by definition, not mechanical. Reflavoring is making things with inherently rigid descriptions fit more narratives. It's using what the system provides to cover for things not included. You use existing mechanics with a different but similar fluff.

So no, reflavoring isn't min/maxing.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I feel like a much better example of what the OP is talking about can be found in a conundrum I wrestled with a while back. Basically, I wanted a priest-type of character, and I wanted the aesthetics of not using a shield, but still wanted to get that sweet, sweet AC bonus. There was pretty much zero benefit to not using a shield, so it simply didn't make sense mechanically. I wondered if I could simply refluff the shield into something else, but eventually settled on introducing a homebrew item that works similarly to a shield, such that 95% of the time you won't notice a difference, but it's not mechanically identical. And that's how I invented the Clerics Sacred Chimes (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612895-Cleric-s-Sacred-Chimes-(shield-holy-symbol-alternative)) (updated version in third post of that thread).

Have this issue often. I have a priest who has essentially a Japanese Kote sleeve for her "shield"

I also know CR takes that approach, Travis' current character uses a wood carvers hammer as his shield.

[Chaos Jackal]

I feel like it comes up often with shields too.

I had a courtesan/spy in a game once. Given the stakes of her job and tendencies of her clientele, on both sides of the masquerade, coming face to face with someone who wanted to introduce her to something sharp, or pointy, or blunt, was extremely likely, and having something to stop said dangerous objects seemed useful.

The setting had decent technology on the clockwork and artifice side, and it wasn't weird for people to have some simple mechanical gadgets. So, with the DM's consent, I had her wear an ornate metal glove with a dragon-based design, same as her courtesan theme. Said glove's scales could unfold outward as an action, essentially turning it into a buckler; functionally the same as a shield, down to taking an action to don. Looked stylish too.

Exploiting reflavoring for the sake of min/maxing? Not really; I could've just had her have a buckler in her bag, or had her go with an amazoness rather than a dragon theme for her disguise or something and have her carry the shield openly. One way or the other, I was gonna use a shield anyway; the glove solution just sounded cooler and fit the whole concept better.

Thematics and aesthetics are primarily aspects of roleplaying, not mechanical optimization. It's not min/maxing if you wanna make your mechanics and flavor fit.

[Pex]

You're asking the question as if min/maxing is a bad thing. It's not. There is nothing wrong with it.

[MoiMagnus]

Assuming you're sticking to the mechanics as printed and allowed by the rules... isn't it?

If you wanna be a Rogue who fights with a dagger, but daggers suck so you use a Rapier and just call it a dagger...
You're not breaking any rules. Nothing about said choice is broken or imbalanced or anything like that. Rogues can certainly use rapiers as much as they can use daggers. Sure, you can't throw it but throwing is a terrible strategy anyway so you weren't going to to begin with.

But at the crux of it, aren't you just saying, "2 points of average damage is more important to me than actually using a dagger on my dagger Rogue?"

Shouldn't reflavoring be limited to like-for-like (ie: longsword into katana)? Otherwise, what's the point of including all these options if we just reflavor them into the BiS choices?

No, reflavoring is not just another word for min/maxing.
Yes, reflavoring can be used to min/max a character without being constrained on the aesthetic side. But it can also be used to have an aesthetic that isn't available in the rules, or which is unplayable in the rules.

In the specific case of a dagger, I don't like calling this min/maxing since min/maxing usually means that you're doing this optimisation at a meta level, while there it is also realistic that a dagger is trash and no sane person would use one if they have a better option available.

The dagger has three advantages compared to the rapier:
(1) It is a simple weapon, so more peoples are proficient with it than with the rapier.
(2) It is light, so can be used for TWF, and is easy to carry around and hide under your coat.
(3) It can be thrown.
If you doesn't use those properties, your character is stupid (in-universe) to use a dagger. It can be for style, but for someone who encounter life-or-death situations on a daily basis, style is still being dumb.

The issue is that in fictions, character often use dagger for style and it's rarely presented as stupid from them to do so. Reflavoring allows to make the standard fiction match D&D.

BTW, I'm not sure I'll accept reflavoring a rapier into a dagger. A short sword into a dagger, I'd accept without hesitation. But especially if you build a character that will eventually try to hide his weapons, the rapier is supposed to be reasonably impractical to carry around hidden.

[Porcupinata]

I think the important thing here isn't "Does this fit the definition of reflavouring and/or minmaxing?" but is "Would this be acceptable at your table?" The former is just quibbling about the exact definitions of words, but the latter is what's important when it comes to someone actually wanting to do this.

From my perspective, I think there are three broad scenarios here.

Firstly, the player might want thing X for which there are no rules. Perhaps they want an oppossum as a familiar and the game has no oppossum stats. Or perhaps they want to play a non-magical warlord who provides buffs and inspiration without actually casting spells, and no such class exists. Or perhaps they want to play a half-dwarf and there is no such race in the game. The DM is fine for them to play/have such a thing, but doesn't want to homebrew a set of rules/stats for it, so either the player or the DM suggests "we'll use the rules for Y and just call it X". They do this, and everyone is happy.

Secondly, we have a similar scenario where the player wants thing X for which there are no rules. However, the thing is either something that the DM doesn't want to have in their world at all or something the DM doesn't want to have to deal with as a player option. Perhaps the player wants to play a jedi, or perhaps they want to use a firearm, or perhaps they want to play a dragon. The player might suggest using the stats for Y and just calling it X, but that doesn't actually address the DM's objection - sonce the objection isn't about what stats to use but about whether thing X should exist at all. In this case, I think that the DM is within their rights to veto the suggestion, and while the player may be justifiably disappointed it's not really on them to insist that the DM include something they don't want to include in their campaign.

Thirdly we have the scenario where there are rules for thing X but the player doesn't want to use those rules. Perhaps, like in the OP, they want to use a dagger but don't like the fact that it does less damage than some other weapons, or perhaps they want to play a drow but don't want to have sunlight sensitivity. So the player suggests that they use the stats for Y and just call it X. To me, whether you call it "minmaxing" or "powergaming" or not, this is simply taking the piss. I would veto such a suggestion instantly, and I expect most DMs would also veto it.

[Davo]

Reflavoring doesn't have to have any relation to min/maxing.

My DM let's us reflavor things like this:

I'm a L5 Djinni Patron Warlock. Instead of Fireball, I take Thunderball (same dice, thunder damage instead of fire damage). It's thematic reflavoring, and probably will have little impact on how long fights last.

But it's always Thunderball, and I can't just decide I want to cast Fireball or Iceball or Shashingball later on.

[strangebloke]

My DM let's us reflavor things like this:

I'm a L5 Djinni Patron Warlock. Instead of Fireball, I take Thunderball (same dice, thunder damage instead of fire damage). It's thematic reflavoring, and probably will have little impact on how long fights last.

But it's always Thunderball, and I can't just decide I want to cast Fireball or Iceball or Shashingball later on.

That's a ruling and/or homebrew, not reflavoring. It has mechanical impact.

[Catullus64]

Sometimes? People do definitely practice something like the example you listed, but I think it's far from being the rule. It's far from the point that you can simply call the two things interchangeable.

When playing a Dex-melee character, I frequently ask my DM if I can have all the mechanical attributes of a rapier (d8, piercing damage, one-handed, finesse) but simply call it a "sword", and describe it looking like a medieval arming sword. Rapiers have specific setting and character implications that don't always work, but the gameplay niche they'e meant to serve, as the best single-handed finesse weapon, seems to me like it could be applied just as well to a generic sword. I guess I could satisfy that instead by simply using a shortsword, but what's the harm in asking?

I think this question falls very close to what was discussed at some length in this thread here:

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?643979-Crunch-vs-Fluff-How-meaningful-is-the-distinction

It's a long thread and it gets bogged down in a lot of silly arguments (but I repeat myself). However, if you have the patience to sift through it I think it contains a lot of useful thoughts on the question of what value different kinds of game text have relative to one another.

[KorvinStarmast]

I am "reflavoring" the Peace Domain into what I call the Community Domain. I am not changing anything mechanically, just giving a different vibe for ethos of the domain. I do not see how this is "min/maxing." It isn't. :smallsmile:

No, reflavoring is not just another word for min/maxing. Indeed.
{Good explanation}

Here is an example of re-flavoring as given in the DMG: You take a long sword, but you re-flavor it to be a katana what remains (mechanically) as a 18d martial one-handed weapon-s, sword, that does slashing, with the versatile feature that ups the damage to 1d10.

[Sigreid]

It isn't. :smallsmile:
Indeed.
{Good explanation}

Here is an example of re-flavoring as given in the DMG: You take a long sword, but you re-flavor it to be a katana what remains (mechanically) as a 18d martial one handed weapons, sword, that does slashing, with the versatile feature that ups the damage to 1d10.

It is true though that there are some players who will try to pass off sneaking in another advantage as "reflavoring". I don't think it's a large percentage, and generally advise not playing with them unless they agree to tone it down.

[Psyren]

Amusingly, the provided example is neither reflavoring nor min/maxing.


You're asking the question as if min/maxing is a bad thing. It's not. There is nothing wrong with it.


wow, a completely insipid question, phrased in a manner sure to enrage a lot of people. I'm sure you'll manage to get like 10 pages off this one.

to answer the question: no. Not at all. Your example is nothing like what people actually mean when they talk about reflavoring, and I've never seen anyone argue for that. Daggers are very different weapons from rapiers and I can't think of anyone who would argue to make a rapier into a dagger.

Reflavoring is stuff like "can my fireball look like a big flaming skull instead of a literal ball." If it has a mechanical or narrative impact beyond aesthetics, its not a reflavoring, its homebrew and/or a ruling on the part of the DM.

These.


Betteridge's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

Okay, I love this because it applies not just to threads but to all those "am I the only one who XYZ?" posts. (Of course you're not the only one.) So I got something of value out of this "topic" at least.

[Keravath]

"Reflavoring" is not powergaming, it is not min/maxing, it honestly isn't much of anything except saying that the appearance or description of something in game is allowed to be changed without ANY mechanical benefits whatsoever.

"Reflavoring" is changing a description for narrative or role playing reasons.

Whether a DM allows a character to "reflavor" something is entirely up to them and their view of the aesthetics/narrative involved.

---

Could a character pretend that a rapier is an extra long dagger? Sure - it doesn't change whether the weapon is treated as a rapier in game, it doesn't change the properties of the weapon in game, it is only changing the word used to describe it - and honestly, as a DM, I don't really have any issue with that.

The key to remember is that mechanically the weapon is STILL a rapier. It can't be hidden under clothes any better than any other rapier it can't be thrown except as an improvised weapon. It IS a rapier ... but if the player wants to call it a dagger, it probably isn't going to bother my aesthetic senses enough to say no so long as the player doesn't try to do anything with it that a rapier could not do.

Similarly, if someone wants to reflavor a hand crossbow as a bulky silenced fire arm that needs each shot individually loaded, I really don't see much issue with that either. There is no gunpowder, the weapon is mechanically the same, it is treated the same, it is too bulky to put under clothing or hide (no more and no less bulky than a hand crossbow). However, if it fits the game well enough, I don't really see an issue with a character reflavoring a hand crossbow as a single shot pistol. It has more to do whether the aesthetic fits the campaign world or not.

An artificer with the repeating shot infusion applied to a hand crossbow might want to reflavor that as some sort of silenced firearm with a self-loading magazine rather than a bolt that magically appears in the weapon. Again, why not if it fits the campaign.

----

The key with reflavoring is role playing and not mechanical advantage. Making a fireball look like a skull when it goes off is fine but it isn't going to be any more intimidating than a regular fireball. Reflavoring is for role play and provides no mechanical advantage - not min/maxing, not powergaming - just changing a name or description to fit a character concept better.

[Willie the Duck]

I think people might be missing the point of the OP. It can basically be summed up as, "I like the aesthetics of X, but Y has better stats, so I'm just going to use Y but refluff it to look like X."

I feel like a much better example of what the OP is talking about can be found in a conundrum I wrestled with a while back. Basically, I wanted a priest-type of character, and I wanted the aesthetics of not using a shield, but still wanted to get that sweet, sweet AC bonus.
I've had people want to do that with clerics as a whole -- play a combat character with healing qualities, but skip the whole 'religious spellcaster' angle entirely (not everyone loves what D&D has done with religion as a whole, after all). Make a 'medic' class which acts just like a cleric, but isn't somehow. The spells are 'medic actions' (which can be affected by anti-magic fields, don't think about it too closely), and so on.
That was in 2nd edition, where 1) natural healing was slow, and 2) non-magical healing skill was slow as well (also, counterspell means there's more than just the occasional AMF to make the non-magic angle more problematic). Now, you could make a non-magical healer in 5e, using feats like Healer, Chef, and Inspiring Leader. The question becomes (at least to mirror the OP point), if you wanted to play a non-magical healer, should you be playing a v. Human Fighter 6 with those 3 feats instead of a Life Cleric re-flavored as a medic?

I'm going to lean towards no, both because 1) by what specific premise is this problematic?, and 2) just because WotC has come up with a specific implementation of _____ , does not mean it is the one people should follow. Obviously yes you need to work with your DM, and if you are trying to get something for nothing then that should be acknowledged. But if you're just trying to get what you already could get, just with a different look to it, I don't see any problem.

[Keravath]

I've had people want to do that with clerics as a whole -- play a combat character with healing qualities, but skip the whole 'religious spellcaster' angle entirely (not everyone loves what D&D has done with religion as a whole, after all). Make a 'medic' class which acts just like a cleric, but isn't somehow. The spells are 'medic actions' (which can be affected by anti-magic fields, don't think about it too closely), and so on.
That was in 2nd edition, where 1) natural healing was slow, and 2) non-magical healing skill was slow as well (also, counterspell means there's more than just the occasional AMF to make the non-magic angle more problematic). Now, you could make a non-magical healer in 5e, using feats like Healer, Chef, and Inspiring Leader. The question becomes (at least to mirror the OP point), if you wanted to play a non-magical healer, should you be playing a v. Human Fighter 6 with those 3 feats instead of a Life Cleric re-flavored as a medic?

I'm going to lean towards no, both because 1) by what specific premise is this problematic?, and 2) just because WotC has come up with a specific implementation of _____ , does not mean it is the one people should follow. Obviously yes you need to work with your DM, and if you are trying to get something for nothing then that should be acknowledged. But if you're just trying to get what you already could get, just with a different look to it, I don't see any problem.

If the mechanics are changed to match a concept then that is homebrew. If the mechanics are the same but are described differently then that is reflavoring.

Example 1: A cleric that doesn't want to follow a religion. I don't see a problem with it. It can be reflavored as accessing power like "the source" from wheel of time that allows the character to channel magical effects. It could be reflavored as a mental ability or one that allows the cleric to channel their internal energy into spell like effects. Even Divine Intervention can be reflavored to fit either of these. Mechanically it is still a cleric but the lore for the specific character can be anything the DM and player agree to.

Example 2: A cleric that wants an AC bonus but doesn't want to be seen carrying a shield. Reflavor it as a defensive field provided by the clerics faith/diety/piety - the only constraints are that it takes the cleric an action to start or stop the effect and the hand where the field is focused can't be used for other things while the field is on. This verges on homebrew vs reflavoring since the cleric wouldn't have to buy a shield and it would not be possible for someone to take away the cleric's shield (which are really pretty insignificant in most games) ... otherwise, it mechanically operates exactly like a shield.

[Tanarii]

Example 2: A cleric that wants an AC bonus but doesn't want to be seen carrying a shield. Reflavor it as a defensive field provided by the clerics faith/diety/piety - the only constraints are that it takes the cleric an action to start or stop the effect and the hand where the field is focused can't be used for other things while the field is on. This verges on homebrew vs reflavoring since the cleric wouldn't have to buy a shield and it would not be possible for someone to take away the cleric's shield (which are really pretty insignificant in most games) ... otherwise, it mechanically operates exactly like a shield.
It also can't be replaced by a found magical item. That's a disadvantage, but still an effect.

[Greywander]

Example 2: A cleric that wants an AC bonus but doesn't want to be seen carrying a shield. Reflavor it as a defensive field provided by the clerics faith/diety/piety - the only constraints are that it takes the cleric an action to start or stop the effect and the hand where the field is focused can't be used for other things while the field is on. This verges on homebrew vs reflavoring since the cleric wouldn't have to buy a shield and it would not be possible for someone to take away the cleric's shield (which are really pretty insignificant in most games) ... otherwise, it mechanically operates exactly like a shield.

It also can't be replaced by a found magical item. That's a disadvantage, but still an effect.
These are issues I had to deal with when I wrote up Sacred Chimes (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612895-Cleric-s-Sacred-Chimes-(shield-holy-symbol-alternative)). I think the beauty of the chimes is how closely they mimic a shield despite not being mechanically identical (and the chimes are homebrew, not simply a reflavoring).

The chimes are a holy symbol, similar to how you can have a holy symbol on your shield. As an action (like donning a shield), you can invoke a prayer of protection to get a magical +2 AC bonus, so its susceptible to things like an anti-magic field or Dispel Magic. The bonus lasts until you end your turn without the chimes in your hand, so you can drop the chimes, and you even retain the bonus as long as you pick them up before your turn ends. This will rarely make a difference, similar to the anti-magic thing, but they kind of balance out; a niche nerf and a niche buff.

The chimes can be used by themselves, or attached to a staff or club. Attaching them to a weapon makes it unsuitable as a weapon, turning it into an improvised weapon (like a shield would be). If you attach it to a magic weapon with a +X bonus to attack and damage rolls, that bonus is converted into a bonus to AC. This neatly solves the problem of being incompatible with a magic shield, since you can essentially convert a magic weapon into a magic shield, without needing to add any additional magic items. IIRC, weapons +X have the same rarity as shields +X, too.

We have things like natural weapons and Unarmored Defense, but I wish we had more alternatives to shields. I think the sacred chimes do a good enough job, but you wouldn't even need to adhere that closely to the mechanics of a shield. Just so long as you're giving something up to get that AC bonus. Usually you'll also want to prevent TWF or using a weapon two-handed, but maybe if you're paying a substantial enough price it might still be balanced. Like, maybe you only get the bonus if you don't move on your turn. Or maybe you only get it if you hit something with an attack and it lasts until your next turn. Maybe it costs a bonus action to activate every round. There are many ways a shield alternative could be handled, so long as the one golden rule of "don't let it stack with shields or other shield alternatives" is followed.

[Cheesegear]

Could a character pretend that a rapier is an extra long dagger? Sure - it doesn't change whether the weapon is treated as a rapier in game, it doesn't change the properties of the weapon in game, it is only changing the word used to describe it - and honestly, as a DM, I don't really have any issue with that.

It is, however, going to confuse the **** out of me.

Player: 'I attack with my Dagger.'
Me: 'Why TF are you rolling a d8? Daggers are d4.'

I would have a lot of problems if someone tried to pass something off as something that already exists and is already a thing. I would forget that [Dagger = Rapier], all the time, especially if other characters also start attacking with Daggers (e.g; Sorcerers). The second someone says 'How come his Dagger does d8 and mine only does d4?', it was a bad idea, and I know it would happen. People wouldn't remember that [Dagger = Rapier], because since day dot, they've been under the impression that [Dagger = Dagger].


Similarly, if someone wants to reflavor a hand crossbow as a bulky silenced fire arm that needs each shot individually loaded, I really don't see much issue with that either.

I see no issue with that...As long as they don't call their invention a 'Sling'.


just changing a name or description to fit a character concept better.

I'm fine with changing names. Just not to names of things that already exist.

[sithlordnergal]

It is, however, going to confuse the **** out of me.

Player: 'I attack with my Dagger.'
Me: 'Why TF are you rolling a d8? Daggers are d4.'

I would have a lot of problems if someone tried to pass something off as something that already exists and is already a thing. I would forget that [Dagger = Rapier], all the time, especially if other characters also start attacking with Daggers (e.g; Sorcerers). The second someone says 'How come his Dagger does d8 and mine only does d4?', it was a bad idea, and I know it would happen. People wouldn't remember that [Dagger = Rapier], because since day dot, they've been under the impression that [Dagger = Dagger].


It would confuse me as well, but there's an easy fix for that. You have 2/3rds in your current message.

Player: 'I attack with my Dagger.'
Me: 'Why TF are you rolling a d8? Daggers are d4.'
Player: 'You let me reflavor this Rapier as a special, larger dagger'

A quick reminder is all that needs to be done, no more, no less.

[Pex]

It would confuse me as well, but there's an easy fix for that. You have 2/3rds in your current message.

Player: 'I attack with my Dagger.'
Me: 'Why TF are you rolling a d8? Daggers are d4.'
Player: 'You let me reflavor this Rapier as a special, larger dagger'

A quick reminder is all that needs to be done, no more, no less.

It would be annoying to need to be repeatedly reminded. I'm with Cheesegear on this one. Reflavoring is fine but not to the point of referencing other things the game references. To get what was mentioned by Talakeal in another similar thread, yes that also means you cannot call yourself an orc to look like an orc but use elf statistics.

Where is the line drawn to what can and cannot be changed? Maybe it is subjective to the user/DM. You can give examples that causes problems orc/elf, dagger/rapier, but that doesn't mean reflavoring is automatically wrong. A reflavoring is superficial. It's a mental illusion of imagery and nothing more. As soon as you want to alter the game rules, stop, go no farther, it doesn't happen. You can have your Fireball take the shape of a skull all you want. You cannot demand it becomes any harder for anyone else to identify it as the Fireball spell. If you want to justify it once it's established you can reflavor the imagery as part of the gameworld that's part of the identification process. That's what the Arcana check is for. A successful check recognizes the imagery aspect along with all the other things necessary to recognize the Fireball spell. However, justification isn't needed as far as the rules are concerned. The rules don't change, so an orc is never an elf, a dagger is never a rapier.

[Cheesegear]

A quick reminder is all that needs to be done, no more, no less.

The problem is that the confusion will cause arguments.

A similar thing will happen if I let my players cast Skullball instead of Fireball.

'No, but, why can't I use my Skullball for Intimidation purposes?'
Because that's not what Fireball does.
'But I don't have Fireball. It's not fire. It's a scary skull thing. Like Harry Potter.'

This is why I'm against reflavouring, intuitively. My players are going to want to roleplay with that reflavour, even though that's not what the thing does. Then they're going to be confused why they can't roleplay with the thing they've made. The only reason to reflavour something is so that you can roleplay with that thing. When you roleplay with that thing, you use that thing to effect the world in some small way. Maybe even a big way?

But like, that isn't really what the OP wants. I have a player who doesn't like saying 'Rapier.' I know it's not that word, everyone at the table knows what a Rapier is, it's real-world connections, and the fact that it's a Spanish word, with no real connection to the English word that she doesn't like. Doesn't matter. Fine. Call it an Espada. That works, everyone is happy. Importantly, when she says 'I attack with my Espada', I already remember that I know what an Espada, is - it's like a custom item that I made, that I remember making. When other players have a Shortsword, no-one is equating a Shortsword with an Espada, because a Shortsword is a Shortsword, not an Espada.

Oooh...If the DM gives you a magical Shortsword, that is neither a Rapier you started with, nor the Dagger you want...Are you going to try and convince the DM to call the Shortsword, a Dagger, too?

So when a player says 'I attack with my Dagger.', instinctively, I'm going to think 'Right, Dagger.', and other players are going to think 'I know what a Dagger is, I understand what's happening.' Neither me or my players have to rewire our brain. As I said, it will be especially confusing if anyone in the party also uses Daggers - actual Daggers, not Rapiers. Because for ten years when I hear the word Dagger; I think Dex d4...And so does everyone else.

So I'll repeat myself;
If you want to change the name of something...Then change it to anything you want, except for things that already exist.

Another point of contention may be for miniature purposes; My character has a Rapier, but the model has a Dagger... Who cares? As before, let's say you do have a model with a Dagger, but the DM gives you a magical Shortsword. Hell, a magical Shortbow. Gear changes - all the time - then you die. Character-accurate models are not important... And that's coming from someone who has bought...A lot of models.

[Witty Username]

Shouldn't reflavoring be limited to like-for-like (ie: longsword into katana)? Otherwise, what's the point of including all these options if we just reflavor them into the BiS choices?

I will go with the OPs apparent definitions of min/maxing and reflavoring, please correct me if this is not what is being meant by those terms:
-min/maxing: attempting to benefit from the most powerful options available.
-reflavoring: adjusting the descriptions of items, features, or spells to better fit those items, features, or spells with the concept being described.


So I can think of 2 reasons to use the mechanics from other equipment, The first being flavoring items to better match reality. For example in a medieval setting most people in light armor would be wearing a gambeson, which correlates to padded armor, and leather armor was rare but by mechanics padded armor is a trap option. So as a DM I wouldn't mind a player describing themselves as wearing a gambeson in "leather" armor, it is a sign they care about realism. This could be considered min/maxing I guess, since optimizing armor amount to studded leather (heavy and expensive) vs leather (light and cheap) with padded as your DM didn't want the rogue enemy to successfully sneak past you but I would argue that is not the player's intention. Also decisions like this tend to be the purview of the DM, which can't really be applicably described as min/maxing.

The second would be matching mechanics to concept, I had a thought on slings but they don't have the loading property like they did in 3.5. So I will go with the murder stroke, say for example a player has an idea for using a greatsword they want to be able to go for a pommel strike during combat. On the hunt for options, they find Polearm Master, which allows striking with the butt of the weapon as a bonus action. Now, as me I would just switch to a halberd, as I like them more than swords, but as this hypothetical player wants to use a sword, they ask, can I get polarm master but for greatswords? DM responds, Oh Hell, no! because PAM, GWM cheese is a foot. The player goes back to the drawing bored, they ask again, but ask if they can switch to a longsword, because it doesn't have Heavy and can't be used with GWM? DM responds no, longsword can be used one handed for d8 damage, which is better than spears using PAM, and has some concerns that the DM doesn't want the deal with like it being better for opportunity attacks and sentinel cheese. Player then asks, could they just use the stats of a halberd as a sword, same damage type, two-handed, and is a known quantity mechanically, so no unexpected results from homebrewing.
In this case the player is trying to get an option for their concept, that they believe their concept should be capable of but the rules don't support, because it has defined their concept as not being able to do such. they are not trying to make a more powerful character, and as such is not min/maxing.

[Talakeal]

I get where the OP is coming from; I see it at my table all the time.

To use some personal examples, when playing Shadowrun the filament whip is the absolute best close combat weapons. I wanted to play a badass cyber-ninja, and wanted to maximize my melee ability, but a whip wasn't really a ninja weapon, so I asked if I could reskin a filament whip as an experimental katana vibro-weapon (the GM said no btw.)

Likewise, Arwen is my favorite character in Lord of the Rings, but in the Games Workshop tabletop game she kind of sucks outside of very specific circumstances, so I often ask my opponent if I can use the Arwen model but use the rules for Elron or Glorfindel instead.



What I see this as is an attempt to have your cake and eat it to; to use both the fluff and the crunch that are preferable to you at the same time. I would say it falls under the umbrella of power-gaming, unless, I suppose, you are doing it for the feel of the mechanics rather than their effectiveness (for example refluffing a weapon that does 2d6 damage to do d12 damage because you like to be able to roll all of your attacks simultaneously and don't want to worry about matching pairs of dice).

[Rashagar]

It is, however, going to confuse the **** out of me.

Player: 'I attack with my Dagger.'
Me: 'Why TF are you rolling a d8? Daggers are d4.'

I would have a lot of problems if someone tried to pass something off as something that already exists and is already a thing. I would forget that [Dagger = Rapier], all the time, especially if other characters also start attacking with Daggers (e.g; Sorcerers). The second someone says 'How come his Dagger does d8 and mine only does d4?', it was a bad idea, and I know it would happen. People wouldn't remember that [Dagger = Rapier], because since day dot, they've been under the impression that [Dagger = Dagger].

This actually touches on something I would love to be able to do for some of my characters in games but always feel weird in-game when I try; reflavouring spells.

Eg. I want to make a wind-based spellcaster.
There aren't enough wind spells in the game to only select wind spells, so I reflavour spells to suit my theme and it's fine.
But in play, it seems a bit disruptive to the game flow if, every time I cast shield for example, I describe it as a deflecting gust of wind buffeting the attack away.
I could rename my spells to suit my theme, but if I do that it just results in the game flow being interrupted in a different way as I remind the DM that X spell = Y.
So I either feel a little guilty that my turn is taking up even more time (always a concern for me with spellcasters) or my character feels a little less grounded in the aesthetic and a little more generic.

Other examples of ideas I've backed out of:
Reflavouring Web as a field of icicles/hoarfrost.
Renaming Dragons Breath to "Treats that Repeat" for a Bakeomancer character idea.

[JackPhoenix]

The problem is that the confusion will cause arguments.

A similar thing will happen if I let my players cast Skullball instead of Fireball.

'No, but, why can't I use my Skullball for Intimidation purposes?'
Because that's not what Fireball does.
'But I don't have Fireball. It's not fire. It's a scary skull thing. Like Harry Potter.'

I don't think that's a good example. A skull isn't much more scary than a huge explosion.

[sithlordnergal]

The problem is that the confusion will cause arguments.

A similar thing will happen if I let my players cast Skullball instead of Fireball.

'No, but, why can't I use my Skullball for Intimidation purposes?'
Because that's not what Fireball does.
'But I don't have Fireball. It's not fire. It's a scary skull thing. Like Harry Potter.'

This is why I'm against reflavouring, intuitively. My players are going to want to roleplay with that reflavour, even though that's not what the thing does. Then they're going to be confused why they can't roleplay with the thing they've made. The only reason to reflavour something is so that you can roleplay with that thing. When you roleplay with that thing, you use that thing to effect the world in some small way. Maybe even a big way?

I honestly don't see how it would cause that many arguments. They remind you that its a rapier reflavored to be some kind of special dagger, you go "oh yeah, that's right", you move on.

As for the skullball giving advantage, remind them that its still mechanically a Fireball spell. Yeah, having skullball is cooler, but its not going to give thwm any more advantages or disadvantages as casting Fireball would. Remind them the mechanics simply do not change just because it looks different.

They're free to roleplay with those reflavors as much as they want, but I see no reason why reflavors would automatically give any mechanical benefits to something. Sure, it'll affect the world in a narrative and rp sense, but not in the mechanical sense. That skullball could be surprising and potentially shocking, but its not going to intimidate or scare anyone enough to cause a Frightened cindition. The only time it would is if the player did something really impressive with that RP, and even then that's something you could do with a regular Fireball.

[strangebloke]

The problem is that the confusion will cause arguments.

A similar thing will happen if I let my players cast Skullball instead of Fireball.

'No, but, why can't I use my Skullball for Intimidation purposes?'
Because that's not what Fireball does.
'But I don't have Fireball. It's not fire. It's a scary skull thing. Like Harry Potter.'

This isn't reflavoring, this is powergaming. This is trying to turn something that was freely given by the DM into a concrete advantage.

Reflavoring a rapier as a dagger is a really trite example that I don't think I've ever seen, but it wouldn't be powergaming or anything else until they tried to hide the 'dagger' up their sleeves.

[Pex]

The problem is that the confusion will cause arguments.

A similar thing will happen if I let my players cast Skullball instead of Fireball.

'No, but, why can't I use my Skullball for Intimidation purposes?'
Because that's not what Fireball does.
'But I don't have Fireball. It's not fire. It's a scary skull thing. Like Harry Potter.'

At this point the player has to get over it. The game has rules. You're supposed to use them, and Fireball does not intimidate. There is a limit to reflavoring. That limit is wanting to change the game mechanics. There's no harm in a player asking, but I'm all in on the DM's side (Gasp!) if the DM says no. The player can have the roleplaying fun of NPCs knowing him as the Skullmage and react to him as a normal matter of reputation for being a PC doing stuff. Fireball is a huge skull. Magic Missile is flying skulls. Scorching Ray is a skull that shoots eye beams. The player does not get to add anything extra to the instances of casting of those spells. They work normally in all other aspects. If he wants to put fear in the NPCs then cast the spell Fear and have a giant screaming skull appear with red dots for eyes and blood dripping from the teeth.

Edit: The DM might be kind in roleplaying NPC bad guys, the mooks, as scared upon seeing the various skulls, but they do not have the frightened condition.

[Tanarii]

, but I'm all in on the DM's side (Gasp!) if the DM says no.
A momentary silence falls over the forums as we all absorb the shock ... :smallamused:

[Keravath]

It is, however, going to confuse the **** out of me.

Player: 'I attack with my Dagger.'
Me: 'Why TF are you rolling a d8? Daggers are d4.'

I would have a lot of problems if someone tried to pass something off as something that already exists and is already a thing. I would forget that [Dagger = Rapier], all the time, especially if other characters also start attacking with Daggers (e.g; Sorcerers). The second someone says 'How come his Dagger does d8 and mine only does d4?', it was a bad idea, and I know it would happen. People wouldn't remember that [Dagger = Rapier], because since day dot, they've been under the impression that [Dagger = Dagger].



I see no issue with that...As long as they don't call their invention a 'Sling'.



I'm fine with changing names. Just not to names of things that already exist.

This is exactly why any sort of "reflavoring" or "renaming" if you like, is entirely up to the DM whether they allow it or not. If changing the name is going to bother the DM either for confusion or aesthetic reasons then the DM has the absolute perogative to say no to the request for their game.

[Cheesegear]

This isn't reflavoring, this is powergaming. This is trying to turn something that was freely given by the DM into a concrete advantage.

But players don't know what is just...'Narrative talk', and what is actually part of the game.

Players: 'You said the creature fell to one knee, gasping. That's means it's Prone...'
DM: '...I didn't...No.'
Players: 'So it's not on one knee?'
DM: 'Fine, I wont narrate combat anymore. You hit. The creature takes damage. Bonus Action? No. Next player's turn. Fun.'

I guess I just play with a group of people who pay attention to everything the DM says. You'd think that would be a good thing. But occasionally it does have its disadvantages, where, y'know...They do that thing where they're encouraged to roleplay based on what the DM says. That is, they believe that there are mechanical advantages to roleplaying well. Which in turn, makes them roleplay well...And isn't that what we want? Kind of.

A great example happened the other week:
A player wanted to play a Drow, and I had some reservations about that. But she and I talked for a while, and we came up with a backstory that made sense. At the end of it, she was like;
'Oh cool, so now my Drow doesn't have Sun Blindness?'
...What? No. Of course you do.
'But we just talked for ages about my backstory, and how I'm on the surface and it's fine.'
That's not...Wait. Was all this so you could try and trick me into letting you play a Drow, without Sun Blindness?
'...Yes.'
Well that was never going to happen.
'Oh...So all of this was a waste of time?'
I mean, not really. We came up with a good backstory and you have a cool character I think. And you have a plot hook that I can put into the story.
'Yeah but Sun Blindness. I don't want that.'
Then yes. All of this was a waste of time.

So, to answer the thread title; Is Reflavouring the same as min/maxing?

IME, a lot of times, yes.
The only reason to reflavour something is to roleplay/justify giving yourself what you want - an advantage. If my players wanted to call their Rapier, a Dagger, I can guarantee that at least once, maybe three or four sessions in, they would try and use their Rapier as a Dagger - either trying to pocket it, or throw it. They would then say that they've been playing it as a Dagger this entire time, and Daggers can be pocketed and/or thrown. It wouldn't happen immediately, but it would happen when it is...Convenient.

Tasha's even goes out of its way to make this the case; Be whatever you want, give yourself whatever you want. I'm sure there are ways to reflavour stuff so that it doesn't impact roleplaying, and for roleplaying to not impact mechanics...I just haven't seen it done the way that people in this thread seem to be describing.

Player: I want to be a Half-Orc nerd.
DM: Okay. Half-Orcs have +2 Str.
Player: No. I'm a Half-Orc nerd. Give me +2 Int.
DM: What? No.
Tasha's: Here you go.
DM: ...This...This is just min/maxing!
Tasha's: ...No...It's roleplaying.
DM: ...Yeah, in order to min/max! I'm not stupid. I can see what you're doing.

Cue several threads about how Tasha's is the best thing to happen to the game because it ties mechanical incentives to roleplaying, and that's what we want.
Cue several threads about how Tasha's is the worst thing to happen to the game because provides allowances for power-gaming, and what's what we don't want.

Heh. Yeah. This thread could turn into a Tasha's thread so easily. Tasha's is about reflavouring-for-advantage. :smallamused:

[strangebloke]

snip

Words have meaning, and reflavor means there's no mechanical change. Definitionally, these words mean very clearly distinct and separate things.

Some people will try to cast their powergaming as reflavoring, because they know reflavoring is 'good' and powergaming is 'bad' but this doesn't change what those words mean. A con man will try to frame their scam as a legit deal, but that doesn't mean that scams and legit deals are the same thing.

And neither is minmaxing

[Cheesegear]

Words have meaning
[...]
but this doesn't change what those words mean.

We agree! Dagger means Dagger.

[strangebloke]

We agree! Dagger means Dagger.

{scrubbed}

[Cheesegear]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{scrubbed}

[strangebloke]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}
So, you agree that reflavoring is not power gaming then? Because that's what I said. A dagger is a set of mechanics defined by a game system, and by design the mechanics can be altered any which way.

[Leon]

You cast Magic missile at the enemy and instead of three darts of force energy you release a trio of pigeons that fly out and impact with the target doing the spells effect but in a style that suits your character ~ that's re-flavoring. For Minmaxing, go look at anything on this forum with the word optimization in the thread title.

[Dimers]

Lucky me. So far I've only played with people who, when describing a rapier's mechanics as a "dagger", continue to treat it as a rapier in all ways. I'm kinda surprised to hear that there are folks who don't.

[Cheesegear]

So, you agree that reflavoring is not power gaming then?

My point is;

Changing the name of something, to the name of something that already exists is not a good idea - because words mean things.

Reflavouringnaming is fine...Unless you reflavourname to something that is already a thing.

It's better, to call it something different. That way nobody gets confused. Hence my earlier 'Espada' example. In specific response to the OP, I would find a different word than 'Dagger'. 'Dagger' in another language. I don't care. Just not 'Dagger.' That way nobody gets confused; Not the DM, not you, and not the other players who also have Daggers.

In a weird comparison to Godwin's Law; It's only a matter of time before the player wants to use the thing they have, as the thing that they've been calling it. Because seriously, why not? We've been calling it [X] all this time, and [X] can do [Y]. Why can't mine? This doesn't make any sense. Or, even better, when other players with an actual [X] complain that theirs aren't as good as another's at the table.

TL;DR. Renaming is fine...Until it isn't.

Then, in regards to thread title:

Then we have Tasha's, and Customising Your Origin. In order to power-game, you must reflavour. It's actually baked into the way it works. Tasha's is definitely a controversial book, sure. But reflavouring-for-power-gaming, in my readings, has generally been seen as a positive move (even though I personally don't agree). Only now, finally, because of Tasha's, can we have Half-Orc Wizards at the table. :smallsigh:

At least we have this gem:
Note: Customising Your Origin, and Custom Lineage are not the same. To make it clear what I'm talking about. A lot of the time these two are conflated and confused with each other.


Tasha's Cauldron of Everything Errata
Custom Lineage. “Your race is considered to be a Custom Lineage for
any game feature that requires a certain race, such as elf or dwarf.”

This is actually a step in the right direction.

DM: The Orc is Indifferent to Half-Orcs, and Hostile towards everything else.
Player: Oooh. I'm a Half-Orc. I'll do the talking.
DM: The Orc is Hostile towards you, and generally unwilling to listen.
Player: ...But you said...
DM: You're not a Half-Orc. You're a Custom Lineage...Whatever that is.

Tasha's has actually a rule baked into it (well, via Errata, at least), that reflavouring actually means you aren't the thing you say you are. Which is good. But also confusing? But it's also a way for people to not have their cake and eat it, too. And the fact that it's Errata, means that there were people trying to do just that, and WotC had to 'fix' it; I look like a Dwarf, so let me attune to a Dwarven Thrower, even though I'm not a Dwarf.

[sithlordnergal]

But players don't know what is just...'Narrative talk', and what is actually part of the game.

Players: 'You said the creature fell to one knee, gasping. That's means it's Prone...'
DM: '...I didn't...No.'
Players: 'So it's not on one knee?'
DM: 'Fine, I wont narrate combat anymore. You hit. The creature takes damage. Bonus Action? No. Next player's turn. Fun.'

I guess I just play with a group of people who pay attention to everything the DM says. You'd think that would be a good thing. But occasionally it does have its disadvantages, where, y'know...They do that thing where they're encouraged to roleplay based on what the DM says. That is, they believe that there are mechanical advantages to roleplaying well. Which in turn, makes them roleplay well...And isn't that what we want? Kind of.

A great example happened the other week:
A player wanted to play a Drow, and I had some reservations about that. But she and I talked for a while, and we came up with a backstory that made sense. At the end of it, she was like;
'Oh cool, so now my Drow doesn't have Sun Blindness?'
...What? No. Of course you do.
'But we just talked for ages about my backstory, and how I'm on the surface and it's fine.'
That's not...Wait. Was all this so you could try and trick me into letting you play a Drow, without Sun Blindness?
'...Yes.'
Well that was never going to happen.
'Oh...So all of this was a waste of time?'
I mean, not really. We came up with a good backstory and you have a cool character I think. And you have a plot hook that I can put into the story.
'Yeah but Sun Blindness. I don't want that.'
Then yes. All of this was a waste of time.


I would say neither of these are examples of reflavoring in an attempt to Min/Max. You're not changing any of the RP stuff, you're not changing any of the fluff. The first would simply be an example of an unclear definition, because the players thought falling to one knee is being prone, and the other has absolutely nothing to do with refluffing. Refluffing would involve changing the Drow race to something similar, like Dark Eldar or something. You have all the strengths and weaknesses of a Drow, but you're called a Dark Eldar, because this campaign takes place in a universe where Warhammer 40k races are available. What she is trying to do is very different from refluffing.



So, to answer the thread title; Is Reflavouring the same as min/maxing?

IME, a lot of times, yes.
The only reason to reflavour something is to roleplay/justify giving yourself what you want - an advantage. If my players wanted to call their Rapier, a Dagger, I can guarantee that at least once, maybe three or four sessions in, they would try and use their Rapier as a Dagger - either trying to pocket it, or throw it. They would then say that they've been playing it as a Dagger this entire time, and Daggers can be pocketed and/or thrown. It wouldn't happen immediately, but it would happen when it is...Convenient.
[/I]

Given your two examples, I'd actually say that you don't fully understand what refluffing is...and neither do your players apparently. Refluffing has nothing to do with Min/Maxing, it only has to do with RPing. And yeah, if your player refluffs a Rapier into some kind of dagger, and then tries to pocket or throw it like a Dagger, remind them they can't. When they ask why, tell them its still got the same stats as a Rapier, you can't pocket a Rapier, you can't really throw a Rapier effectively. If they want an RP reason why, its because its heavier and somewhat longer than a normal Dagger, so it can't be effectively thrown but its better at stabbing. Or come up with a different reason. Anything works to be honest. To and including just saying "Because Rapiers can;t do that, and you're just calling the Rapier you're using a Dagger". A bit harsh, and not an option I'd go with, but it works.




Tasha's even goes out of its way to make this the case; Be whatever you want, give yourself whatever you want. I'm sure there are ways to reflavour stuff so that it doesn't impact roleplaying, and for roleplaying to not impact mechanics...I just haven't seen it done the way that people in this thread seem to be describing.


I mean, if you're looking for examples like that, I got 3 of them:

Example 1: Weeaboo Joe, a joke character a friend made. He was a Fighter that used an Anime Bodypillow as a shield, and was from a different world. It fit the world setting cause we had lots of different worlds interacting with the main one, ranging from Aliens to Halo. The players did not want anything to do with the Flood infested mines for some reason...But back to Joe. He was a regular, Battlemaster Fighter that was a weeb. He had a +1 Shield that he reflavored as an Anime Bodypillow. Did this change any mechanics? Nope, it was a standard +1 Shield. Did it give him any advantages/disadvantages in checks or anything? Nope, no mechanical interaction with the world in any way, shape, or form. Now, for RP purposes he got some weird looks, and he made sure to inject as much weebness as possible, usually by quoting anime, but that didn't net him anything mechanics wise.

Example 2: Same player that did Joe, but different character. They're named Verral, they are a Renegade Fighter, and they took the Sniper Gun Style. Normally, this means they get a cool sniper rifle. The player asked me if they could have a cannon that shoots cabbages instead because he is a cabbage merchant at heart. Even has a cabbage stall thanks to his background. I said sure. And once again, making that change has had no impact on the mechanics of the game. It doesn't give him disadvantage or advantage on any checks, attacks, or saves. The fact that he always shoots cabbages doesn't grant the party infinite food. It isn;t any stronger or weaker than any other Renegade Fighter's Sniper Rifle. Now, it does have an effect RP wise. People think his character is a little crazy, but again, that has done nothing mechanically.

Example 3: Different game, different player. Player wanted to play a Changling Moon Druid in a Tomb of Annihilation game, but asked if instead of being Humanoid he could look like a great big mastiff. This one is slightly different because the player gave himself a major mechanical and RP detriment. He had it so his character could only ever say his name, Vox. However, the important thing to note is that the player gave himself that limitation, I, as the DM, did not. Though I did find it hilarious since he was the most perceptive character in the group and couldn't tell people anything. Now, did him being a dog affect things RP wise? Sure, people interacted with him in a different way than the other players. He got plenty of belly rubs and head pats before I disintegrated him in a boss fight.

Did those interactions result in any mechanical differences? Nope. Anything Vox could do, the rest of the party could do too with the exact same checks and DCs. Vox could also cast and fight just as well as a Humanoid could, and was still subject to spells like Counterspell, despite only being able to say Vox. Armor? He wore a shield on his back, and it counted as being held in one hand for mechanical purposes. Speak with Animal and Charm Animal didn't work because he was still, technically, a Changeling. Cover that granted 3/4th cover to a Human standing up gave him 3/4th cover as a dog.

Cause that's how reflavoring works. You change it to make the RP more interesting, but you gain no mechanical benefits from it. Have a Cleric but don't want to wear a Shield. Sure, you can call the Shield something else, but its still +2 to AC, and it still occupies your hand. Why? Who knows, lets come up with the reason. Maybe its because whatever you're doing to replace the shield occupies your hand in some way, like those Skyrim shield spells. As for other players having issues with it? Welp, you're free to reflavor it all too, if you like. Just don't go expecting some sort of mechanical benefit.




Player: I want to be a Half-Orc nerd.
DM: Okay. Half-Orcs have +2 Str.
Player: No. I'm a Half-Orc nerd. Give me +2 Int.
DM: What? No.
Tasha's: Here you go.
DM: ...This...This is just min/maxing!
Tasha's: ...No...It's roleplaying.
DM: ...Yeah, in order to min/max! I'm not stupid. I can see what you're doing.

Heh. Yeah. This thread could turn into a Tasha's thread so easily. Tasha's is about reflavouring-for-advantage. :smallamused:

So, I'm actually going to go out on a limb here and say something that may or may not be controversial. That part of Tasha's? That's not reflavoring, at all. That's a change in the mechanics of the game itself, and reflavoring doesn't do that. Is it Min/Maxing? Yes. Is it making the mechanics fit with the RP? Absolutely. But its not reflavoring. Because reflavoring and refluffing do not interact with any mechanics, at all. An actual example of refluffing/reflavoring something can be found on page 117:

"For example, the fireball of a Wizard with a fondness for storms might erupt to look like burning clouds or a burst of red lightning (without affecting the spell's damage type), while the same Wizard's Haste spell might limn the target in faint thunderheads."

That above? That is an example of reflavoring/refluffing. You're still casting Fireball and Haste here. They still do the same damage, have the same targets, radius, effects, benefits, detriments, and counters as any other regular Fireball or Haste. They don't add in anything extra, you're not gonna get some secret special advantage on persuasion with a Tempest Cleric just because it looks like a storm. It just looks different, that's all.

[qube]

Assuming you're sticking to the mechanics as printed and allowed by the rules... isn't it?No, it's not. Consider what you claim


If you wanna be a Rogue who fights with a dagger, but daggers suck so you use a Rapier and just call it a dagger...

The red part is arguably* min-maxing, the blue part is reflavoring.

This make the argument circular "is min-maxing by doing X, not just min-maxing?" ... well, yeah.

how would I be min/maxing if I instead where to reflavor a inferior weapon to a superior one (a.k.a. call my dageer a rapier, instead of the other way around)
----------------

*: if this is min-maxing, character optimalisation, etc ... and if the negative conotation of the term** applies is not really the issue here, I think.

**: (consider getting +2 STR as ASI for a barbarian is min-maxing, yet considered normal)


Shouldn't reflavoring be limited to like-for-like (ie: longsword into katana)? Otherwise, what's the point of including all these options if we just reflavor them into the BiS choices?daggers are light, shortswords aren't - so your example isn't a straight power up.

But if we're talking about a straight upgrade - I would not put the fault with the player wanting to reflavor, but with the system that objectively tries to punish players wanting something special.

Why should the person who wants to play with a mace be punished over the person who picks a quarterstaff (1/20th of the price, AND the option to go versatile).

[Monster Manuel]

Apropos of nothing, this just came up in my YouTube feed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22rzF-_IuGs

It's a couple-minute clip of an interview with the DM for the Dimension 20 Youtube/DropoutTV D&D stream, discussing his approach to re-skinning for his games. Specifically talks about what he did for the campaign that takes place in a modern-ish, New-York-ish setting. Makes some interesting points about this topic, and as it turns out he summarizes my thoughts on the question way more succinctly than I would be able to.

If it's of interest.

[Willie the Duck]

It is, however, going to confuse the **** out of me.

Player: 'I attack with my Dagger.'
Me: 'Why TF are you rolling a d8? Daggers are d4.'

Theoretical group:
Player: 'I attack with my Messer.'
DM: 'So, a knife?'
P: 'Wel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messer_(weapon))l...'


I get where the OP is coming from; I see it at my table all the time.
To use some personal examples, when playing Shadowrun the filament whip is the absolute best close combat weapons. I wanted to play a badass cyber-ninja, and wanted to maximize my melee ability, but a whip wasn't really a ninja weapon, so I asked if I could reskin a filament whip as an experimental katana vibro-weapon (the GM said no btw.)
Likewise, Arwen is my favorite character in Lord of the Rings, but in the Games Workshop tabletop game she kind of sucks outside of very specific circumstances, so I often ask my opponent if I can use the Arwen model but use the rules for Elron or Glorfindel instead.

What I see this as is an attempt to have your cake and eat it to; to use both the fluff and the crunch that are preferable to you at the same time. I would say it falls under the umbrella of power-gaming, unless, I suppose, you are doing it for the feel of the mechanics rather than their effectiveness (for example refluffing a weapon that does 2d6 damage to do d12 damage because you like to be able to roll all of your attacks simultaneously and don't want to worry about matching pairs of dice).
I guess it is wanting your cake and to eat it too, or some similar metaphor (perhaps one more neutral of a term), but power-gaming? Wouldn't that depend on which direction you come from? If the player could and would have picked the ninja with a mono whip if they weren't allowed to re-flavor it, aren't they at the same power level as if they get their way on the call?

[Talakeal]

Theoretical group:
Player: 'I attack with my Messer.'
DM: 'So, a knife?'
P: 'Wel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messer_(weapon))l...'


I guess it is wanting your cake and to eat it too, or some similar metaphor (perhaps one more neutral of a term), but power-gaming? Wouldn't that depend on which direction you come from? If the player could and would have picked the ninja with a mono whip if they weren't allowed to re-flavor it, aren't they at the same power level as if they get their way on the call?

Yes.

IMO going out of your way to choose the most powerful option simply because it is the most powerful option is pretty much the the definition of power gaming.

[Willie the Duck]

Yes.

IMO going out of your way to choose the most powerful option simply because it is the most powerful option is pretty much the the definition of power gaming.

Right, but my point is, if that was what the gamer was going to do in the first place doesn't isn't that the power-gaming, and the re-flavoring separate and not-powergaming (but is wanting cake and eating it too)?

[Derges]

Consensus seems pretty clear, "No" as reflavouring doesn't affect stats.

Cool, I agree and would go further. Some reflavourings can include stat changes can be non-min-maxing.

I have a character who is themed as an ice mage, at the time he was made there weren't quite so many spell options so I asked for a scorching ray that throws icicles instead of heat beams - not because of any meta-analysis of damage types but just because he does ice things.

The same character owns 3 rapiers. A standard one, a slashing one and a blunt one (the DM gave them out without prompting because he thought a blunt rapier would be amusing).


Unless a character has multiple kickers that key off a given damage type there's no harm far as I can tell.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Yes.

IMO going out of your way to choose the most powerful option simply because it is the most powerful option is pretty much the the definition of power gaming.

Depends on context.

Going to be honest, if the Flavor of my character uses tool A (a dagger or short blade in this definition) But looking at the mechanics I'm picturing a character who uses it up close, uses a short blade that is too big to conceal, doesn't get thrown, the character doesn't dual wield. Yeah, no reason not to use the Rapier Stats.

I've also done the opposite spin when the character I envisioned was a WestWind guard (Saga of Recluce) who are known for using matched short swords that can be used as throwing blades. I didn't try to figure out how to justify throwing short swords, I just used dagger mechanics. Meant I could dual wield, throw, but yeah, took a d4 as the damage.

Every last example I see being given for why this is bad or hurts a game involves the specific idea that your players can't be trusted to play fair. "But what if they eventually WANT to hide their d8 dagger because it's a dagger?" I mean, if they do it casually not thinking, oops, correct move on, if they're trying to twist the mechanics, well, no.

[Demonslayer666]

Calling a rapier a dagger is a misgnomer.

No, the two terms have very different meanings in this context.

Reflavoring is making something look different without changing its mechanics.

Min/maxing is assigning your ability scores for maximum efficiency, and may include taking abilities that work very well together. Taking a rapier as a rogue over a dagger could be considered min/maxing (taking the most damaging weapon).

[ender241]

a misgnomer.

Is that when a Gnome uses the wrong term? 😁

[Jervis]

Is that when a Gnome uses the wrong term? 😁

You’ve been gnomed!

[MadBear]

Personally, to answer the part about the dagger specifically, I'd say this.

If you want all the benefits of the rapier without any of the drawbacks, that's min-maxing and I wouldn't allow it. However, if someone wanted to play a rogue who used a single dagger, but asked to use the rapier stats, I'd allow it, assuming they follow all the rules of the rapier. I mean, I literally wouldn't care if they used a legal weapon and called it something else. Caring about that is getting way to stuck in the weeds for my taste.

[Polyphemus]

Consensus seems pretty clear, "No" as reflavouring doesn't affect stats.

Cool, I agree and would go further. Some reflavourings can include stat changes can be non-min-maxing.

I have a character who is themed as an ice mage, at the time he was made there weren't quite so many spell options so I asked for a scorching ray that throws icicles instead of heat beams - not because of any meta-analysis of damage types but just because he does ice things.

[...]

Unless a character has multiple kickers that key off a given damage type there's no harm far as I can tell.

I've actually as DM taken the initiative to give a Storm Sorcerer a Firebolt re-themed to do Lightning damage instead with complete disregard to balance, just because I thought it silly that a Storm Sorcerer couldn't have a Lightning cantrip that wasn't melee (Shocking Grasp) or would actively pull people closer to their squishy, squishy bodies (Lightning Lure). I believe my exact inspiration was how Pokemon has the move "Thundershock," a weaker, early-level precursor to the heavier-hitting "Thunderbolt", and in fact I think I might've actually called the reskin "Thundershock" straight up.

Again, not based on that player complaining, or anything; I gave that for free because I saw she was otherwise drilling down into the thunder/lightning theme as much as her limited spell selection would reasonably allow, and thought, "why the hell not?" and she thought it was neat. :P

In terms of a less mechanical reflavoring, with that same character we would also try as much as we could to think of ways the various non-lightning or thunder spells could still have a suitable visual; like her Mage Armor deflecting near-miss rolls via a burst of static from her sorc's body, that sort of thing.

[Hytheter]

Right, but my point is, if that was what the gamer was going to do in the first place doesn't isn't that the power-gaming, and the re-flavoring separate and not-powergaming (but is wanting cake and eating it too)?

This is it.

Choosing the most powerful option because it is the most powerful option is power-gaming (or min-maxing or optimisation or whatever you want to call it). And to be clear, that's not necessarily a bad thing, just to get that out of the way. Reflavouring is when you take the mechanical side of your character but change the aesthetics to something you prefer. This is often because there is no direct mechanical way of modelling that aesthetic already in the game. This really has nothing to do with minmaxing.

Optimisation is about reaching the desired power level, while reflavouring is about reaching the desired aesthetic. Of course, these two facets do compete at times and that's where the OP is coming from. Sometimes the desired aesthetic is not unreachable with the established toolset but merely undesirable for one reason or another... such as by being mechanically weak, sub-optimal.

I think this is valid to a certain extent depending on the group's optimisation level - sure, it might be possible to hit all your desired key notes with a weak sub/class or some subpar multiclass path, but if you're going to be friends with a chronurgy wizard and a hexasorcadin then you don't want to slack off in the power department. But where's the line, if one must be drawn? As with the "dagger" example, I do find it a little cheap to skip an effective (if not the very best) and thematically appropriate option that matches their described flavour exactly just to eke out a little more damage per hit or whatever.

That said, I'll admit I've been guilty of it myself and I've also felt the frustration of sticking with theme at the expense of capability. Ultimately, this kind of flavouring is harmless if potentially confusing; I play on a server with a gonzo kitchen sink setting that accepts a wide range of disparate character concepts, with very permissive norms about reflavouring that allow basically anything as long as things stay more-or-less RAW in game and somehow we all still manage to have fun. Of course, D&D purists might rightly point out that the mechanics exist to reinforce flavour and say something about the way the world works (isn't this the point of classes to begin with?). Mileage may vary.

[Aelyn]

My take: There are actually three things at play here, which are subtly different: reflavouring, reskinning, and homebrew. None of them are inherently powergaming, but reskinning and homebrew can be.

Reflavouring is where one element of a character is changed in a non-mechanical way to better fit the player's thoughts on what they are. For example, my Bard character in TKS was friendly to a fault, even when in the midst of a battle, so Vicious Mockery didn't feel appropriate. I reflavoured it to Disarming Couplet, where she would spout a two-line rhyme about the target or what was going on, and the momentary forced distraction gave 1d4 Psychic damage and Disadvantage on the next Attack. No mechanical difference.

Reskinning is where your character has something about them which you want to be one thing in the flavour and another in the roleplay. For example, my Artificer character in TKS looked like he was wearing a six-foot suit of armour, but he was actually a Gnome inside the suit who piloted the suit using various gizmos. One way I could have played that was to use it as a Warforged, which would be a reskin (though I actually ended up using some homebrew for it). The example of a long dagger being treated as a rapier for the damage, or a Drow using a different Elf subrace to avoid Sunlight Sensitivity, would both fall into this category.

Homebrew is where you want your character to be changed in a way which isn't most easily done by reskinning it. For example, my Loxodon Druid in TKS (yes, we like to swap out characters as a group) has proficiency in STR saves instead of INT saves, purely because I think it fits the character better. I'll freely admit that it's probably a more powerful save, but that’s not why I asked for it. That's not something represented by the rules, so falls into the category of homebrew.

None of these are inherently wrong, and I'd argue none of them fall into the category of minmaxing; that's more about hyper-focusing a character by squeezing every ounce of mechanical power in one area at the expense of every other area. The classic example of minmaxing for me is the various 15-15-15-8-8-8 builds, like the purely-physical Barbarian or the Wizard with INT, DEX and CON for maximum combat ability at the expense of skills and RP opportunities.

[Talakeal]

Min/maxing is assigning your ability scores for maximum efficiency, and may include taking abilities that work very well together. Taking a rapier as a rogue over a dagger could be considered min/maxing (taking the most damaging weapon).

Man, people use min-maxing very different today than when I was a kid /old.

To me it always meant focusing on one portion of your character and ignoring anything else, like a fighter who maximizes his strength, dexterity, and constitution but minimizes his intelligence, wisdom, and charisma.



Depends on context.

Going to be honest, if the Flavor of my character uses tool A (a dagger or short blade in this definition) But looking at the mechanics I'm picturing a character who uses it up close, uses a short blade that is too big to conceal, doesn't get thrown, the character doesn't dual wield. Yeah, no reason not to use the Rapier Stats.

I've also done the opposite spin when the character I envisioned was a WestWind guard (Saga of Recluce) who are known for using matched short swords that can be used as throwing blades. I didn't try to figure out how to justify throwing short swords, I just used dagger mechanics. Meant I could dual wield, throw, but yeah, took a d4 as the damage.

Every last example I see being given for why this is bad or hurts a game involves the specific idea that your players can't be trusted to play fair. "But what if they eventually WANT to hide their d8 dagger because it's a dagger?" I mean, if they do it casually not thinking, oops, correct move on, if they're trying to twist the mechanics, well, no.

See, I look at it from a different perspective.

Personally I think the fluff and crunch need to work together, and I would be more upset if the dagger couldn't be thrown or concealed, because that's what a dagger is. Ideally, there would be some "fluff" advantage to a rapier as well to offset it though.

For example, in the above example of the guy who shoots cabbages instead of bullets, I would find it really troubling if, to use an example, we fought a guy who was immune to metal weapons or weak to vegetables and the cabbage gun didn't do something more to him than bullets, and vice versa.

[ender241]

Man, people use min-maxing very different today than when I was a kid /old.

To me it always meant focusing on one portion of your character and ignoring anything else, like a fighter who maximizes his strength, dexterity, and constitution but minimizes his intelligence, wisdom, and charisma.

Isn't that essentially what Demonslayer666 said? "Min/maxing is assigning your ability scores for maximum efficiency"?




See, I look at it from a different perspective.

Personally I think the fluff and crunch need to work together, and I would be more upset if the dagger couldn't be thrown or concealed, because that's what a dagger is. Ideally, there would be some "fluff" advantage to a rapier as well to offset it though.


As long as you use a d4 for damage, then it's fine. At that point you're just using a dagger and nothing has been reflavored. But using a d8 for damage and having it able to be thrown and easily concealed? You can't do that without homebrew.



For example, in the above example of the guy who shoots cabbages instead of bullets, I would find it really troubling if, to use an example, we fought a guy who was immune to metal weapons or weak to vegetables and the cabbage gun didn't do something more to him than bullets, and vice versa.

That's no longer just reflavoring then, because there are mechanical changes. Reflavoring is still following RAW, just changing the look and feel of things. What you're talking about is homebrew. Which is fine if you want to do that, as long as the DM is on board or if you are the DM. Just a different term that should be used to avoid confusion. At least by the definitions that I (and it seems most people, judging by this thread) follow.

[Tanarii]

Reskinning is where your character has something about them which you want to be one thing in the flavour and another in the roleplay. For example, my Artificer character in TKS looked like he was wearing a six-foot suit of armour, but he was actually a Gnome inside the suit who piloted the suit using various gizmos. One way I could have played that was to use it as a Warforged, which would be a reskin (though I actually ended up using some homebrew for it). The example of a long dagger being treated as a rapier for the damage, or a Drow using a different Elf subrace to avoid Sunlight Sensitivity, would both fall into this category.
Technically it may count as reskinning to take an existing thing and skin it as another existing thing with different rules, but it has far more homebrew implications. Due to the in-world interactions where the other thing still exists and the DM has to figure out how/why this one is different from other others, and what happens if something in the rules interacts with the new one instead of the old one. Or (in the case of an item) if someone else picks it up and tries to use it, or if the original person loses/breaks it and tries to use a different one that the normal version of the thing it was reskinned into instead, or a magic version of either the original thing or the reskinned into thing is found.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

See, I look at it from a different perspective.

Personally I think the fluff and crunch need to work together, and I would be more upset if the dagger couldn't be thrown or concealed, because that's what a dagger is. Ideally, there would be some "fluff" advantage to a rapier as well to offset it though.

For example, in the above example of the guy who shoots cabbages instead of bullets, I would find it really troubling if, to use an example, we fought a guy who was immune to metal weapons or weak to vegetables and the cabbage gun didn't do something more to him than bullets, and vice versa.

I can name quite a few daggers that can't be thrown well. In fact, most knives don't throw all that well unless they're made for it. Jambyia, Main Gauche, Tri-blade Gauche, Katar. Funny enough, short blades were not really designed for throwing, but for simplification 5e goes with the standard even weighted dagger with a straight, double edged blade and no significant ornamentation on the hilt. Several of those are also obnoxious to conceal. In fact, most blades are obnoxious to conceal, but we suspend disbelief.

As for the Cabbage gun. It would fall into homebrewing, but yeah, I'd probably allow it to work better against the immune to metal. I'd also put the opposite spin and say it's no good against something that needs silver or some other material. But again, that's moving into homebrew. Similar to the example above with firebolt becoming thunderbolt. I'd allow the change but it's a permanent change, so the character with thunderbolt gets to ignore fire resistance issues, but now has to deal with electric immune.

[GooeyChewie]

Isn't that essentially what Demonslayer666 said? "Min/maxing is assigning your ability scores for maximum efficiency"?

The way I see it, there are three concepts which overlap but aren’t exactly the same.

Optimization means you pick the best options for your build. Need a finesse weapon but don’t care about light or throw? Rapier has the best damage, so you pick that weapon. You aren’t necessarily trying to be super-powerful, but you’re avoiding any obvious “you could be better if” situations.

Power-gaming means you are not only optimizing, but doing so with an eye towards creating a considerably more powerful character. You aren’t just making the most optimal choices for whatever build you happen to want to play; you are going out of your way to select optimal builds. Power-gaming needs some level of optimizing, but optimizing doesn’t necessarily mean power-gaming.

Min/maxing means you focus on one particular aspect of your build and concentrate on it to the exclusion of other aspects of the game. Often it took the form of using “flaws” which allowed you to increase certain stats in exchange for decreasing other stats, which could lead to some ridiculous things like Str 2 Int {insert ungodly number here} wizards. Usually min/maxing involved power-gaming, but not always. For a weird example, Tulok the Barbarian’s latest “Building Character” video has a character which maximizes burrowing speed. The character can out-run a purple worm underground (with ease!), but it can’t really do much else (relatively speaking, compared to other level 20 builds).

[sithlordnergal]

The way I see it, there are three concepts which overlap but aren’t exactly the same.

Optimization means you pick the best options for your build. Need a finesse weapon but don’t care about light or throw? Rapier has the best damage, so you pick that weapon. You aren’t necessarily trying to be super-powerful, but you’re avoiding any obvious “you could be better if” situations.

Power-gaming means you are not only optimizing, but doing so with an eye towards creating a considerably more powerful character. You aren’t just making the most optimal choices for whatever build you happen to want to play; you are going out of your way to select optimal builds. Power-gaming needs some level of optimizing, but optimizing doesn’t necessarily mean power-gaming.

Min/maxing means you focus on one particular aspect of your build and concentrate on it to the exclusion of other aspects of the game. Often it took the form of using “flaws” which allowed you to increase certain stats in exchange for decreasing other stats, which could lead to some ridiculous things like Str 2 Int {insert ungodly number here} wizards. Usually min/maxing involved power-gaming, but not always. For a weird example, Tulok the Barbarian’s latest “Building Character” video has a character which maximizes burrowing speed. The character can out-run a purple worm underground (with ease!), but it can’t really do much else (relatively speaking, compared to other level 20 builds).

This right here is 100% correct. The three are similar, but have key differences. I do a lot of all three, in fact when I make a character for DnD I'm far more worried about the build aspect than the RP aspect because I'm more interested in that. I always optimize, I occasionally Power Game, and I do a lot of weird, experimental Min/Maxing, the weirdest of which is maxing out movement speed in AL.

[strangebloke]

only caveat I'd add. Power-gaming is more specifically the fixation on optimization to the exclusion of all else. If you're just showing up with a powerful character, you're not necessarily power-gaming. That would imply that your powerful character can't also be flavorful and full of personality, and that's not really true. The Stormwind fallacy is a thing. Powerful characters, even the most powerful characters, can be very interesting and well-conceived, depending on the table you're playing at. After all, wouldn't a character who's interested in becoming powerful try to learn powerful spells and useful skills?

Power-gaming, at least imo, is more about attitude. Multiclassing to fiend warlock without any real reason or justification, for example, or trying to browbeat the DM into making exceptions for you. "Come on man, why should bladesingers be locked to elf???"

So in a sense, someone who wants to have a hybrid rapier/dagger with all the upsides of both and none of the drawbacks of either, is powergaming. But this doesn't mean the same thing as "reflavoring" and in fact these terms are mutually exclusive. Power gamers might try to present their power gaming as "harmless reflavoring" but if they're doing so...

...they're lying.:smallcool:

[MoiMagnus]

only caveat I'd add. Power-gaming is more specifically the fixation on optimization to the exclusion of all else.

I'd instead say "optimization for its own sake". A power-gamer is someone who find joy in optimising and increasing the power of their character for its own sake. (Well, sometimes the part "showing off" the power of their character is also a significant part). If the player is only a power-gamer (IMO players can be of multiple kinds), that indeed means they don't care about anything else, so will optimise at the cost of everything else.



Power-gaming, at least imo, is more about attitude. Multiclassing to fiend warlock without any real reason or justification, for example, or trying to browbeat the DM into making exceptions for you. "Come on man, why should bladesingers be locked to elf???"


I tend to put the "player tries to fast-talk the GM into doing something even when they know it's not the correct decision" as not necessarily linked to being a powergamer. It's a very big flaw for a player as it means the GM cannot trust their judgement, but it can express itself in multiple ways: powergaming, rule lawyering, "main characters" syndrome, etc.

While my definition of powergaming might be more general than yours, not all powergamers are actually toxic players IME. You just have to understand what is fun to them and allow them to have fun with it, in the same way you make sure that the other kinds of players have their fun.
(That doesn't mean "never nerf anything" or "allow everything they suggest". It just means you have to think a bit more about how you handle rules to not appear like you're just there to kill their fun.)