Playing with Flavor: Where's the line?

[Starsinger]

Where's the line between playing with flavor and saying "No, you just have to home brew it"? For example, a Duskblade/Swordmage "I want to flavor my Sword as a spell book like in Fire Emblem." Or the (a bit ago) "Warlock who wants to use a Rod as a Staff" fiasco? When does something demand homebrewed stats as opposed to just reflavoring?

[kamikasei]

If the altered flavour doesn't have any mechanical consequences (that aren't pretty much entirely separate from or irrelevant to the mechanics of the ability - say, the book says that a spell projects a bright blue beam, and you say "no, we'll have it be red"), that's fine. If it does have clearly implied mechanical consequences, you need to take them into account, mechanically. (If the spell's blast is supposed to be bright enough to shed light, and you decide it'll be invisible instead, that has implications for illumination, stealth, etc.)

I don't know the examples you cite, but I would expect both to require some amount of rules modification to make them work.

[azalinthegreat]

Personally I think it's really a personal choice. I've got a friend who likes to homebrew everything new, where I prefer to try and keep it more on the flavor side. So, for example, if he makes an entirely new weapon I'd prefer to try and adapt a standard weapon to fit this one, he'd rather make an entirely new one.

My personal opinion for "the line" is that it's at the point of totally alien abilities. So, someone could make a bunch of changes to the ranger class, and so long as they stay balanced that's fine. He could get a mount from a paladin, maybe some cleric spells, and as long as it's balanced in the end all you really need is some flavor. But, once he wants to do something weird like be able to blow things up with a Gambit-like touch, then you really need to start homebrewing (obviously, these are extreme cases. They would be very hard to keep balanced.)

[Prometheus]

I agree with azalinthegreat, it comes down to the DM style. It is the DM that will be responsible for implementing the changes as well as the one held responsible for the consequences of those changes.

I generally allow any kind of change, so long as I can balance it. For example the Duskblade/Swordmage would get the benefit of using a sword as a spellbook rather than a traditional one if any of the following were true: a) She already had Quick Draw b) She was willing to add a move action to mentally switch between "combat mode" and "spell mode" c) it was the subject of an Item Familiar feat d) she was significantly underpowered compared to the other players e) she paid more to given it that property (at a price I set) or f) if she lost or delayed some minor class ability as a result. In fact, I would regard things like that as an interesting break from the game that lets the player have more fun at no real cost to me. Of course, if it is too strange I would need to homebrew it completely to make sure that it was balanced and coherent. And also, if someone is playing this game as a means to optimize an already overpowered character, I would probably not be very helpful.

Some people argue that the rigidity of the class structures is part of the game balance and part of the strategy of character building. My groups don't tend to play the game based solely on max-mining, so while that argument holds a lot of weight with others it doesn't hold any for me.

[Emperor Tippy]

For pure flavor? There isn't one as far as I'm concerned. For mechanical changes to make the flavor work? It depends entirely on the group, game, power level, and balance.

[Starsinger]

I generally allow any kind of change, so long as I can balance it. For example the Duskblade/Swordmage would get the benefit of using a sword as a spellbook rather than a traditional one if any of the following were true: a) She already had Quick Draw b) She was willing to add a move action to mentally switch between "combat mode" and "spell mode" c) it was the subject of an Item Familiar feat d) she was significantly underpowered compared to the other players e) she paid more to given it that property (at a price I set) or f) if she lost or delayed some minor class ability as a result. In fact, I would regard things like that as an interesting break from the game that lets the player have more fun at no real cost to me. Of course, if it is too strange I would need to homebrew it completely to make sure that it was balanced and coherent. And also, if someone is playing this game as a means to optimize an already overpowered character, I would probably not be very helpful.

Huh? I don't really understand anything you just said.

[Starbuck_II]

Huh? I don't really understand anything you just said.

I can try spacing it out for you:


I generally allow any kind of change, so long as I can balance it.
For example the Duskblade/Swordmage would get the benefit of using a sword as a spellbook rather than a traditional one if any of the following were true:
a) She already had Quick Draw
b) She was willing to add a move action to mentally switch between "combat mode" and "spell mode"
c) it was the subject of an Item Familiar feat
d) she was significantly underpowered compared to the other players
e) she paid more to given it that property (at a price I set) or
f) if she lost or delayed some minor class ability as a result.

In fact, I would regard things like that as an interesting break from the game that lets the player have more fun at no real cost to me. Of course, if it is too strange I would need to homebrew it completely to make sure that it was balanced and coherent. And also, if someone is playing this game as a means to optimize an already overpowered character, I would probably not be very helpful.


That better?

[Starsinger]

Thanks Starbuck. I think we're at a communications failure now.

Okay standard scenario. Bob the Duskblade swings his sword channeling burning hands. He does 1d8 damage + 5d4 burning hands damage. In Game he swings his sword and it's covered in flames.

Reflavored scenario. Sally the reflavored Duskblade (mechanically) swings her "Sword" channeling burning hands. She does 1d8 damage + 5d4 burning hands damage. In Game she opens the spell tome she carries and conjures a flaming sword to attack the enemy.

Is this homebrew necessary? Are you one of the DMs who feel that Spell tomes aren't appropriate weapons unless they're homebrewed out? Do there have to be ridiculous justifications for how Sally obviously "cast a spell" but didn't provoke an AoO but she would have if she had just cast burning hands?

[Xefas]

Do there have to be ridiculous justifications for how Sally obviously "cast a spell" but didn't provoke an AoO but she would have if she had just cast burning hands?

Considering that Attacks of Opportunity are a completely meta concept, then I don't think it needs justification. In the hustle and bustle of combat, either Sally got hit or she didn't, regardless of whether that hit comes on someone else's "turn" or in the middle of her own after she has performed some action. Since everything is suppose to happen more or less simultaneously, there isn't much of a difference.

[Artanis]

Thanks Starbuck. I think we're at a communications failure now.

Okay standard scenario. Bob the Duskblade swings his sword channeling burning hands. He does 1d8 damage + 5d4 burning hands damage. In Game he swings his sword and it's covered in flames.

Reflavored scenario. Sally the reflavored Duskblade (mechanically) swings her "Sword" channeling burning hands. She does 1d8 damage + 5d4 burning hands damage. In Game she opens the spell tome she carries and conjures a flaming sword to attack the enemy.

Is this homebrew necessary? Are you one of the DMs who feel that Spell tomes aren't appropriate weapons unless they're homebrewed out? Do there have to be ridiculous justifications for how Sally obviously "cast a spell" but didn't provoke an AoO but she would have if she had just cast burning hands?
As long as everybody understands that "casting" from the spell tome is just reflavored whack-a-kobold, I don't think anybody will have any problems.

This has different implications for PCs and NPCs. If a PC does it, presumably he/she would've worked it out with the DM (and hopefully everybody else as well), so everybody knows what's going on. If the DM gives the OK to a not-really-a-spell looking like a spell, then I'd certainly hope the DM knows that it doesn't provoke AoOs :smallwink: . For an NPC, on the other hand, the DM would have to make sure the players know that this "spellcasting" doesn't provoke AoOs, just this once. ...or give the "conjures a sword" spells a ridiculously high bonus to the relevant Concentration check :smalltongue:

[Kantolin]

For an NPC, on the other hand, the DM would have to make sure the players know that this "spellcasting" doesn't provoke AoOs, just this once. ...

I've had that problem with a NPC of mine. They were part of the 'South Dreamers' theives guild, and as part of the flavor, their 'evasion' seemed to have the attack simply phase through them rather than some aspect of dodging.

I shortly afterwards, however, opted to explain that it was evasion, as this had the undesired side-effect of making it seem like they were just flat immune to spells, and my goal wasn't to make the roulette an extendedly difficult encounter.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I personally find the idea of actually hitting the enemy with an electrified/frosty/vampiric book funnier/more awesome, but if that's not what he wants to do...

There's no mechanical change to this, really, as long as he does the same damage and follows all the same rules as any other Duskblade. I don't see any problems. Do note that you can't actually channel Burning Hands, though, it has to be a touch spell.

[Starsinger]

I personally find the idea of actually hitting the enemy with an electrified/frosty/vampiric book funnier/more awesome, but if that's not what he wants to do...

I want my 4e swordmage to do that. All of his/her (haven't decided) powers with the Weapon keyword will be him/her whacking the enemy with the book, and the Implement powers will be spells, but that's neither here nor there.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Do this. Just say your book does 1d8 slashing damage and counts as a Heavy Blade (or appropriate for whatever sword you want to emulate). Frankly, flavor changing is even easier in 4e, because the flavor that's there is so sparse and modular.

[Inyssius Tor]

Slashing damage? Ha! I spit upon your not-modular-enough design! We don't hold with no stinking weapon damage types here in PoLand, pal!

[Nerd-o-rama]

Oh, is that why no one in my group is carrying hammers in case of skeleton attack? Son of a bitch, I didn't notice that.

[Starsinger]

Physical damage types are gone in 4e. And they're not missed.

[The Mormegil]

Reflavouring is when the PC wants to play the X class (which is broken) "because it is best suited to my character concept than the Y class" (which is fairly balanced) and you change the Y class as to have the flavor of the X class. Rewriting is when your playr comes to you and wants you to "reflavour" a class as another class because "it would be more fun to play" and you build a class from scratch for him with the same flavour.

Funny old world isn't it? I'd daresay it's rather sad, but this is quite true in my experience.

[BRC]

Speaking as somebody who is making an android who operates a time machine and wields a buzzsaw and a rifle with heavy recoil for an upcoming campaign (by which I mean a Warforged Factotum with a greataxe and a composite longbow, I feel that you can change Flavor however you want provided it makes sense. Remember that most stat's are somewhat arbitrary, nothing is stopping you from calling that trident a "Serrated Spear", or giving a greataxe bludgeoning damage and calling it a Sledgehammer.

[Lert, A.]

The line?

Lines? I scoff at your puny lines!

Of course, in my case I end up doing major homebrewing for everything. New weapon? Homebrew. Beef up a class? Homebrew. Thirsty? Homebrew. Race flavor doesn't quite fit the mechanics? Homebrew.

There's a reason I have 200+ page campaign guides for every game I run.

Heh. Lines.

[Riffington]

Reflavoring is homebrewing.

[Thurbane]

My current DM wants to try and enforce fluff as rules, particularly for classes. He's of the opinion that "if the books say most class X doesn't get along with class Y, then you should play it that way". He also thinks that alignment should be a straight jacket, and alignment determines behaviour rather than vice-versa.

I've tried to explain the massive pitfalls in this, and how telling someone how they must roleplay their character is just about the poorest form a DM can show.

Anyone got some compelling arguments I can pass on to him?

And please, no "leave the game" type advice - firstly, this is the only game I'm involved in, and have a chronic shortage of players here; and also, he is my flatmate and a good friend.

[KKL]

Anyone got some compelling arguments I can pass on to him?

PHB 103:
A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment

And from the same page:

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has even if that’s not lawful or good behavior. People are also not consistent from day to day. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to perform a noble act, and so on.

Emphasis in bold. Directly from the PHB.

[Lord Tataraus]

My current DM wants to try and enforce fluff as rules, particularly for classes. He's of the opinion that "if the books say most class X doesn't get along with class Y, then you should play it that way". He also thinks that alignment should be a straight jacket, and alignment determines behaviour rather than vice-versa.

I've tried to explain the massive pitfalls in this, and how telling someone how they must roleplay their character is just about the poorest form a DM can show.

Anyone got some compelling arguments I can pass on to him?

And please, no "leave the game" type advice - firstly, this is the only game I'm involved in, and have a chronic shortage of players here; and also, he is my flatmate and a good friend.

Make a LG Paladin/Gray Guard (Complete Scoundrel page 40) and watch him cry. Gray Guard is the ultimate alignment as a straight jacket breaker. You have to be LG, but you torture people to death and end up being able to Smite anyone, no matter the alignment, for the Greater GoodTM.

[KKL]

Make a LG Paladin/Gray Guard (Complete Scoundrel page 40) and watch him cry. Gray Guard is the ultimate alignment as a straight jacket breaker. You have to be LG, but you torture people to death and end up being able to Smite anyone, no matter the alignment, for the Greater GoodTM.

But the fun part is when you DO fall, you fall so hard there's no chance of atoning =P

If you're going to do that to your DM just to piss him off he's going to design ways to BS you into falling. And when Grey Guards fall, they can never get back up.

Unless a tripper comes after you.

[Roog]

My current DM wants to try and enforce fluff as rules, particularly for classes. He's of the opinion that "if the books say most class X doesn't get along with class Y, then you should play it that way". He also thinks that alignment should be a straight jacket, and alignment determines behaviour rather than vice-versa.

I've tried to explain the massive pitfalls in this, and how telling someone how they must roleplay their character is just about the poorest form a DM can show.

Anyone got some compelling arguments I can pass on to him?

As for fluff as rules - think of it as the fluff being part of the setting, its not necessarily more restrictive than any other setting description. As long as everyone is not forced to play a stereotype, stereotypes are usefull for painting a broad-brush picture.


As for alignment determining behavior, try talking through it with him, describing the nature/personality of the character and what that would mean in terms of alignment.
Changing
alignment => behavior
to
personality => alignment => behavior
Then, if he complains about not playing your alignment, refer him back to the discussion you had about your characters personality, where he must have made a mistake in assigning your character's allignment.

[BRC]

But the fun part is when you DO fall, you fall so hard there's no chance of atoning =P

If you're going to do that to your DM just to piss him off he's going to design ways to BS you into falling. And when Grey Guards fall, they can never get back up.

Unless a tripper comes after you.
No, When Grey Guards fall, they bounce back up. Atoning a grey guard takes no XP, and after 10 levels in the class they can do anything short of genocide and not fall.

[KKL]

No, When Grey Guards fall, they bounce back up. Atoning a grey guard takes no XP, and after 10 levels in the class they can do anything short of genocide and not fall.

Last I read, a Grey Guard can do whatever he bloody hell feels like, except that he has to be sure it's for Good, and it has to fall into place of acheiving a Good goal. If it doens't...

[Kris Strife]

Last I read, a Grey Guard can do whatever he bloody hell feels like, except that he has to be sure it's for Good, and it has to fall into place of acheiving a Good goal. If it doens't...

I remember someone saying this made Grey Guards impossible to rp... On the subject of flavor, I read it as: grizzled cop determined to do whats right what ever it takes, like in the old black and white detective movies. or like Moon Knight/Punisher in Marvel comics.

[Lord Tataraus]

Last I read, a Grey Guard can do whatever he bloody hell feels like, except that he has to be sure it's for Good, and it has to fall into place of acheiving a Good goal. If it doens't...

Exactly, this takes the alignment ruling out of the DM's hands, as long as you believe it to be for the Greater GoodTM, you get away with it at little to no cost.

Back on topic, I agree with kamikasei, if the flavor change doesn't do anything differently mechanically, I'll allow it. However, the conjuring sword thing, I'd probably just give you a magic item to do that since it has mechanical advantages (if you have to leave your weapons at the gate, no one is going to take a book as a weapon)

[Starsinger]

Another example, in FF7 when Aeris casts a spell, her staff levitates horizontally infront of her. A player of mine wanted to do this, and I thought it was fine. The pedantic "D&D's not simulationist enough" player who I no longer have threw a fit because "How? They have no Telekinetic abilities blah blah" Was the answer really "a permament mage hand item that only works on your staff when you're casting a spell?"

[Lord Tataraus]

Another example, in FF7 when Aeris casts a spell, her staff levitates horizontally infront of her. A player of mine wanted to do this, and I thought it was fine. The pedantic "D&D's not simulationist enough" player who I no longer have threw a fit because "How? They have no Telekinetic abilities blah blah" Was the answer really "a permament mage hand item that only works on your staff when you're casting a spell?"

Wow, you had a player argue against something like that? I'm sorry. That is purely a flavor change to the somatic components of the spell, or you could say it is an effect of casting the spell. The fact that the staff floats when casting has absolutely no mechanical effect and falls under Role-Playing and thus fluff/flavor. Remember, the type of game you're supposed to be playing? ...that is what I would say to that player, I'm sure you are well aware of the RP part of RPG hence the creation of this thread.

[Artanis]

Another example, in FF7 when Aeris casts a spell, her staff levitates horizontally infront of her. A player of mine wanted to do this, and I thought it was fine. The pedantic "D&D's not simulationist enough" player who I no longer have threw a fit because "How? They have no Telekinetic abilities blah blah" Was the answer really "a permament mage hand item that only works on your staff when you're casting a spell?"
That's when you set him on fire. IRL.