Define "Fluff'

[lylsyly]

And please give rules as written citations.

[AvatarVecna]

And please give rules as written citations.

"Fluff" is not a game-term, it is a colloquialism that emerges from within the community to describe certain parts of the text in the books that is (despite being "text within the rulebooks") is not "rules text", but rather is supposed to be there to provide a narrative framework for the mechanics being described. Generally, the separation between narrative text and mechanics text is fairly straightforward, and the "fluff" is considered inadmissible as Rules As Written. "Fluff" can be used as supporting evidence in an argument on what the "Rules As Intended" should be, but reading it as a literal rule to be followed is missing the point of the text being there.

In addition to this general-community-agreement on how to read things like feats and spells and so on, there is an additional way "fluff" is used - specifically, in regards to "re-fluffing". The basic idea here builds on the idea of the previous one: since the fluff isn't absolutely tied to the mechanics, you can maybe get a DM to agree to allow you to twist the fluff such that the effect works slightly differently (while still having the same mechanical effect). As an example, since a Darkness spell cannot be penetrated by normal Darkvision (since it's magical darkness), there are circumstances in which nothing is changed if it's fluffed as some kind of Ninja Smoke Bomb instead. If there were mechanics in play that get to see through smoke, that would matter more, but if there's not...

Being that "fluff" is not a game term, there is no rules text about "fluff" that could be cited. I also acknowledge that it's entirely possible that nothing I've said in this post is new information for you.

[Kurald Galain]

*scrubbed*

This Magic card is a good example. The fluff of the card is its name, picture, and the italicized text at the bottom. The crunch is its casting cost, type, power/toughness, and the non-italicized text in the box.

Notably, the image depicts a flying bird, whereas the crunch does not mention the flying ability. So for rules purposes, this creature cannot fly.

Later 3E books and all 4E books have italicized text listed with feats and spells that "doesn't count" for rules purposes, and in some cases the feat or spell by the rules does something very different from what its description suggests. Opinions vary on whether that's a good thing.

[Darg]

Later 3E books and all 4E books have italicized text listed with feats and spells that "doesn't count" for rules purposes, and in some cases the feat or spell by the rules does something very different from what its description suggests. Opinions vary on whether that's a good thing.

In 3.5 this is untrue. The only book where it is true specifically mentions that it only applies to that book.

Spell Compendium presents spells slightly differently from the Player’s Handbook format.

Descriptive Passages: The first thing you’re likely to note is a descriptive passage in italics. This serves much the same purpose as the italicized descriptions of monsters in the Monster Manual: It lets you know what the spell looks like, sounds like, or feels like to cast. The text in this section presents the spell from the spellcaster’s view and describes what its typically like to cast the spell. The descriptive passages shouldn’t be considered to be binding rules. A grand gesture indicated by a spell’s descriptive passage is unnecessary if you use the Still Spell feat to cast it, and even though a descriptive passage describes you casting a spell on another creature, it might be possible to cast the spell on yourself, depending on the spell’s target entry and the rules for spellcasting in the Player’s Handbook.

You can't even apply this to other sources. Magic of Incarnum specifically states that the descriptive text "details what the soulmeld does and how it works in its most basic form." This includes the italicized portions.

Note that descriptive text and descriptive passages are two separate things.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The part of the text I want you to ignore for the purpose of an internet argument because it either doesn't help or actively hurts my argument.

[Elves]

Fluff is text that doesn't constitute a mechanical rules statement.

Text isn't inherently fluff or crunch. Crunch is just the part of the text that forms implementable rules.

[Darg]

The part of the text I want you to ignore for the purpose of an internet argument because it either doesn't help or actively hurts my argument.

This 100%. Foresight is one spell that if you ignore part of it it makes the next part nonfunctional. You might say that the surprise and flat-footed immunity and the +2 to AC and reflex are the crunch while the rest of it is fluff. The problem with reading it this way is that the spell would then actually have no tangible benefit to a target other than yourself even though it has a personal or touch range and a whole paragraph telling you what has to happen when applied to a target other than oneself.

Heck, people even think that feat descriptions are fluff only even though there are a number of feats which have rules about how the feat works and what it applies to in them. It's a roleplaying game. Even when you think something wouldn't have mechanical consequence, it would have in world mechanical ramifications. If you cast a lightning bolt, obviously it's going to appear as a lightning bolt to any observers. Any one that has a phobia of lightning is going to run for the hills even though there is no rules justification for it.

Fluff is a word that means 100 different things to 100 different people.

[Gruftzwerg]

By RAW, you have 2 ways to reliably identify/handle "fluff" text.

1. It's declared as fluff text.

These are easy to identify. Examples for this are Spells and Maneuvers, since both say (in the description how to read em) that the first paragraph is often just there to give an impression of what is happening but doesn't provide rule mechanics.


2. It's not in any of the declared mechanic sections

These are more hidden behind the mechanics. Due to the Primary Source Rule, any topic has it's primary source. Thus fluff text from anywhere else would need to create a specific exception before being allowed to make a change for that created niche. They can never have the permission to have any impact on global level for a topic, if it ain't part of the primary source for that topic. (Unless we talk about explicit statements like in the ERRATA or the Rules Compendium that say that they are going to change rules. But these are not what we see as fluff text).
And what we call as *fluff* text never creates a specific exception/niche (since it just describes what should be happening). And people who rely on fluff text for their argumentation always try to justify global rules, which just doesn't work by RAW. Fluff can at best be seen as indicator for RAI, but even there one should be careful.

[redking]

Fluff is descriptive or narrative text which is not supposed to be a specific rule. "King Jarad is the strongest man in the kingdom. He broke a dragon's neck all by himself". Then you look into the stats of King Jarad and some other NPC in the kingdom, and you see this other guy has a higher strength score.

In best practice, the fluff matches the mechanics well. It doesn't always happen, however. One aspect of fluff in D&D since TSR times is a poor grasp of demographics. Some societies are depicted in narrative fluff as having highly complex societies, but the population numbers given are insufficient to support such societies.

[Darg]

1. It's declared as fluff text.

These are easy to identify. Examples for this are Spells and Maneuvers, since both say (in the description how to read em) that the first paragraph is often just there to give an impression of what is happening but doesn't provide rule mechanics.

So basically descriptive passages that are given explicit exception to the descriptive text. One example of italicized text without this explicit exception is soulmelds.

2. It's not in any of the declared mechanic sections

These are more hidden behind the mechanics. Due to the Primary Source Rule, any topic has it's primary source. Thus fluff text from anywhere else would need to create a specific exception before being allowed to make a change for that created niche. They can never have the permission to have any impact on global level for a topic, if it ain't part of the primary source for that topic. (Unless we talk about explicit statements like in the ERRATA or the Rules Compendium that say that they are going to change rules. But these are not what we see as fluff text).
And what we call as *fluff* text never creates a specific exception/niche (since it just describes what should be happening). And people who rely on fluff text for their argumentation always try to justify global rules, which just doesn't work by RAW. Fluff can at best be seen as indicator for RAI, but even there one should be careful.

This can not ever be 100% true. Grapple and Ray are not weapons and yet the rule that allows you to select them is not in the "mechanic section" of weapon focus. For 2 to be accurate, one would have to believe that grapple and rays are not selectable using weapon focus.

[Gruftzwerg]

This can not ever be 100% true. Grapple and Ray are not weapons and yet the rule that allows you to select them is not in the "mechanic section" of weapon focus. For 2 to be accurate, one would have to believe that grapple and rays are not selectable using weapon focus.

Rays create a specific exception for them (IIRC in complete arcane?). So there is that.

And Weapon Focus would indeed disqualify grapple and unarmed strikes by a strict RAW reading. Sure this is something undesirable, but I never claimed that RAW is perfect nor a good advice for actual play. By RAW, sole someone with the monk's unarmed strike could use Weapon Focus (unarmed strikes), since their ability allows their specific unarmed strike to count as natural or manufactured weapon for spells and effects (the feat has an effect).**

Stop expecting perfect functional results from RAW. Especially with the bad editing of 3.5 in mind. Imho nobody plays 100% RAW nor 100% RAI, we all play a mix of it as the DM sees it fit. RAW ain't the holy grail here^^

edit: **
Sorry, I'm still waking up. "Unarmed Strikes" are listed as "Weapon:" on the weapon list and thus qualifies by RAW for Weapon Focus. The permission thrives from there.

[Asmotherion]

Example:

Ruin Delver's Fortune

*scrubbed*

Fluff can be replaced with other Fluff without causing mechanical problems. For example, you could replace the "Cry out a Word of Power" with "Wisper a word in Dragonic" or "Plead to your Deity" without changing the effect of the spell.

A DM is ultimatelly free to refluff an effect or take Fluff as a hard rule that has a mechanical impact.

[Gruftzwerg]

Example:

Ruin Delver's Fortune
...
[/B]Fluff can be replaced with other Fluff without causing mechanical problems. For example, you could replace the "Cry out a Word of Power" with "Wisper a word in Dragonic" or "Plead to your Deity" without changing the effect of the spell.

A DM is ultimatelly free to refluff an effect or take Fluff as a hard rule that has a mechanical impact. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Agree. But I have to point out that fluff should never be taken as reason for mechanical impact.

Neither of the two fluffs you presented (cry out .. / whisper a word..) has any more impact on move silently/listen checks or Still Spell than any other spell. Because the rules section doesn't reflect that.

edit: sure, the DM is as always free to handle it differently ;) but that is not RAW

[lylsyly]

Okay. What part of this is "fluff?"

from the srd;

Requirements

To qualify to become an assassin, a character must fulfill all the following criteria.
Alignment

Any evil.
Skills

Disguise 4 ranks, Hide 8 ranks, Move Silently 8 ranks.
Special

The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

[Silly Name]

Okay. What part of this is "fluff?"

None. Those are all mechanical requirements, even the "kill someone" thing is part of the rules.

[lylsyly]

From Races of the Dragon, page 98.

*scrubbed*

And This??

[DeTess]

From Races of the Dragon, page 98.

*scrub the post, scrub the quote*

And This??

Technically 'You can use your breath weapon as often as a normal dragon.' could be considered fluff, as it doesn't hold any rules text. Everything below that explains what the feat actually does.

[Kurald Galain]

You can use your breath weapon as often as a normal dragon.

This part is fluff.

Because if a character has met a dragon that (for whatever reason) can breathe fire every single round, and the player insists that to him, that is a "normal" dragon, then the feat still lets you breathe fire every 1d4 rounds, not every round.

[AvatarVecna]

Technically 'You can use your breath weapon as often as a normal dragon.' could be considered fluff, as it doesn't hold any rules text. Everything below that explains what the feat actually does.

This, essentially. The feat's effect would not be changed if you erased "You can use your breath weapon as often as a normal dragon" and wrote in its place "you can use your breath weapon more frequently than most half-dragons", or "you've bribed the dungeon master to 'forget' that you've already used your breath weapon today", or "your lungs are a bottomless pit of fire, like a cartoon character who's just eaten a spicy pepper".

Changing the narrative explanation for the feat doesn't change the mechanical effect of the feat.

This part is fluff.

Because if a character has met a dragon that (for whatever reason) can breathe fire every single round, and the player insists that to him, that is a "normal" dragon, then the feat still lets you breathe fire every 1d4 rounds, not every round.

An argument could be made that, because of the precedent set by humanoid races, a "normal" dragon is an adult dragon. Every adult dragon in the core books has at least Con 17, and thus qualifies for Recover Breath. Because core dragon age categories are 3 HD apart, every dragon gains a feat as a result of becoming an adult dragon. Dragons do not have explicit feat selections the way most monsters do - they have suggestions based on what was available in core, but they're only suggestions.

It is thus entirely within reason for a DM to say that the way their world is setup, "a normal dragon is an adult dragon" and "a normal dragon recovers their breath weapon every 1d4-1 (minimum 1) rounds". All without doing any actual houseruling or homebrewing on how dragon monsters are built. No mechanical shenanigans, it's just that the average dragon tends to take this feat by adulthood. Making the half-dragon feat's fluff disagree with its mechanics.

[Darg]

Technically 'You can use your breath weapon as often as a normal dragon.' could be considered fluff, as it doesn't hold any rule text. Everything below that explains what the feat actually does.

It tells you what the feat does or represents in plain language. And there are several feats that do include rules and exceptions in the description that are not in the benefits section.

Take Double Wand Wielder for example. The benefit tells you that you can wield two wands (which you can do already and makes no sense if you didn't read the description).

*scrubbed*

The description tells you what the feat does in plain plain language so that you know what the feat is supposed to do.

Or the best example is weapon focus:

Choose one type of weapon, such as greataxe. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat. You are especially good at using this weapon. (If you have chosen ray, you are especially good with rays, such as the one produced by the ray of frost spell.)

Prerequisite
base attack bonus +1, Proficiency with selected weapon

Benefit
You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Special
You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon. A fighter may select Weapon Focus as one of his fighter bonus feats (see page 38). He must have Weapon Focus with a weapon to gain the Weapon Specialization feat for that weapon.

Like most feats that have you make a selection, the rule that tells you you must select a weapon is in the description, not the benefit section. The benefit section literally assumes you've read the description to understand how the benefit works. Another example is the snatch arrows feat. The benefit section ignores projectiles entirely and only mentions grabbing weapons. The description, however, tells you that you can indeed grab projectiles too. It's somewhat sad that the SRD removes some descriptions that have relevance to the function of the feat.

The problem comes to when the feat description is a representation instead of instructions like iron will, spring attack, etc. The point I'm trying to make is that it can't be just assumed that the description has no relevance when it in fact could be very important in determination to how a feat should function.

An argument could be made that, because of the precedent set by humanoid races, a "normal" dragon is an adult dragon. Every adult dragon in the core books has at least Con 17, and thus qualifies for Recover Breath. Because core dragon age categories are 3 HD apart, every dragon gains a feat as a result of becoming an adult dragon. Dragons do not have explicit feat selections the way most monsters do - they have suggestions based on what was available in core, but they're only suggestions.

It is thus entirely within reason for a DM to say that the way their world is setup, "a normal dragon is an adult dragon" and "a normal dragon recovers their breath weapon every 1d4-1 (minimum 1) rounds". All without doing any actual houseruling or homebrewing on how dragon monsters are built. No mechanical shenanigans, it's just that the average dragon tends to take this feat by adulthood. Making the half-dragon feat's fluff disagree with its mechanics.

You can argue about anything, doesn't mean it's right. Normal in any pretext can mean unmodified. The reverse cannot be said for modified. Not to mention it's plain language so they aren't trying to confuse you.

That said, the problem with defining fluff is that some people mean anything without numbers. Some people mean anything that doesn't involve the player doing something. Some people like me mean that everything not necessarily superfluous is crunch while the minority is fluff.

[Gruftzwerg]

Okay. What part of this is "fluff?"

from the srd;

Requirements

To qualify to become an assassin, a character must fulfill all the following criteria.
Alignment

Any evil.
Skills

Disguise 4 ranks, Hide 8 ranks, Move Silently 8 ranks.
Special

The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins.

This is a "PR requirement" (and part of the requirements section). The text does not contain any fluff text.

From Races of the Dragon, page 98.

*scrub the post, scrub the quote*

And This??

This is fluff text. Thankfully it basically says the same as the benefit line in plain language without causing any confusion or contradictions. <3

[AvatarVecna]

You can argue about anything, doesn't mean it's right. Normal in any pretext can mean unmodified. The reverse cannot be said for modified. Not to mention it's plain language so they aren't trying to confuse you.

You can argue most things. "Dragon statblocks require no modification" isn't among them - they are, explicitly with the rules, incomplete. Skills and feats have not been selected, and it is up to the DM to select them for a given dragon. And I'm not arguing that the fluff and mechanics of that feat disagree with each other - only that they could disagree with each other, and this isn't true of all feats. "Double Wand Wielder" is actually a better example of this in action, because while the fluff and mechanics are headed in the same general direction, they aren't really arriving at the same mechanical destination.

The line "you can activate two wands at the same time"...if I had to guess at what the mechanics of that would be in order for the mechanics and fluff to be aligned together, I would say taking the feat allows you to activate two wands using the action you'd normally use to activate one - so if normally you spend a standard to activate a wand, now you spend a standard to activate two wands. We can argue about whether that's balanced or not, but that's a straightforward reading of the fluff text. And equally clearly, it is not the actual mechanics of the feat: instead, the feat is that if you're using two wands at once, you can use both of them as a full round action, meaning that the action cost for the second usage is reduced from "[standard action]" to "[full round action] - [standard action]". The fluff text would be more accurate if it said something like "you can activate two wands in the same round", or "you can activate wands more quickly when dual-wielding them", both of which would be accurate to the final mechanical effect.

Compare this with something like Toughness feat, where the fluff is "You are tougher than normal". There's no question that "+3 HP" is tougher than normal. The fluff and mechanics are in agreement with each other. It's not much tougher, but nobody can deny that you're tougher for having the feat.

Or rather, nobody can deny it without getting into disingenuous arguments about opportunity costs. Because those arguments are sooooo much fun. /s

[Elves]

This, essentially. The feat's effect would not be changed if you erased "You can use your breath weapon as often as a normal dragon" and wrote in its place "you can use your breath weapon more frequently than most half-dragons"

But what if it said

You can use your breath weapon as often as a normal dragon.
Benefit: Boom!

Most people would still read it to mean that you can breathe every d4 rounds.

The more pertinent point is that if it said

You can use your breath weapon as often as a normal dragon.
Benefit: You can use your half-dragon breath weapon every 2d6 rounds

The clearer mechanical statement in the benefit line would overrule the less clearly mechanical statement above.

Fluff or crunch usually aren't fundamental properties of a given piece of text. Instead, they're post-facto descriptions of whether the text forms a game-mechanical statement.

Some sections are designated as one or the other, like the italicized spell text (fluff) or the sections of class descriptions that are marked "Game Rule Information" (crunch).

But the "Game Rule Information" section often includes non-mechanical language, so even there you have to sometimes apply the general principle.

[AvatarVecna]

But what if it said



Most people would still read it to mean that you can breathe every d4 rounds.

The more pertinent point is that if it said



The clearer mechanical statement in the benefit line would overrule the less clearly mechanical statement above.

Fluff or crunch usually aren't fundamental properties of a given piece of text. Instead, they're post-facto descriptions of whether the text forms a game-mechanical statement.

Some sections are designated as one or the other, like the italicized spell text (fluff) or the sections of class descriptions that are marked "Game Rule Information" (crunch).

But the "Game Rule Information" section often includes non-mechanical language, so even there you have to sometimes apply the general principle.

This is a great way of highlighting why the difference matters. Fluff isn't "everything before the bolding in the feat", it's just "the part of the text that's the least inherently mechanical". Even that statement I just said could probably be debated, but it's kinda like if you asked me to define "car" and then my general description excluded some things we'd all agree are cars. The carness may require broader definition, but "pretending to not know what a car is and poking holes in the definition provided" doesn't change the fact that the argument requires you to pretend to not know what a car is when you definitely do.

We all understand what "fluff" means. We know which parts of feats and spells and class features are fluff and which are mechanics and which are "mechanics text that just doesn't have numbers" (like the assassin pre-req). That's why there's not a disagreement over whether the half-dragon feat works the way it does - only pointing out that a disagreement could be made depending on the world. By default, the fluff text is accurate to the mechanics...but that still doesn't make the fluff text mechanical rules.

[Kurald Galain]

With this dragon breath feat, the descriptive text is somewhat vague and the rules text simply restates it in a clearer way. But I'm sure we can find some feat (or spell) where the rules text directly contradicts the descriptive text. I know 4E is absolutely chock full on those, but there have to be a few 3E examples too.

[lylsyly]

*scrubbed*

[flat_footed]

The Full Metal Mod: Thread Locked. Please support the official release.