|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 2:11PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2008
|
Or is there such a thing? Spoiler:
Show
By reflavoring, I mean essentially re-skinning something that has the mechanical values you want into something else that fits more with what your character is.
I shall start with a mild example and move to an extreme. In my home campaign, my wife is playing a tiefling with historic pacts to infernal powers. Since she was very unhappy with the way the warlock played in a previous campaign, she rolled this character as a draconic sorcerer, ditched all references to dragons and credited his powers to his "demonic" blood. Worked for me, and she's quite happy with him.
For a more extreme example, from these boards. I was complaining in a thread that the glaive was underpowered compared to the other pole arms. The response I received was, since this character wasn't going to have heavy blade opportunity, to use a halberd and pretend it was a glaive. By the same token, I guess a rogue character could take the double sword, and pretend he's using a rapier a parrying dagger.
And another example. I really like the mechanics of the Avenger class, but dont' really like the divine aspect of them. So I had considered being an Avenger and just ignoring any flavor text that relates to the Gods and just describing it all as "L33T kung fu skillz!".
An even more extreme example, just theorycraft. I really dig the idea of the battlerager for my idea of a barbarian warrior, a la Conan (clad in mail, wielding a broadsword, cleaving through Vanir, Picts, and anyone else who gets in my way). But Wizards, in their inestimable wisdom, have decided that the dwarf is going to be the most mechanically superior battlerager, to the point that everybody else was far second (admittedly, it's not quite as bad since the update). They already got a bonus to con, and wisdom, a feat that made them superior with the exact kinds of weapons a battlerager was most likely to use; they also got a feat that gave them even more temp hps. It was maddening. I wanted to play a battlerager, but I didn't want to play a dwarf (and I didn't want to wield an axe either). So again, conceivably, I could reflavor it. I could "say" my character was a broadsword wielding human barbarian from the wild moors of Cimmeria named C0nan, while my character sheet said I was a dwarf fighter with an executioners axe and stoneblood vigor, and all those sweet high damage axe powers. Mechanically it would be the same, so what's the problem?
To me there are a few problems with this. First, there is generally one superior option in every situation, just like the double sword is always and everywhere better for a rogue than a rapier and parrying dagger. If we fully endorse reflavoring, there's never a reason to use less than the most powerful option; we just call that most powerful option whatever we want to. Second, it's silly, but I want my character sheet to reflect who my character is. I want C0nan's race to say "human". I want his weapon to say "broadsword" and I want those choices to be as viable as the ones Wizards believe I should want. So the question is, how much reflavoring do you think is appropriate? Do you use one weapon for another (say a crossbow you call a longbow?) or do you use the dragonborn stats and call him some kind of elf? Or do you think these things are anathema? EDIT: And some questions that I thought up later: In your games, are there some things that you have re-flavored? Does it extend to helping create rules for things that don't exist yet (like guns or necromancers) or do you allow characters to re-flavor mechanical aspects of the game to let them have the mechanics they want with the flavor they prefer? How do they like it? If you don't, does this cause frustration when players want a certain flavor, but don't like the underlying mechanics? And do you think Wizards was right to make certain flavor choices have such large mechanical ramifications?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 2:15PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2009
|
Most of those I would probably not let fly. That said - it's up to the DM of the campaign. (period - end of sentence)
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?"
I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 2:15PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2008
|
Or is there such a thing? By reflavoring, I mean essentially re-skinning something that has the mechanical values you want into something else that fits more with what your character is. I included a few example cases of what I'm talking about behind the block, just to get the ball rolling. Spoiler:
Show
I shall start with a mild example and move to an extreme. In my home campaign, my wife is playing a tiefling with historic pacts to infernal powers. Since she was very unhappy with the way the warlock played in a previous campaign, she rolled this character as a draconic sorcerer, ditched all references to dragons and credited his powers to his "demonic" blood. Worked for me, and she's quite happy with him.
For a more extreme example, from these boards. I was complaining in a thread that the glaive was underpowered compared to the other pole arms. The response I received was, since this character wasn't going to have heavy blade opportunity, to use a halberd and pretend it was a glaive. By the same token, I guess a rogue character could take the double sword, and pretend he's using a rapier a parrying dagger.
And another example. I really like the mechanics of the Avenger class, but dont' really like the divine aspect of them. So I had considered being an Avenger and just ignoring any flavor text that relates to the Gods and just describing it all as "L33T kung fu skillz!".
An even more extreme example, just theorycraft. I really dig the idea of the battlerager for my idea of a barbarian warrior, a la Conan (clad in mail, wielding a broadsword, cleaving through Vanir, Picts, and anyone else who gets in my way). But Wizards, in their inestimable wisdom, have decided that the dwarf is going to be the most mechanically superior battlerager, to the point that everybody else was far second (admittedly, it's not quite as bad since the update). They already got a bonus to con, and wisdom, a feat that made them superior with the exact kinds of weapons a battlerager was most likely to use; they also got a feat that gave them even more temp hps. It was maddening. I wanted to play a battlerager, but I didn't want to play a dwarf (and I didn't want to wield an axe either). So again, conceivably, I could reflavor it. I could "say" my character was a broadsword wielding human barbarian from the wild moors of Cimmeria named C0nan, while my character sheet said I was a dwarf fighter with an executioners axe and stoneblood vigor, and all those sweet high damage axe powers. Mechanically it would be the same, so what's the problem?
To me there are a few problems with this. First, there is generally one superior option in every situation, just like the double sword is always and everywhere better for a rogue than a rapier and parrying dagger. If we fully endorse reflavoring, there's never a reason to use less than the most powerful option; we just call that most powerful option whatever we want to. Second, one might thing it's silly, but I want my character sheet to reflect who my character is. I want C0nan's race to say "human". I want his weapon to say "broadsword" and I want those choices to be as viable as the ones Wizards believe I should want. So the question is, how much reflavoring do you think is appropriate? Do you modify the flavor text of a class (maybe call your ranger a rogue, or your wizard a necromancer)? Do you use one weapon for another (say a crossbow you call a longbow?) or do you use the dragonborn stats and call him some kind of elf? Or do you think these things are anathema?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 2:17PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2009
|
somehow you ended with 2 threads (perhaps because I was responding)
My answer, from the other:
Most of those I would probably not let fly. That said - it's up to the DM of the campaign. (period - end of sentence)
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?"
I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 2:19PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
I, personally, allow any amount of reflavoring my players want to undertake.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 2:20PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2008
|
Ack, somehow I got two threads. Could mods please delete this one?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 2:22PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2008
|
Sorry about the double post. I was doing some editing, and accidentally posted this before it was ready. But I moved the editing to this one so it should be fine for comments.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 2:27PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2008
|
Most of those I would probably not let fly. That said - it's up to the DM of the campaign. (period - end of sentence)
I am curious though, should the DM allow it? You, as a DM wouldn't let a player do this. I'm curious why.
Personally, I agree with you, as I put in my post. I'm already playing a pretend game; I don't want to pretend the things in the game are other things in the game. But I'm interested in others' reasons.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 2:28PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
Depends on the DM. Me, I'll allow quite a bit of reflavoring for class, even changing power sources if the flavor justifies it. Weapons I will allow a small bit of reflavoring. For example, your shortsword could be a wakizashi. Your battle axe could actually be a simple wood axe. On the other hand, your longsword cannot be a dagger, and your mace is not a pick or an axe. For race, I usually only allow reflavoring if the race does not fit in my campaign. For example, I don't have devas in my world, but I allowed a character to take the deva stats and reskin him as an elf (since elves in my world reincarnate, it made sense that some of them might tap into their previous lives).
Basically, for me it boils down to the difference between what your character does and what your character is.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 2:29PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2007
|
I am curious though, should the DM allow it? You, as a DM wouldn't let a player do this. I'm curious why.
Personally, I agree with you, as I put in my post. I'm already playing a pretend game; I don't want to pretend the things in the game are other things in the game. But I'm interested in others' reasons.
There's a whole thread on this here.
|
|
|
