Refluffing tolerance?


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

So, I've never played in PFS before, though I've played in both 4e and 3.5 organized play before, in years past. I want to try our PFS, but I remember one difficulty I had in the old days with some characters was a handful of DMs getting cranky about refluff.

I'm curious, in your experience, how tolerant GMs in PFS are of refluff that has no impact on the mechanical rules at all. Like what if I want to say my short bearded human is part dwarf? How about a wizard whose prepared spells appear as charms on charm bracelet, that he breaks when he casts a spell (still using all the same spell components, etc.)? Can I claim my magic missiles look like fireworks? Etc, etc, you get the idea.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Okay, welcome to the forums and for asking questions. Questions are what help people learn.

From my understanding there have been several threads on the subject of refluff/reskin. One of them recently, even.

The general 'gist' I've gotten from them is 'If it can't be identified as what it is supposed to be, it's no-go'.

HOWEVER... I believe there's actually a section for it in the FAQ.

One moment...

'PFS FAQ' wrote:


Can I re-skin or re-flavor an animal companion or item?

You may choose a specific type of animal companion from any of the base forms listed on pages 53–54 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook or a legal Additional Resource but may not use stats for one base form with the flavor of another type of animal. Thus, a small cat could be a cheetah or leopard, as suggested, as well as a lynx, bobcat, puma, or other similar animal; it could not, however, be "re-skinned" to be a giant hairless swamp rat or a differently-statted wolf. If a GM feels that a re-skinning is inappropriate or could have mechanical implications in the specific adventure being played, he may require that the creature simply be considered its generic base form for the duration of the adventure. A player may not re-skin items to be something for which there are no specific rules, and any item a character uses for which there are no stats is considered an improvised weapon (see page 144 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook).

EDIT: That all being said, the only person I've seen do any sort of reskinning has also been the most disruptive player in a given scenario, and may end up costing the party not only the prestige of the scenario but *the exp*.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Dwarf idea, no. Because being a Dwarf (half or not) does have mechanical effect on the game. You can't just say it and expect people to roleplay with it, unless you have something mechanical to back it up. And since there is no such thing as a half-dwarf in Pathfinder, Golarion, or PFS, then you can't go that route.

Now if you want to say that the rumor in your family is that some long lost dwarven heritage exists, then that probably wouldn't be a horrible idea.

2) Wizard idea is neat, but a spell-component pouch is a mechanical thing. Because if someone takes your spell-component pouch, you can't cast those spells anymore. So if your bracelet is just window dressing, and you still pull your components from a spell-component pouch, then I see no issue with it. But the Steal combat maneuver cannot take jewelry off of someone, so if you are saying the components are tied up in the bracelet, then that is a mechanical advantage. So its just mere fluff.

3) No issue with you making your magic missiles look like something different as long as they are identifiable as magic missiles with a standard spellcraft check, and that they still do force damage.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

Heh, ninja'd while I was looking for the FAQ.

Welcome to the PFS Forums =). You have actually asked a rather in-depth question that isn't an issue for some GMs, but that can really bother others.

There are a few other threads on this exact topic if you search for them, but generally speaking reskinning is not allowed. You can flavor your background, your motivations, and your upbringing, but you can't mask something mechanical with fluff.

Calling your Riding Dog "part wolf" would work. Calling your mechanically statted Wolf a "Riding Dog" would not.

If you're not sure what options may be considered acceptable, just ask your first few GMs on their opinions.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

YMMV & ETV(expect table variation)

I wouldn't mind either of your examples. Sure, Golarion doesn't have 0hd half-races other than -elves and -orcs, but there's always magicky crap afoot.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 ***

Andrew Christian wrote:
1) Dwarf idea, no. Because being a Dwarf (half or not) does have mechanical effect on the game. You can't just say it and expect people to roleplay with it, unless you have something mechanical to back it up. And since there is no such thing as a half-dwarf in Pathfinder, Golarion, or PFS, then you can't go that route.

Andrew cites a great example of table variation here.

I have a character (this profile) that, mechanically, is an Oread. But he also has the Dwarf-Blooded feat. He actually has half a dozen character options that are Dwarf-related. His background is that both his parents were Dwarves and that his birth was seen as a blessing of Torag.

Mechanically, he's an Outsider with the Native subtype, not a Humanoid with the Dwarf subtype. There are a lot of game differences between the two. But, given the amount of resources I've poured into the character to make him appear as a Dwarf (because, in his mind, he is), some GMs will give me greater leeway when passing him off as a Dwarf in-game. Some give me none. And some go out of their way to highlight the differences.

Disguising mechanics with fluff, at its core, is not allowed, but beyond that you will likely encounter a great deal of what we call "table variation". The best advice would be to just not go too extreme with your descriptions, and ask each of your GMs how they'd like to handle things.

Happy gaming!

5/5 5/55/55/5

Michael Haneline wrote:

So, I've never played in PFS before, though I've played in both 4e and 3.5 organized play before, in years past. I want to try our PFS, but I remember one difficulty I had in the old days with some characters was a handful of DMs getting cranky about refluff.

I'm curious, in your experience, how tolerant GMs in PFS are of refluff that has no impact on the mechanical rules at all. Like what if I want to say my short bearded human is part dwarf? How about a wizard whose prepared spells appear as charms on charm bracelet, that he breaks when he casts a spell (still using all the same spell components, etc.)? Can I claim my magic missiles look like fireworks? Etc, etc, you get the idea.

varies a lot by location, DM, and the attempted fluff/flavor.

Some DM, somewhere, will object to anything. I had one that objected to a Tengu from absolom instead of tien (despite the fact that absolom and Goka have been in contact for about a thousand years)

I'm not sure about the quarterdwarf, but as you have plausible deniability (for all we know, your mom hit your dad every time he said that) I wouldn't balk at it.

I really like the bangles thing thats pretty cool

One thing about refluffing is that everything you describe MIGHT be some weird prestige class alternate class ability magic item archetype or third party thing. If people think its a class ability they might ask about it looking to see if its legal.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Valor Axeflail wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
1) Dwarf idea, no. Because being a Dwarf (half or not) does have mechanical effect on the game. You can't just say it and expect people to roleplay with it, unless you have something mechanical to back it up. And since there is no such thing as a half-dwarf in Pathfinder, Golarion, or PFS, then you can't go that route.

Andrew cites a great example of table variation here.

I have a character (this profile) that, mechanically, is an Oread. But he also has the Dwarf-Blooded feat. He actually has half a dozen character options that are Dwarf-related. His background is that both his parents were Dwarves and that his birth was seen as a blessing of Torag.

Mechanically, he's an Outsider with the Native subtype, not a Humanoid with the Dwarf subtype. There are a lot of game differences between the two. But, given the amount of resources I've poured into the character to make him appear as a Dwarf (because, in his mind, he is), some GMs will give me greater leeway when passing him off as a Dwarf in-game. Some give me none. And some go out of their way to highlight the differences.

Disguising mechanics with fluff, at its core, is not allowed, but beyond that you will likely encounter a great deal of what we call "table variation". The best advice would be to just not go too extreme with your descriptions, and ask each of your GMs how they'd like to handle things.

Happy gaming!

There is a huge difference between what you've done, and just claiming it.

You expended resources on legal mechanical options that gave your character certain abilities and traits and most likely a specific look. You didn't expect to have all that immediately, but continued to become more dwarf-like as you expended more resources to morph more and more into a dwarf.

That's using mechanics to your advantage. There literally is no fluff reskinning going on here.

Just saying, "I'm part dwarf," when you don't have anything mechanical to back you up, doesn't cut the mustard.

5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Valor Axeflail wrote:


I have a character (this profile) that, mechanically, is an Oread. But he also has the Dwarf-Blooded feat. He actually has half a dozen character options that are Dwarf-related. His background is that both his parents were Dwarves and that his birth was seen as a blessing of Torag.

:)

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 ***

@Andrew Christian: hence why my opening sentence was "Andrew cites a great example of table variation here."

@BigNorseWolf: that's hilarious. Thanks! I just linked that as his profile's Homepage URL.

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's also the Racial Heritage feat for Michael's character. ^_^

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Valor Axeflail wrote:


I have a character (this profile) that, mechanically, is an Oread. But he also has the Dwarf-Blooded feat. He actually has half a dozen character options that are Dwarf-related. His background is that both his parents were Dwarves and that his birth was seen as a blessing of Torag.

:)

Wow. First the dragon, now this. :D

* Venture-Agent

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

There is a huge difference between what you've done, and just claiming it.

You expended resources on legal mechanical options that gave your character certain abilities and traits and most likely a specific look. You didn't expect to have all that immediately, but continued to become more dwarf-like as you expended more resources to morph more and more into a dwarf.

That's using mechanics to your advantage. There literally is no fluff reskinning going on here.

Just saying, "I'm part dwarf," when you don't have anything mechanical to back you up, doesn't...

100% disagree. The logic you are using doesn't hold up IMO, and further demonstrates the ugly propensity in Pathfinder design (and in the player community) towards imparting nonsensical "cool tax" penalties on players.

The problem with your logic is that you are presuming that because there's no mechanics to hook on to, that it is somehow unreasonable to expect people to reasonably roleplay with the character, which is a perspective I find bizarre. After all, so much of any character has no mechanics (in fact, for my money, the most important parts of any character are typically the non-mechanical ones). The simple example that comes immediately to mind is a character's general physical description, which nobody seems to have an objection to roleplaying with, despite having no direct mechanical effects. If I describe my totally vanilla human as being stocky and hairy, I don't see why that is fine, but hinting that the phenotype there might imply some dwarf blood is simply out of bounds.

What if another player made the suggestion, based on the player's description and actions? Is that okay? If the OP roleplays "dwarfish" long enough and well enough for other players to pick up on the vibe without being explicit about it, is that okay? If no, why not (and where do you draw the line about a player's responsibility for how others perceive his/her character)? If it is fine (and I think any reasonable person would agree it is, to be clear), then why is cutting to the chase and being explicit about it NOT acceptable?

I mean, what if he gave his otherwise normal human character just a Dwarven sounding name? Is that out of bounds too? Are we now imposing limitations on what types of names are vanilla enough to not upset the apple cart? It doesn't seem like what he was suggesting was anything more significant than that - he's saying that his character believes (with some good reason) that he may have Dwarven ancestors. So what? That doesn't make him "count as a dwarf" anymore than the innumerable "deposed rightful heir" backgrounds people cook up make their characters count as the rightful king of Gondor. The fact that there is no mandatory mechanical effect one way or the other is, to me, a stellar reason why there should be no quibble with it at all.

Further, I really don't buy into the idea that players should have to "earn" their right to roleplay things by sacrificing elements of their mechanical builds on the altar of the cool tax. It seems to me that the cool tax mentality comes from a gruesome melange of game-ist and permissive-ist assumptions about Pathfinder as a tactical skirmish war game, rather than a collective narrative framework. While I can somewhat sympathize with the view that organized play as a framework requires a high level of standardization, at what point does it become clear that the pressure to standardize has cost too much? My answer would be we passed that point whenever it became outre to expect other players to at least acknowledge the mechanics-neutral description of a character without demanding to see where that description was reflected in the "build".

1/5 5/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Resisting urge to tl;dr the above

Floating Head.

As someone who came from a long-running campaign where players were largely allowed to run amok with fluff, your commentary about 'cool tax' strikes a particularly resonant chord.

It was a different setting, but it got to the point where game time would grind to a halt in sessions because the refluffed item/person/skill/etc would require the GM to stop everything they were doing to 'bore down' into the meat of the matter and set things aright for their table.

And even that was not a cure, because the player then had the recourse of going over the GM's head and saying that they were denied a thing that they had no problems with under other GMs.

That would make the campaign leadership spend eight hours discussing horribly pointless minutiae and impeding the normal flow of business during organizational meetings, and typically the GM would be told they were wrong.

Personally, I *prefer* the option players have to 'earn' or at least 'work towards' something neat. Not only does it mean more to the player in question, but it's a sign that the campaign mechanically is consistent for all players, rather than subsisting in a land of a hundred 'corner cases'.

When roleplay is used as a 'short-cut' to things that the player has not earned, the character isn't mechanically capable of obtaining, and disrupts a table (virtual or otherwise) that's a concern.

Given that previous experience I mentioned above and then contrasted with PFS, I think PFS gets it a lot closer to 'ideal'. I wouldn't say it is 'perfect', but that's kind of a high bar to set?


Hmm this is what I was afraid of. Such a shame.

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

There's also the Adopted social trait. If it can make elves grow tusks, I'm sure it can make your beard fancy. ^_^

* Venture-Agent

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Resisting urge to tl;dr the above

Floating Head.

As someone who came from a long-running campaign where players were largely allowed to run amok with fluff, your commentary about 'cool tax' strikes a particularly resonant chord.

It was a different setting, but it got to the point where game time would grind to a halt in sessions because the refluffed item/person/skill/etc would require the GM to stop everything they were doing to 'bore down' into the meat of the matter and set things aright for their table.

And even that was not a cure, because the player then had the recourse of going over the GM's head and saying that they were denied a thing that they had no problems with under other GMs.

That would make the campaign leadership spend eight hours discussing horribly pointless minutiae and impeding the normal flow of business during organizational meetings, and typically the GM would be told they were wrong.

Personally, I *prefer* the option players have to 'earn' or at least 'work towards' something neat. Not only does it mean more to the player in question, but it's a sign that the campaign mechanically is consistent for all players, rather than subsisting in a land of a hundred 'corner cases'.

When roleplay is used as a 'short-cut' to things that the player has not earned, the character isn't mechanically capable of obtaining, and disrupts a table (virtual or otherwise) that's a concern.

Given that previous experience I mentioned above and then contrasted with PFS, I think PFS gets it a lot closer to 'ideal'. I wouldn't say it is 'perfect', but that's kind of a high bar to set?

I would say that your problems were with your PLAYERS, not with the refluffing. If players are breaking the game because of the way they are describing their characters, then either you have the wrong kind of players for your GMing style, or you have the wrong kind of campaign/GMing style for your players. The situation you describe sounds to me like one I would walk away from as being unfun because people were being jerks, not because of a problem with the looseness of the rules. If I can't trust other players with loose rules, they have no business at my table,l because I don't want to play with people where I have to use the rules to keep them in check. To me those players are always un-fun to be around. And yes, this is a big part of the reason why it is so hard for me to find a game anymore, I'm sure.

Thus, manifestly no, I don't think organized play comes anywhere close to anything resembling my ideal game, which would be fine if it wasn't also (as far as I can see) increasingly becoming the default assumption for groups generally, such that I have a hard time finding a group that will even be flexible enough to allow me to do things like flip tables for cover, or describe my spells as having a distinctive "look", etc. To be blunt, if the only style of game I can find is strict PFS vanilla style, that's probably not a game I'm interested in playing. That doesn't mean it's a bad way to play, but it certainly doesn't speak to the majority of the things that draw (maybe "drew", past tense? that's a sad thought) me to roleplaying games. My point here, quixotic though it may be, is to point out that maybe in the zest the protect the integrity of standardized organized play against the worst examples of un-fun players, the pendulum has swung too far, and could do with a bit of an adjustment back the other way.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, the flip side of that is that the boards are really, really good about helping you do what you want.

For example:

Part dwarf human.

Make him as short as possible for a human.

With your bonus human feat, take: Racial Heritage (Dwarf)

Quote:
Benefit: Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.

You just can't get it for free.

(Interesting question, does the "and so on" include taking dwarven Favored class bonuses?)

Magic bracelet

I would actually look at the archtypes and see if there is one that does this.

If I were doing it, I would take "Eschew Materials" and just say the charm bracelet is part of how I do it.

Magic Missiles
Go for it. There are even ways to have your magic missiles do fire damage, I think, but I would have to look that one up.

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

Jared Thaler wrote:
(Interesting question, does the "and so on" include taking dwarven Favored class bonuses?)

It might let you take the FCBs from Advanced Player's Guide, Advanced Class Guide, and Occult Adventures. The Advanced Race Guide disallows Racial Heritage access in PFS.

(Not 100% sure on this - take with a grain of salt.)

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Kalindlara wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:
(Interesting question, does the "and so on" include taking dwarven Favored class bonuses?)

It might let you take the FCBs from Advanced Player's Guide, Advanced Class Guide, and Occult Adventures. The Advanced Race Guide disallows Racial Heritage access in PFS.

(Not 100% sure on this - take with a grain of salt.)

AR for advanced race guide wrote:
Note: Alternate racial traits, racial archetypes, racial evolutions, racial feats, and racial spells are only available for characters of the associated race. Racial equipment and magic items can be purchased and used by any race as long as the specific item permits it (for example, only halflings can purchase and use solidsmoke pipeweed).

You are a character of the dwarven race for the purpose of taking feats, archetypes, etc. That is what the feat does. (Also, FCB are not covered in the list of prohibitions.)

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Actually, Part Gnome would be awesome.

Take Racial heritage (Gnome) and the Fey thoughts, Fey magic, Low light vision package in place of skilled, and play the worlds tallest gnome...

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Haneline wrote:
Hmm this is what I was afraid of. Such a shame.

Keep in mind that you'll probably never sit down at a table with any one of us. There are almost 200,000 registered PFS players worldwide.

The best advice to take away from this discussion is to talk with your local GMs. Almost any concept is possible, so long as you don't go too crazy.

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

Jared Thaler wrote:

Actually, Part Gnome would be awesome.

Take Racial heritage (Gnome) and the Fey thoughts, Fey magic, Low light vision package in place of skilled, and play the worlds tallest gnome...

Unfortunately, last I checked, Fey Thoughts is not PFS-legal.

I'd like to think a human can still get the other two parts, but by RAW, that looks shaky (since you get them by taking Fey Thoughts). I'd probably still allow it.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Jared Thaler wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:
(Interesting question, does the "and so on" include taking dwarven Favored class bonuses?)

It might let you take the FCBs from Advanced Player's Guide, Advanced Class Guide, and Occult Adventures. The Advanced Race Guide disallows Racial Heritage access in PFS.

(Not 100% sure on this - take with a grain of salt.)

AR for advanced race guide wrote:
Note: Alternate racial traits, racial archetypes, racial evolutions, racial feats, and racial spells are only available for characters of the associated race. Racial equipment and magic items can be purchased and used by any race as long as the specific item permits it (for example, only halflings can purchase and use solidsmoke pipeweed).

You are a character of the dwarven race for the purpose of taking feats, archetypes, etc. That is what the feat does. (Also, FCB are not covered in the list of prohibitions.)

Racial Heritage does not allow you to bypass that restriction. In PFS you have to actually be <Race X> to take <Race X> options from the ARG. Racial Heritage doesn't cut it (although it does work for sources that lack that restriction).

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

^ what he said.

Racial Heritage bypasses Pathfinder limitations.

It does not bypass Campaign limitations.

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

Kalindlara wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:
(Interesting question, does the "and so on" include taking dwarven Favored class bonuses?)
It might let you take the FCBs from Advanced Player's Guide, Advanced Class Guide, and Occult Adventures. The Advanced Race Guide disallows Racial Heritage access in PFS.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Racial Heritage does not allow you to bypass that restriction. In PFS you have to actually be <Race X> to take <Race X> options from the ARG. Racial Heritage doesn't cut it (although it does work for sources that lack that restriction).

Does this mean that my post is correct?

Grand Lodge 4/5

Kalindlara wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:
(Interesting question, does the "and so on" include taking dwarven Favored class bonuses?)
It might let you take the FCBs from Advanced Player's Guide, Advanced Class Guide, and Occult Adventures. The Advanced Race Guide disallows Racial Heritage access in PFS.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Racial Heritage does not allow you to bypass that restriction. In PFS you have to actually be <Race X> to take <Race X> options from the ARG. Racial Heritage doesn't cut it (although it does work for sources that lack that restriction).
Does this mean that my post is correct?

Maybe? There was a big discussion about whether or not FCBs are actually covered by the restriction and I can't remember how it was resolved.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

FCBs are not covered by the ARG race restriction.

It was mostly in relation to Half-elves and Half-orcs, but I believe Aasimars with the Scion of Humanity alternate racial trait, and Humans with Racial Heritage, may still benefit as well.

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

This thread reminds me of something I'd been meaning to explore - using Racial Heritage to create a "foxgirl". Kitsune are a little too foxy for me.

As long as we're all arguing about it here, does that work? Using Racial Heritage to "earn" your ears/tail?

Dark Archive 4/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd just like to say that I'm proud of the people in the community that not only assisted the OP in finding mechanical ways to re-fluff their character but also did so in a polite manner. I am also really appreciative of the way the OP received those messages and the mature way they went about responding. Kudos all around!

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Further, I really don't buy into the idea that players should have to "earn" their right to roleplay things by sacrificing elements of their mechanical builds on the altar of the cool tax. It seems to me that the cool tax mentality comes from a gruesome melange of game-ist and permissive-ist assumptions about Pathfinder as a tactical skirmish war game, rather than a collective narrative framework. While I can somewhat sympathize with the view that organized play as a framework requires a high level of standardization, at what point does it become clear that the pressure to standardize has cost too much? My answer would be we passed that point whenever it became outre to expect other players to at least acknowledge the mechanics-neutral description of a character without demanding to see where that description was reflected in the "build".

This is really an excellent observation and so well said.

One of my friends in my reign of winter campaign uses a small miniature of a garden gnome for his human sorcerer/dragon disciple. While the character is human and all mechanics used are also human, the player likes to describe his character as being rather 'gnome-like' and has implied a possible gnomish heritage in his ancestral past. His character's weight and size are within human parameters - just on the short and portly side of things.

I see nothing at all wrong with him doing so. It's fun, and it does not break a twig of rules that I can perceive.

To narrow things down, this is how I see it:

Can a human character claim dwarf ancestry without also taking a trait to make it such, and then go on to use that claim to take dwarf only feats, traits, or other mechanical benefits? Answer: No - of course not.

Can a human character claim dwarf ancestry without also taking a trait to make it such, and then go on to role play by talking in a funny 'dwarven' manner to no mechanical benefit beyond table amusement? YES.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Certainly true. I think the difference is that the OP and usually people who pose these queries seem to be describing something a little more than just "suggesting" an ancestry. Many border on what could result in mechanical, in-game benefits given the right circumstances. No matter how you describe your "fluff" the important fact is that you will not be mistaken for the fluff. To all others, you will be exactly what you are. You can have a black-skinned elf, but it will never be mis-identified as a drow. To do so, even with a failed knowledge check would grant a mechanical benefit that is neither intended nor permitted under the rules.

Scarab Sages 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I realized last night that I have one or two fun "refluffed" characters. So I'll post as one of those, and talk a bit about play style. I do this as an example of different play styles, to show how I play a character who is sort of "re-fluffed" in a way, he's trying to decieve his fellows - and in fact in the game he's trying to decieve a diety. (and trying this with a "7" INT). So he actually spends some in game resources to have a little in game effect - but mostly it's for RP fun (with the other players)

When I sit down at the PFS table with players who have never met me before, I will introduce myself as:

Buba Casanunda, "Gnomish" cleric of Nivi Rhombadazzle (yeah, with quote marks - "air quotes"). But I'm not your typical cleric - I have a bit of militia training and so wear full plate armor and use a tower shield. I carry this oversized ax (medium sized Dwarven War Ax) and am really not very good with it, so don't expect me to be very effective in combat. But I will be in combat - right up there on the bleeding edge, as I'm a combat medic. My Domains are Travel and Trickery.

During the adventure, it may come up that Buba has darkvision - I'll point out that Nivi is the goddess of Deep Gnomes, the first Gnome of the Underdark in fact. Clearly he is not your typical Gnome - he claims to be a Deep Gnome and have darkvision. (I explain OOC to anyone new or looking puzzled that we can't have Deep Gnome PCs...there is no Boon for that race.)

He moves fast - 40' during most of the adventure (longstrider lasts an hour per level) - and his movement is not effected by how much he carries....kind of like a dwarf you know?

Out of Character, I will explain to the other PLAYERs that I am a Dwarven Sepratist Cleric/Fighter who is sure that Nivi will not give him spells unless she thinks he is a Gnome - so he goes around disguised as a Gnome. Green Dyed hair, even his beard, silly hat, and funny turned up shoes. Not being real bright (he has an INT of 7), he slips up sometimes, so if you hang around with him much you should be able to figure several problems with his disguise.
He's Medium sized.
He moves to fast for his armor.
He uses Dwarven weapons, not Gnomeish weapons.
He doesn't even speak Gnome...
I think the most fun I have had playing him was when I was sitting at a table with someone playing a Wayang who was also claiming to be a Gnome. "Lot of differences in appearance! Clearly it's that First World influence in the gene pool! Yeap, and Darkvision must be more common in Gnomes - and a good thing we both have Fleet of Foot!" All the while trying not to give my disguise away to "the other Gnome" in the party.
Basicly - I let the other players in on the joke and they can enjoy playing along too... or not if it bugs them. Buba gets introduced to the NPCs by other players a lot. "and this is Buba, our Gnomish cleric [wink,wink - finger twirl by ear]". And sometimes a Player will give me a pointer on helping my disguise...and sometimes the Characters never figure out "my secret"... But you know the best part? when I meet a player again that I've only played with once months ago, they remember "that crazy gnome cleric of the god with the funny name - yep, biggest gnome I've ever met."

That to me is Re-Fluffing.


The above is priceless, no attempt to gain bonuses, just pure fluffy awesomeness, well done!

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Buba Casanunda wrote:


During the adventure, it may come up that Buba has darkvision - I'll point out that Nivi is the goddess of Deep Gnomes, the first Gnome of the Underdark in fact. Clearly he is not your typical Gnome - he claims to be a Deep Gnome and have darkvision. (I explain OOC to anyone new or looking puzzled that we can't have Deep Gnome PCs...there is no Boon for that race.)

Any gnome can have darkvision. It is a legal alternate racial trait.

Otherwise though, good job.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Jared Thaler wrote:
Buba Casanunda wrote:


During the adventure, it may come up that Buba has darkvision - I'll point out that Nivi is the goddess of Deep Gnomes, the first Gnome of the Underdark in fact. Clearly he is not your typical Gnome - he claims to be a Deep Gnome and have darkvision. (I explain OOC to anyone new or looking puzzled that we can't have Deep Gnome PCs...there is no Boon for that race.)

Any gnome can have darkvision. It is a legal alternate racial trait.

Otherwise though, good job.

I did say he had an INT of 7...

Tiefling PC:"How can you see in the dark?"
Buba:"'cause I'm special! I'm a Deep Gnome! Smer-nev-len! Hay! Who do you thinks gonna win the pendent this year? I hear the Greycloaks haven't got a prayer!"


Andrew Christian wrote:

1) Dwarf idea, no. Because being a Dwarf (half or not) does have mechanical effect on the game. You can't just say it and expect people to roleplay with it, unless you have something mechanical to back it up. And since there is no such thing as a half-dwarf in Pathfinder, Golarion, or PFS, then you can't go that route.

Now if you want to say that the rumor in your family is that some long lost dwarven heritage exists, then that probably wouldn't be a horrible idea.

2) Wizard idea is neat, but a spell-component pouch is a mechanical thing. Because if someone takes your spell-component pouch, you can't cast those spells anymore. So if your bracelet is just window dressing, and you still pull your components from a spell-component pouch, then I see no issue with it. But the Steal combat maneuver cannot take jewelry off of someone, so if you are saying the components are tied up in the bracelet, then that is a mechanical advantage. So its just mere fluff.

3) No issue with you making your magic missiles look like something different as long as they are identifiable as magic missiles with a standard spellcraft check, and that they still do force damage.

What if my character wants to claim he is a half dwarf? Like my character is on the short end of the spectrum and compensates by making up dwarf ancestry? Or what if my halfling bard wants to claim he is in fact "A very powerful wizard" Basically if my character is ....less than truthful/self aware am I going to get dinged for "reskinning"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a GM, that is when I call for a Bluff skill check :), honestly if the reskin is not meant as a power grab, I do not mind, often, the reskin has a fun and interesting point for my players, of course, not PFS.

5/5 *****

thecause80 wrote:
What if my character wants to claim he is a half dwarf? Like my character is on the short end of the spectrum and compensates by making up dwarf ancestry? Or what if my halfling bard wants to claim he is in fact "A very powerful wizard" Basically if my character is ....less than truthful/self aware am I going to get dinged for "reskinning"?

You can claim to be whatever the hell you want but it gains you no mechanical advantage and for certain issues you are still identifiable as what you actually are. Your short human who claims to have dwarven ancestry is still just a short human and will be identified as such with a DC5 knowledge local. Your halfling bard can claim to be a mighty wizard but you still cant cast any different spells.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

thecause80 wrote:
What if my character wants to claim...

Claim is the important part of this. You can claim whatever you want. Bluff/Disguise/etc are all there for you to simluate something you are not. Reskinning (or refluffing) is generally when someone actually wants to be something they are not permitted to be. Saying you have dwarven blood or ancestry is fine, but you are not a half-dwarf and no one would/should ever construe that based on your descriptions.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Here's another form of "re-skinning" that I have used in the past...

My PCs often pick up a Hat of Disguise to take advantage of the "Shot at the squishy" tactic some monsters will use - so my Armored Brick looks like a Wizard (pointy hat and all) or my Wizard often looks like a Dwarven Brick. Good Judges (or good ones in my biased opinion) pay attention to this. Poor Judges just never seem to notice (always seem to just know the poor AC PCs).

I've even had a PC with two Hats, so that he could loan one out to another PC and then we'd switch figures. One judge got a bit offended by this though, as he missed the fact that we had swapped appearances (and figures) and what looked like a wizard was really the AC 26 Dwarven Cleric...


I approve of (and do the same) such uses for the hat of disguise! Even as the GM, I even enjoy when my players do this. Alas, sometimes, the baddies have ways to get around such trickery, but when it works, it is fun for all.

Silver Crusade 4/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
thecause80 wrote:
What if my character wants to claim...
Claim is the important part of this. You can claim whatever you want. Bluff/Disguise/etc are all there for you to simluate something you are not. Reskinning (or refluffing) is generally when someone actually wants to be something they are not permitted to be. Saying you have dwarven blood or ancestry is fine, but you are not a half-dwarf and no one would/should ever construe that based on your descriptions.

Yeah, liars and/or delusional characters can be fun.

I remember one guy playing a dumped int/wis half-orc barbarian who honestly believed he was a really tall goblin. All the other PCs just looked at him like he was insane.

I'm currently coming up with a character idea for a worshiper of an evil deity who hides his true affiliation. That could be fun to play, and will require a good bluff skill, which is part of why I'm looking at inquisitor options that add wisdom to bluff. I haven't started playing this guy yet, but I'm imagining that I'll ask everyone to roll sense motive during my character introduction. :P

Scarab Sages 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
thecause80 wrote:
What if my character wants to claim...
Claim is the important part of this. You can claim whatever you want. Bluff/Disguise/etc are all there for you to simluate something you are not. Reskinning (or refluffing) is generally when someone actually wants to be something they are not permitted to be. Saying you have dwarven blood or ancestry is fine, but you are not a half-dwarf and no one would/should ever construe that based on your descriptions.

Yeah, liars and/or delusional characters can be fun.

I remember one guy playing a dumped int/wis half-orc barbarian who honestly believed he was a really tall goblin. All the other PCs just looked at him like he was insane.

I'm currently coming up with a character idea for a worshiper of an evil deity who hides his true affiliation. That could be fun to play, and will require a good bluff skill, which is part of why I'm looking at inquisitor options that add wisdom to bluff. I haven't started playing this guy yet, but I'm imagining that I'll ask everyone to roll sense motive during my character introduction. :P

sounds like fun, but you might want to review the thread on deceptive characters...

deceptive characters

I have no problem with, and often enjoy playing with, "deceptive characters". I do have a problem with, and often avoid playing with, "deceptive players". I see a difference in these two things... it appears that some people do not.

1/5

Nefreet wrote:
You have actually asked a rather in-depth question that isn't an issue for some GMs, but that can really bother others.

That answer really is as close as you will get. Trust me. I know.

But honestly, I can tell you that while your intention to come here and ask these people is well placed that it will get you all of nowhere in actually finding an answer to your question. As others pointed out you are very likely to never play with anyone from these boards at your local table. THOSE are the people you need to talk to.

Yes it is standardized play but that doesn't mean that everyone has the same perspective on the differences between "description" and "reskinning". Reskinning is specifically disallowed (something my local play group has seemed to have forgotten). Creative description... well, you are going to find a wide variety of opinions there.

Some people will be OK, for instance, if you describe a Celstial horse as having a feathered mane and feline like tail. Others will be angry at the mere mention of it despite the fact that their preconception of what a Celestial horse looks like has no basis in actual published Paizo material. But everyone agrees that you cannot describe a Celestial horse to look like a Griffon.

That being said, I agree with what MrTsFloatinghead has said about the pendulum swinging too far with some people (many of the people frequenting threads here) but I can assure you that isn't the case everywhere and the people here are a small subsection of all PFS players and GMs.

Todd Morgan wrote:
I'd just like to say that I'm proud of the people in the community that not only assisted the OP in finding mechanical ways to re-fluff their character but also did so in a polite manner. I am also really appreciative of the way the OP received those messages and the mature way they went about responding. Kudos all around!

Me too. It should always be that way. I'm also happy that even though this question was just asked on another thread that is on the same page that no one here displayed any misplaced aggression towards this poster.

I also wanted to post my agreement with MrTsFloatinghead that I do not agree with the idea of having to "earn" the right to describing your character, their equipment, spells or animal companions how you see fit. The reskinning rules do not cover this. As long as you are not gaining a mechanical benefit by describing your character creatively or saying that your X (that is clearly described in game terms) is a Y (that is clearly described in game terms) then there is no issue.

If you want your human to look dwarflike or have dwarflike features then that is perfectly fine but he is going to be identified as a dwarf when someone makes a Knowledge: Local check.

If you want your Magic Missiles to have a unique look then that is groovy so long as when someone makes a Spellcraft check that they can be identified as Magic Missiles.

If you want your Celestial horse to have feathers on it's mane and a lionlike tail that is fine so long as anyone making a Knowledge: Planes (not Knowledge: Nature, because it isn't an animal) check can identify it as a Celestial horse.

The important part is that none of these things give the character a mechanical advantage and they do not violate existing rules (including the reskinning rules). ...and, apparently some GMs like to see you "earn" a reason to describe you whatever in the way that you are wanting to describe it by spending a feat, trait, skills or money on equipment. That isn't a rule, but is apparently just a preference bias. But if you want to pander to that subset of players/GMs and try to make everyone happy it might not be a bad idea if you plan on playing your character with a wide array of different games.

Otherwise, in my opinion, just ask the people at your local group what their opinion is of what is acceptable (but make sure you aren't also breaking rules).

The Exchange 5/5

great idea for fluffing an often overlooked spell:

Unseen servant carrying a "quiver" or golf bag of wands.
Wizard looks over the encounter and hold out hand.
"4 Iron!"

and the spell Unseen Servant becomes Unseen Caddie. (duration 1 hr per level)

1/5

Michael Haneline wrote:

So, I've never played in PFS before, though I've played in both 4e and 3.5 organized play before, in years past. I want to try our PFS, but I remember one difficulty I had in the old days with some characters was a handful of DMs getting cranky about refluff.

I'm curious, in your experience, how tolerant GMs in PFS are of refluff that has no impact on the mechanical rules at all. Like what if I want to say my short bearded human is part dwarf? How about a wizard whose prepared spells appear as charms on charm bracelet, that he breaks when he casts a spell (still using all the same spell components, etc.)? Can I claim my magic missiles look like fireworks? Etc, etc, you get the idea.

Like many things in life, it's not what you do, but how you go about doing it.

As you may have gathered from many of the candid responses is that there is an imaginary and hazy line between fluffing for RP and fluffing such that it feels like you're getting a benefit. As long as you steer clear of that line, which may move around depending on GM and what you're fluffing, you should be fine.

At some point, my barbarian is going to get Slippers of Whatever-it-is-that-lets-you-ignore-difficult-terrain. But I am going to have them sewn to the bottoms of his combat boots. I don't think the game is better off if people have to picture my barbarian in slippers.

As someone suggested, you can RP being half-dwarf by looking the part and acting the part, and even saying so in-character, but it doesn't need to say that on your character sheet, does it?

Shadow Lodge 1/5

I'm just going to ask this. There are no rules against refluffing, unlike reskinning where there is a mechanical advantage.

So, if a GM tries to penalize a player for refluffing, are they cheating?

If they are saying your character is delusional are they being insulting and violating the "don't be a jerk" rule?

There is no reason fireballs can't come out your arse if that's what you say your doing when casting fireball, so why is this even being discussed?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I don't understand your question. Refluffing and reskinning are synonymous.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

People use different words to describe the same thing as much as two different people believe that one word means different things.

Reskinning, describing, refluffing, what-have-you, it's how you go about it that matters.

Sure, you can describe your Wizard doing a little dance in a circle before bending over and shooting a Fireball out from their kilt. This is actually encouraged and supported by the Developers, and there's a recent FAQ that describes all non-Psychic spells as having these sorts of "manifestations".

What you cannot do, after describing your kilt-directed Fireball, is try to claim (IC or OOC) that your spell is something else.

1 to 50 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Refluffing tolerance? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.