You do realize that we have a ruling, from the person that created the curse, and that it applies only to manufactured weapons, right?
But he dosent mention Unarmed strikes and they work more like manufactored weapons than like any of the exeptions he made.
Any way, his comment there is just tellling us what he would like it to say today, i bet he ditent think about Natural weapons when he wrote the stuff the first time.And i dont think the guys that decide on FAQs have been talking this one over and then presentet it like that.
I find it silly that claws would have no penalty, but armor spikes would.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am also with Rynjin here. Flavor is put into mechanics to give options for what you may want to look like/act like, but you can reflavor things as you like. You can flavor your lame curse as being shackled by gods, or having a back pain that keeps you from moving, or just flat-out being slow. Having the permanently wounded leg is just the option that the devs provided in the text.
That stuff isn't provided as 'an option'... it is part of the ability... heck, it is the ability.
An ability, by RAW, does exactly, and specifically and only what it says it does.
You can of course ignore what it says. You can of course create whatever weird stuff you want to, but you've deviated from the game as written if you do. If you change the ability, you are not playing by RAW. It is very simple.
And reflavoring is as easy a change as changing the mechanics. Both are perfectly valid options for your homebrew gaming needs. But if you do either, you are not playing by RAW.
And if for some reason you actually think that this 'fluff' is completely and freely exchangeable with whatever random insanity you wanna come up with... then you open up Pandora ’s Box to inanity.
My dual cursed Oracle of Metal is a human... but he is LG and worships Rovagug. His skin is glowing pink and yellow with green spots, his hair is translucent and looks like running water, his eyes look like completely black pits of despair, and his smile creeps up his face all the way to his temples... And his Blackened curse is really that his arms are made out of marshmallows. And his Wrecker curse manifests in everything being transformed into balloon versions of the item. Also, he farts rainbows. And he uses his Iron Weapon ability to make giant clown faces to beat people down with. Why not? I'm only changing the 'fluff'!!!
All I'm saying is; What is written is what is RAW. Why? Because it is the 'rules as written'. The fluff is RAW. The crunch is RAW.
Of course you are absolutely free to deviate from RAW. But stop calling it RAW when it most certainly isn't!
I am also with Rynjin here. Flavor is put into mechanics to give options for what you may want to look like/act like, but you can reflavor things as you like. You can flavor your lame curse as being shackled by gods, or having a back pain that keeps you from moving, or just flat-out being slow. Having the permanently wounded leg is just the option that the devs provided in the text.That stuff isn't provided as 'an option'... it is part of the ability... heck, it is the ability.
An ability, by RAW, does exactly, and specifically and only what it says it does.
You can of course ignore what it says. You can of course create whatever weird stuff you want to, but you've deviated from the game as written if you do. If you change the ability, you are not playing by RAW. It is very simple.
And reflavoring is as easy a change as changing the mechanics. Both are perfectly valid options for your homebrew gaming needs. But if you do either, you are not playing by RAW.
And if for some reason you actually think that this 'fluff' is completely and freely exchangeable with whatever random insanity you wanna come up with... then you open up Pandora ’s Box to inanity.
My dual cursed Oracle of Metal is a human... but he is LG and worships Rovagug. His skin is glowing pink and yellow with green spots, his hair is translucent and looks like running water, his eyes look like completely black pits of despair, and his smile creeps up his face all the way to his temples... And his Blackened curse is really that his arms are made out of marshmallows. And his Wrecker curse manifests in everything being transformed into balloon versions of the item. Also, he farts rainbows. And he uses his Iron Weapon ability to make giant clown faces to beat people down with. Why not? I'm only changing the 'fluff'!!!
All I'm saying is; What is written is what is RAW. Why? Because it is the 'rules as written'. The fluff is RAW. The crunch is RAW.
Of course you...
No more coffe for you, young man;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No more coffe for you, young man;)
Haha. I'm not young... unfortunately. But I do drink too much coffee, you got me.
|
My dual cursed Oracle of Metal is a human... but he is LG and worships Rovagug. His skin is glowing pink and yellow with green spots, his hair is translucent and looks like running water, his eyes look like completely black pits of despair, and his smile creeps up his face all the way to his temples... And his Blackened curse is really that his arms are made out of marshmallows. And his Wrecker curse manifests in everything being transformed into balloon versions of the item. Also, he farts rainbows. And he uses his Iron Weapon ability to make giant clown faces to beat people down with. Why not? I'm only changing the 'fluff'!!!
As long as the player fit the mood and style of the campaign, I'd have no problem with that character. Hell, sounds pretty funny to me. If I were running a goofy one shot I'd be completely fine with someone playing a balloonomancer.
And if someone wanted to play this in a serious game, I'd talk with them about matching the tone and setting of the game. A lot of what you mentioned there wasn't bad, although I'd argue farting rainbows does have an identifiable mechanical component as it's creating a visual effect. With Prestidigitation I'm sure we could work that out though. And if it was a solid giant clown face, let them beat someone down with their clown faces.
I'd rather not police someone's character and creativity due to my inability to separate fluff from crunch.
As long as the player fit the mood and style of the campaign, I'd have no problem with that character. Hell, sounds pretty funny to me. If I were running a goofy one shot I'd be completely fine with someone playing a balloonomancer.
And if someone wanted to play this in a serious game, I'd talk with them about matching the tone and setting of the game. A lot of what you mentioned there wasn't bad, although I'd argue farting rainbows does have an identifiable mechanical component as it's creating a visual effect. With Prestidigitation I'm sure we could work that out though. And if it was a solid giant clown face, let them beat someone down with their clown faces.
I'd rather not police someone's character and creativity due to my inability to separate fluff from crunch.
Note that you are okay with it in a game. That you feel you need to approve or disapprove of it. Meaning it needs DM approval. Why? Because it isn't RAW.
Are DMs more likely to give the seal of approval on fluff changes than mechanical changes? Yeah, probably.
Are both of these changes... changes? Yes, they are.
Personally I'd rather not police someone's character either, except for how it fits into the story being told. If fluff needs changing, I'd change it. If mechanics and 'crunch' needs changing, I'll change it.
But when I make those changes, I don't try to pretend that we're playing by RAW when we clearly aren't.
The fluff tells you what is happening, the crunch tells you how it happens. When taken together, you get the game’s rules.
Fluff by itself is just make believe. Crunch by itself is just math homework.
You need them both, really, to play the game, to have the rules of the game.
Ok, After seeing my topic resurface, here's the breakdown.
- The curse only applies to weapons that are wielded, be ranged or melee (obviously), so unarmed strikes, rays and melee touch attacks are out, thus safe to use.
- One part remains: does the penalty apply to spells used with wands, rods and staves, since they are technically wielded?
Y'know, I would say yes, since shooting a ray from a wand is the same as shooting a bolt from a crossbow and striking with a staff-based shocking grasp is the same as striking with a sword. However, I'd like to get more inputs on this.
Bottom line though, my idea of making a Peri-blooded aasimar oracle with the Blackened curse, the Flame mystery AND unarmed strikes still works! (I do plan to convert the Superior Unarmed Strike feat from Tome of Battle... so unarmed strikes don't suck much.)
The details of fluff is unimportant. Immutable fluff is absolutely WORTHLESS. If you absolutely can't change it, it has then become a restriction, not a guideline.
"Stuff the author thought was cool" (and that's really all the built-in fluff is) should never be a restriction.
Ok, After seeing my topic resurface, here's the breakdown.
- The curse only applies to weapons that are wielded, be ranged or melee (obviously), so unarmed strikes, rays and melee touch attacks are out, thus safe to use.
- One part remains: does the penalty apply to spells used with wands, rods and staves, since they are technically wielded?Y'know, I would say yes, since shooting a ray from a wand is the same as shooting a bolt from a crossbow and striking with a staff-based shocking grasp is the same as striking with a sword. However, I'd like to get more inputs on this.
Bottom line though, my idea of making a Peri-blooded aasimar oracle with the Blackened curse, the Flame mystery AND unarmed strikes still works! (I do plan to convert the Superior Unarmed Strike feat from Tome of Battle... so unarmed strikes don't suck much.)
I think the breakdown is this. It is not a yes or no thing ask your GM or for PFS expect table variations.
Edit: Considering the redundance between Flame mystery and blackend curse i would allow it, in the character you suggest here. Tell your GM i said it was ok, just this once;)
The details of fluff is unimportant. Immutable fluff is absolutely WORTHLESS. If you absolutely can't change it, it has then become a restriction, not a guideline.
"Stuff the author thought was cool" (and that's really all the built-in fluff is) should never be a restriction.
The details of mechanics is unimportant. Immutable mechanics is absolutely WORTHLESS. If you absolutely can't change it, it has then become a restriction, not a guideline.
"Stuff the author thought was cool" (and that's really all the built-in mechanics is) should never be a restriction.
|
The details of fluff is unimportant. Immutable fluff is absolutely WORTHLESS. If you absolutely can't change it, it has then become a restriction, not a guideline.
"Stuff the author thought was cool" (and that's really all the built-in fluff is) should never be a restriction.
So a big stick using greatsword stats is cool and instead of a suit of metal my "plate mail" can be a jacket?
Basically, you described the Earthbreaker, and Armored Coat.
No he didn't, he described a big stick and a jacket! Get your fluff straight!
|
|
Note that you are okay with it in a game. That you feel you need to approve or disapprove of it. Meaning it needs DM approval. Why? Because it isn't RAW.
Unless we're playing in PFS, you need the GM's approval to take ANYTHING, so I don't really see your point there.
If someone wanted to take the Haramaki and flavor it as a leather jacket for their mage, I'd let them do it in a heartbeat because it's their character, and it's not impacting anything. MAYBE I'd make them step it up to the Silken Ceremonial Armor, but even that'd be just for my own sensibility, which isn't their concern.
So a big stick using greatsword stats is cool and instead of a suit of metal my "plate mail" can be a jacket?
Yes, yes it is. Hell, in my upcoming Eberron game I'm letting my one friend use a great ax with great sword stats because the great sword is a mechanically better weapon, but they like the design of the ax more for their character. It's literally changing nothing but how they see the character, no mechanics changed, no harm, no foul.
So a big stick using greatsword stats is cool and instead of a suit of metal my "plate mail" can be a jacket?The details of fluff is unimportant. Immutable fluff is absolutely WORTHLESS. If you absolutely can't change it, it has then become a restriction, not a guideline.
"Stuff the author thought was cool" (and that's really all the built-in fluff is) should never be a restriction.
I prefer my greatswords look like lollipops and my plate mail to look like cardigans. But to each their own! ^.~
Hell, in my upcoming Eberron game I'm letting my one friend use a great ax with great sword stats because the great sword is a mechanically better weapon, but they like the design of the ax more for their character. It's literally changing nothing but how they see the character, no mechanics changed, no harm, no foul.
Ah, but you see... you are incorrect!
Check out what the differences are between the two weapons. It isn't just the die type and the crit range... They're constructed differently, and are made of different materials. That means they use different hardness and HP. Different costs too.
And then, which of the two is it, for when taking something like weapon focus? Is it actually a greataxe, or is it a greatsword?
Also, just because I have to say it...
“use a great ax with great sword stats” and “It's literally changing nothing but how they see the character, no mechanics changed” completely disagree with one another...
You are changing the stats of the weapon; de facto you are changing the mechanics...
Had to point that out, seems you hadn't noticed directly contradicting yourself...
|
|
Hell, in my upcoming Eberron game I'm letting my one friend use a great ax with great sword stats because the great sword is a mechanically better weapon, but they like the design of the ax more for their character. It's literally changing nothing but how they see the character, no mechanics changed, no harm, no foul.Ah, but you see... you are incorrect!
Check out what the differences are between the two weapons. It isn't just the die type and the crit range... They're constructed differently, and are made of different materials. That means they use different hardness and HP. Different costs too.
And then, which of the two is it, for when taking something like weapon focus? Is it actually a greataxe, or is it a greatsword?
Also, just because I have to say it...
“use a great ax with great sword stats” and “It's literally changing nothing but how they see the character, no mechanics changed” completely disagree with one another...
You are changing the stats of the weapon; de facto you are changing the mechanics...
Had to point that out, seems you hadn't noticed directly contradicting yourself...
Then the "Great Ax" uses the stats for the Great Sword in every case. Done, that was easy.
And for taking Weapon Focus, it's for what the weapon's considered. So if it's considered a Great Sword, you take WF: Great sword and apply it to your "great sword." Done, that was easy too.
And I'm changing the appearance. In every way it's operating as a Great Sword but appearance. And as for your argument here:
I prefer my greatswords look like lollipops and my plate mail to look like cardigans. But to each their own! ^.~
There ARE mechanical ways to do EXACTLY what you're talking about by glamoring your weapon, so to take something dangerous and make it look NOT dangerous (like what you're doing), there's an enchantment for that. But I'm sure you don't care because it goes against your opinion. But if you want your lollipop great ax, just pick up Glammered on it and go to town!
It's literally changing nothing but how they see the character, no mechanics changed, no harm, no foul.
So, if someone sees their character as always one shotting every foe they swing their sword at, simply just cutting them in half with ease, whether it be a goblin or a god... we should just give them like, what... about +100 to hit and +1000 damage? That way they can envision their character properly?
Answer: Sure, in a homebrew, if everyone is happy, do whatever you want.
Just don't call it raw. Greatswords that look like greataxes and one shotting gods at level 1, don't make any difference... whatever floats your boat. (But it isn't RAW)
There ARE mechanical ways to do EXACTLY what you're talking about by glamoring your weapon, so to take something dangerous and make it look NOT dangerous (like what you're doing), there's an enchantment for that. But I'm sure you don't care because it goes against your opinion. But if you want your lollipop great ax, just pick up Glammered on it and go to town!
Lol...
You could glamour a greatsword to look like an axe. So... what's your point? That we shouldn't re-skin or re-fluff things if there are mechanical things in game at deal with re-fluffing things? Huh... I guess that'd mean we shouldn't re-fluff almost anything given the decent sized list of spells and abilities that do exactly that!
Anywho, this for all intents an purposes 'greatsword' that simply 'looks' like an 'axe' thing.
Where it still gets weird, is say... he loses the thing and needs a replacement.
Where does he go to get this specially crafted axe-looking-greatsword?
And weirdness crops up, say he stumbles upon an actual greatsword that he picks and weilds... he is as good with that new greatsword-looking-greatsword as he was with the old one.
Or even weirder still! What if he stumbles upon an actual great axe? He isn't so great with it, because his feat is actually for greatsword? Even if it looks and feel and weights the same, balanced the same...actually is an axe though, so... no dice?
Why is it so tough to get people to admit that deviating from the ability as written is deviating from RAW? Of course it can be done; no one has said it cannot be done! Lots of people homebrew all kinds of stuff, all the time.
Want an item that isn’t listed? Find something similar and re-fluff it. Nothing similar? Make it up whole cloth! Want a cool ability to fit your character idea? No ability anywhere like it? Refluff something that works the same way, or just make it up entirely!
Think tripping should be harder/easier/different? Model a new mechanic for it off something else, or just make it up entirely! Think magic item costs are ludicrous? Change em! Think all dragons should breath fire? Change it! Think the great ax should be exactly as good as a greatsword? Change it!!
Change change change. In a homebrew game, you’re free to do whatever you want. No one is going to try to stop you (Except maybe your gaming buddies).
My only contention is that when you change something, you’re no longer discussing the RAW. Everything you see in the book, printed in the form of words, is the rules of the game, as they are written. (Ie RAW)
So, when I craft a Greataxe that looks different from every other Greataxe, I break the rules?
I have to houserule to do so?
Is every single word written in every Pathfinder book a rule?
No phrase, or description, is not a rule?
Don't be silly. So long as it looks like a greataxe, it looks like a greataxe. Even if it is the only greataxe that looks the exact way it looks. All it needs to do is meet the description of a greataxe, anything beyond that is up to you, really.
But if you make a greataxe that doesn’t look at all like a greataxe? Yeah, you're in homebrew territory there mate.
|
Up to me?
You have stated that every single description and fluff text is a hard rule, and any variation is breaking the rules, and thus, a houserule.
I don't get a choice. Every race, item, creature, spell, ability looks exactly the same, without deviation, lest we break the rules.
The world is a mass of completely identical creatures and objects, and to even suggest otherwise, is suggesting a houserule.
This is what your stance.
Of course, I am maddening silly.
. . . fluff is the text out front that is descriptive without any mechanical information. Crunch is the mechanical information. . . .
. . .
The fluff tells you what is happening, the crunch tells you how it happens. When taken together, you get the game’s rules.Fluff by itself is just make believe. Crunch by itself is just math homework. . . .
Wait... you can recognize and separate the two in reading? But you refuse to believe that one is just description and one is the actual rule?
Ok. I'm done. I got nothing. And by that token, yes, N. Jolly, you cannot not charge as a barbarian, but you still win.
. . . barbarians charge furiously into battle and ruin all who would stand in their way. . . .
Up to me?
You have stated that every single description and fluff text is a hard rule, and any variation is breaking the rules, and thus, a houserule.
I don't get a choice. Every race, item, creature, spell, ability looks exactly the same, without deviation, lest we break the rules.
The world is a mass of completely identical creatures and objects, and to even suggest otherwise, is suggesting a houserule.
This is what your stance.
Of course, I am maddening silly.
Well, that isn't my stance. So... you are being silly.
There is such a thing as an axe. In real life, an axe is a known item. If you picture an axe, and I picture axe... it is highly unlikely that we will be envisioning the exact same picture.
Maybe yours has a longer handle than mine? Maybe mine has different curve arc? Maybe yours has a blue cloth wrapped handle, and mine has one wrapped in leather?
Both of them be axes yo. But they're not necessarily carbon copies of one another.
The descriptions in the game work the same way. Apply the descriptions. There will be details that aren't fully filled in. Go ahead and fill those details on in.
Even something that is as straight forward as "Your hands and forearms are shriveled and blackened, as if you had plunged your arms into a blazing fire, and your thin, papery skin is sensitive to the touch" can have the finer details fleshed out more.
How shriveled are they? How blackened? Is there anything else going on too? 'as if you plunged your arms into a blazing fire' leaves us some wiggle room. Are they blistered? Is the skin cracked or scorched or burned or melted? Maybe it is thin papery, and flaking? How far up the arms do these marks go? How sensitive exactly are they? Is it uncomfortable, or downright agony? Do you bandage them? Do you cover them at all? Do they weep? What does it smell like? How rough is the skin? Is the hair gone, or maybe it grew back...or maybe it never burned off?
Fine details, totally flexible.
So, every person with even that fairly specific and well described ability won't still have exactly the same manifestation of it. Sure, they'll be similar, of course. But not clones of one another or anything.
Don't like it? Think that is too boring? House rule it!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the stance here is that all fluff is RAW and any deviation is a houserule, correct? Does that mean all barbarians are
For some, there is only rage. In the ways of their people, in the fury of their passion, in the howl of battle, conflict is all these brutal souls know. Savages, hired muscle, masters of vicious martial techniques, they are not soldiers or professional warriors—they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war. Known as barbarians, these warmongers know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare; for them, only the moment exists, with the foes that stand before them and the knowledge that the next moment might hold their death. They possess a sixth sense in regard to danger and the endurance to weather all that might entail. These brutal warriors might rise from all walks of life, both civilized and savage, though whole societies embracing such philosophies roam the wild places of the world. Within barbarians storms the primal spirit of battle, and woe to those who face their rage.
. . . fluff is the text out front that is descriptive without any mechanical information. Crunch is the mechanical information. . . .. . .
The fluff tells you what is happening, the crunch tells you how it happens. When taken together, you get the game’s rules.Fluff by itself is just make believe. Crunch by itself is just math homework. . . .
Wait... you can recognize and separate the two in reading? But you refuse to believe that one is just description and one is the actual rule?
Ok. I'm done. I got nothing. And by that token, yes, N. Jolly, you cannot not charge as a barbarian, but you still win.
. . . barbarians charge furiously into battle and ruin all who would stand in their way. . . .
They are both the rules... two parts of one whole, two sides of the same coin.
One part tells 'what'. The other tells 'how'. Both are aspects of the same thing.
If you change the 'what'... the 'how' no longer applies. Not by RAW anyway.
Example: Since it is our topic, I'll continue to use Blackened.
What: Your hands and forearms are shriveled and blackened, as if you had plunged your arms into a blazing fire, and your thin, papery skin is sensitive to the touch
How: You take a –4 penalty on weapon attack rolls, but you add burning hands to your list of spells known.
But, if we change the 'fluff', ie the 'what'...
What: Although still young for your kind, you have a lifetime of knowledge and training.
How: You take a –4 penalty on weapon attack rolls, but you add burning hands to your list of spells known.
They don't match...
Why don't they match? Because we just CHANGED the 'what'! The 'how' is an aspect of the 'what'.
So, the stance here is that all fluff is RAW and any deviation is a houserule, correct? Does that mean all barbarians are ** spoiler omitted **
Nope
(They do have uncanny dodge though)
Again, I ask, which of a Lame Oracle Merfolk's legs are permanently wounded?
By your Fluff RAW?
Why do you think Merfork are eligible for this curse?
The Lame curse doesn't even have a 'fluff' section...
"Effect
One of your legs is permanently wounded, reducing your base land speed by 10 feet if your base speed is 30 feet or more. If your base speed is less than 30 feet, your speed is reduced by 5 feet. Your speed is never reduced due to encumbrance."
That doesn't even separate the fluff and crunch by any degree of distinction. Heck, not even a separate sentence. It is all crunch.
I guess the Knockout Artist feat only works with punches?
In fact, every use, of any feat is identical.
Monk must aid allies.
Barbarians must use the charge action at the beginning of every combat.
Unless, you break the rules.
Why?
And more to the point... why do you keep talking about "breaking the rules".
I'm not talking about breaking rules. I'm talking about deviating from RAW.
You know the difference, yeah?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a big stick using greatsword stats is cool and instead of a suit of metal my "plate mail" can be a jacket?
Yes.
Weeellll, the stick is iffy. Sticks are already "statted" as a club or improvised weapon, and they're made of a different material. So it is as much a mechanics change as a fluff change there.
It's changing what it is AND how it works, there.
A better example would be the above Greataxe example, or "Can my Earthbreaker be a lead pipe?" or something like that, since that doesn't change anything about the weapon and makes more sense conceptually (why is the stick a slashing weapon? Then again, it's not like I've never seen a stick be used by a master swordsman in such a manner in Anime and fantasy novels, so I'd probably let it pass.).
So, if someone sees their character as always one shotting every foe they swing their sword at, simply just cutting them in half with ease, whether it be a goblin or a god... we should just give them like, what... about +100 to hit and +1000 damage? That way they can envision their character properly?Answer: Sure, in a homebrew, if everyone is happy, do whatever you want.
Just don't call it raw. Greatswords that look like greataxes and one shotting gods at level 1, don't make any difference... whatever floats your boat. (But it isn't RAW)
You're conflating a mechanical impact (+100 hit/damage) with a fluff one (my greatsword looks like an axe). Stop that.
If you're going to argue, at least recognize what the other side says instead of setting up a poorly constructed strawman.
I think you guys are going a little too deep into fluff now. Here's my idea:
1) A Peri is a fire-based redeemed fallen angel, from B3.
2) According to Blood of Angels, you can have a Peri-blooded aasimar.
3) A Peri-blooded aasimar oracle with the Flame mystery seems like a perfect fit, due to being related to fire.
4) The Blackened curse is described as follow: "Your hands and forearms are shriveled and blackened, as if you had plunged your arms into a blazing fire, and your thin, papery skin is sensitive to the touch." You know how some zealous people torture themselves to redeem or punish themselves in their respective religion? Well, for a Peri-blooded aasimar whose ancestors were Hell-bent (pun intended) on redeeming themselves for their crimes, that sounds like a great way to illustrate that path to redemption. "I shall burn you with the same flames that scarred my ancestors!" / "Those hands are the sign of the fire of redemption I chose to light." / "I began by suffering in order to let my ancestral redemption behind and start anew." I could go on and on, but you get it, right?
5) Picking both the Flame mystery and the Blackened curse causes some overlapping as both grant burning hands and wall of fire. However, the curse adds scorching ray, flaming sphere and delayed fireball, which the mystery doesn't. At best, it is always possible to talk to my DM to swap spells of equal level and subtypes, such as replacing burning hands with produce flame and wall of fire with flaming shield. While I could always pick the Tongues (Ignan/Celestial) curse, I feel like the Blackened curse has a more religious twist to it, and wouldn't you know it, the oracle is a divine class.
You're conflating a mechanical impact (+100 hit/damage) with a fluff one (my greatsword looks like an axe). Stop that.
If you're going to argue, at least recognize what the other side says instead of setting up a poorly constructed strawman.
The fluff is the narrative. The crunch serves the narrative.
How you don't understand this is beyond me. I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but it sounds like you're playing a board game... and I'm trying to talk about a table top roleplaying game.
The descriptions, the narrative, the events that transpire. These are the things that happen, the things that are. This is the story being told, the setting it is in, the characters within it.
All the mechanics do, all the crunch does, is serve to facilitate the narrative. They're the system by which the fluff operate.
If you don't understand that. If you cannot comprehend this concept. We're playing different games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fluff is the narrative. The crunch serves the narrative....
The descriptions, the narrative, the events that transpire. These are the things that happen, the things that are. This is the story being told, the setting it is in, the characters within it.
Precisely.
Which is why trying ascribe mechanical impact to fluff is counter-productive. Why limit the amount of narratives that can be told arbitrarily?
What is the problem with refluffing? As you said, the crunch serves the narrative.
So if my narrative is "My Blackened Oracle was cursed by the gods to shun man-made weaponry, relying only on the natural extensions of my body for combat", why would you destroy that narrative by asserting that fluff has BECOME crunch?
At that point, the crunch has stopped serving the narrative. It has enslaved and restricted the narrative, limiting it for no reasonable purpose.
The fluff is the narrative. The crunch serves the narrative....
The descriptions, the narrative, the events that transpire. These are the things that happen, the things that are. This is the story being told, the setting it is in, the characters within it.
Precisely.
Which is why trying ascribe mechanical impact to fluff is counter-productive. Why limit the amount of narratives that can be told arbitrarily?
What is the problem with refluffing? As you said, the crunch serves the narrative.
So if my narrative is "My Blackened Oracle was cursed by the gods to shun man-made weaponry, relying only on the natural extensions of my body for combat", why would you destroy that narrative by asserting that fluff has BECOME crunch?
At that point, the crunch has stopped serving the narrative. It has enslaved and restricted the narrative, limiting it for no reasonable purpose.
Because you are inventing something new.
There is no established crunch for that fluff. You have to make it up or adapt something that already exists.
(Which is why it is no longer RAW)
Try to find rules for that fluff... you won't..because there are none.
"cursed by the gods to shun man-made weaponry, relying only on the natural extensions of my body for combat" Has no mechanics. You have to make up mechanics for it. (ie not RAW)
The easiest and most efficient way to do that is by taking something that already exists and is a close enough fit, like the mechanics of the blackened curse. The tying your brand new invented fluff to the pre-existing crunch the already existing printed material.
You are adapting the ability, you are changing the game.
That is perfectly fine!
But.. it simply is not RAW.
Because you are inventing something new.There is no established crunch for that fluff. You have to make it up or adapt something that already exists.
(Which is why it is no longer RAW)
It is not new. It is the Blackened Oracle.
But the fluff has changed. And the fluff is not RAW.
RAW stands for Rules As Written.
Not "All text as written".
Because you are inventing something new.There is no established crunch for that fluff. You have to make it up or adapt something that already exists.
(Which is why it is no longer RAW)
It is not new. It is the Blackened Oracle.
But the fluff has changed. And the fluff is not RAW.
It isn't the Blackened Oracle though.
It is the Anti-Weapon Oracle now.
Just because you borrowing the mechanics of Blackened doesn't mean it is the blackened curse. It clearly isn't.
If it has the same mechanics, it is the same thing. It just looks different.
If I buy a red Mustang and paint it blue, it is still a Mustang.
If I completely change the body, but not the engine and other internals, it is still a Mustang.
It's only when I start fiddling with how it actually WORKS that I change what it is.
RAW stands for Rules As Written.
Not "All text as written".
I'm pretty sure the text of the 'rule book' is rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the text of the 'rule book' is rules.
And then we're back to all the silly things that does.
Like Rogues being untouchable because they are "Ever just one step ahead of danger".
If it has the same mechanics, it is the same thing. It just looks different.
If I buy a red Mustang and paint it blue, it is still a Mustang.
If I completely change the body, but not the engine and other internals, it is still a Mustang.
It's only when I start fiddling with how it actually WORKS that I change what it is.
So, you're saying, that if you simply never stop for gas that it is no longer a mustang? It doesn't work at all now, so... not a mustang, huh?
And if you pull the battery out... not a mustang?
And what about a 72 mustang vs a 14 mustang? They don't work anything like one another. Which one is the real mustang, huh? Only one can possible be the actual mustang, according to you.
Sorry, your reasoning and analogy are faulty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, your reasoning and analogy are faulty.
The moment you take an analogy absolutely literally, you've crossed the line from "Person I can have a reasonable discussion with" to "Someone who can't (or chooses to ignore) basic concepts and I can therefore safely ignore and/or snicker at from the sidelines".
What something is determines how it works.
The fluff determines the mechanics.
Changing the thing that is, will inevitably change how it functions.
Everything that 'is' has properties. What it is determines those properties.
If you change it, you have change it.
This is maddening. I fail to see how you don't understand that while you are of course free to change whatever you like in this game... 'when' you change something, you have deviated from the RAW.
If it isn't written, it isn't RAW.
What something is determines how it works.
The fluff determines the mechanics.
Changing the thing that is, will inevitably change how it functions.
Everything that 'is' has properties. What it is determines those properties.
If you change it, you have change it.
And a cosmetic change is not a mechanical change. It's "maddening" you because you're ignoring basic logic and concepts that REAL LIFE is based on somehow.
You KNOW that changing the appearance of something doesn't change what it is. You could not have somehow missed this basic fact unless you grew up under a rock.
A person who gets plastic surgery doesn't become a different person. If I color foam purple it's still foam. If I call my feet "Garbleshnaps" they're still feet.
I know you don't understand the concept of an analogy but that's all I've got for you. It's so simple I can't break it down any further for you.
Renaming or changing a cosmetic detail of something does not change what it is. This is so ingrained in our language and culture that the word cosmetic has a double meaning of both "relating to appearance" and "not important or substantive". When the language itself has betrayed you it's time to give up your stance, man.
This is maddening. I fail to see how you don't understand that while you are of course free to change whatever you like in this game... 'when' you change something, you have deviated from the RAW.
If it isn't written, it isn't RAW.
And just because it's written, doesn't automatically make it RAW. Everything that is written is not rules. There are a thousand different examples I can shove in your face to prove that to you, but you'll just continue to ignore them and live in Remyland like you have been for the past page.