RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Everyone in this entire thread agrees that any reskinning that provides a mechanical benefit should be disallowed. If you want to argue that there's no such thing as a zero-benefit reskinning, be my guest.
That is, in fact, my claim, Jiggy.
If you will forgive me for once again using the GenCon example, reskinning a pony as a pig (a) disguises the true nature of the mount, and (b) implies that the cavalier is at least 4th level, when she can take a boar, or has some other special properties that allow her a mount that would normally be denied. Leaving aside the advantages that a non-pony mount would have in that particular scenario, both (a) and (b) are intrinsic to all reskinning.
(And if you feel that everybody understands that it's not really a pig, that all the characters know it's really a pony, then I assert that's not re-skinning. That's a PC being eccentric about her pony.)
|
By the same argument you are requiring the other player to accept *your* view of the world instead of theirs. If I don't like gunslingers, they ruin my feeling of fantasy, does that mean the gunslinger has to leave? If you don't like a reskin, your character is free to think it really is the base item/animal.You show up with a short sword and call it a bastard sword. If you expect the other PCs and any NPCs to see it as a short sword, that's not reskinning, but rather a false claim by your PC. (Maybe she's deluded, maybe she's a huckster.) If you expect the other PCs to see it as a bastard sword, that's reskinning.I guess that may be even more key. By reskinning you are requiring others to agree to your view of the world and of how you think play should be done. How much right does any player have to do this? My answer? 0%.
I have no worries about Kerney's example. It's a perfect example of how it can go right.
I'm mostly playing devil's advocate hear, trying to think of the positives and negatives of both sides. Are reskinners trying to skirt the rules? Some yes, some no. Are reskinners trying to force their view of reality on you? I have to say yes. Can this be handled at the table? Think so.
I can see this argument, but its wrong.
We are forcing everyone to accept the 'default' world. You know, the one we all signed up for when we started playing. I'm not the one trying to force a change to it.
The one that didn't include gunslingers, APG classes, spells from UM, etc? How about all the new druid companions? What if I don't like summoners being able to bring in *anything* they wish, regardless of how it fits? Mermen, cthulhu, mini dragons, whatever?
|
The one that didn't include gunslingers, APG classes, spells from UM, etc? How about all the new druid companions? What if I don't like summoners being able to bring in *anything* they wish, regardless of how it fits? Mermen, cthulhu, mini dragons, whatever?By the same argument you are requiring the other player to accept *your* view of the world instead of theirs. If I don't like gunslingers, they ruin my feeling of fantasy, does that mean the gunslinger has to leave? If you don't like a reskin, your character is free to think it really is the base item/animal.You show up with a short sword and call it a bastard sword. If you expect the other PCs and any NPCs to see it as a short sword, that's not reskinning, but rather a false claim by your PC. (Maybe she's deluded, maybe she's a huckster.) If you expect the other PCs to see it as a bastard sword, that's reskinning.I guess that may be even more key. By reskinning you are requiring others to agree to your view of the world and of how you think play should be done. How much right does any player have to do this? My answer? 0%.
I have no worries about Kerney's example. It's a perfect example of how it can go right.
I'm mostly playing devil's advocate hear, trying to think of the positives and negatives of both sides. Are reskinners trying to skirt the rules? Some yes, some no. Are reskinners trying to force their view of reality on you? I have to say yes. Can this be handled at the table? Think so.
I can see this argument, but its wrong.
We are forcing everyone to accept the 'default' world. You know, the one we all signed up for when we started playing. I'm not the one trying to force a change to it.
By continuing to play PFS after these inclusions you have tacitly agreed to deal with them. Regardless of the fact that most of those things were already impled in fluff or previous 3.5 versions of the rules, you accept them by continuing to play the game. Those things became part of the default world when they became campaign legal.
But you see, there's a big difference here between every single one of those things and reskinning. They're allowed. If they should allow reskinning, all of those who continue play will be agreeing that they will deal with skinning. You don't have to like the rules, but if you are going to continue playing PFS (or any other campaign) you have to accept them.
|
Everyone in this entire thread agrees that any reskinning that provides a mechanical benefit should be disallowed. If you want to argue that there's no such thing as a zero-benefit reskinning, be my guest.That is, in fact, my claim, Jiggy.
If you will forgive me for once again using the GenCon example, reskinning a pony as a pig (a) disguises the true nature of the mount, and (b) implies that the cavalier is at least 4th level, when she can take a boar, or has some other special properties that allow her a mount that would normally be denied. Leaving aside the advantages that a non-pony mount would have in that particular scenario, both (a) and (b) are intrinsic to all reskinning.
(And if you feel that everybody understands that it's not really a pig, that all the characters know it's really a pony, then I assert that's not re-skinning. That's a PC being eccentric about her pony.)
I think we are pretty much on a similar page here, except your examples are kinda going off track.
Did you see my suggestion for handling re-skinning?
After further thought, here is my idea:
1) If the animal exists in some form in some Pathfinder book, whether it be one of the Bestiaries or some other resource, then you cannot reskin another animal to be that animal. For example: If you want a Bear, then you must use the rules as written for obtaining a Bear. If a Bear is not available for your character by the RAW, then you cannot choose a wolf and call it a bear.
2) If an animal does not exist in some form in some Pathfinder book, then you may choose an animal that most closely resembles it by size and species and reskin it. For example: Elven Hound does not exist. So you can take a Riding Dog and call it an Elven Hound.
3) To reskin something, the new skin must be an animal. So no reskinning a wolf to be a baby dragon or a bear to be an owl bear or a horse to a griffon.
4) Classes with limited lists cannot reskin. You are restricted to the list your class allows. In the case of a Ranger who wants an Elven Hound, then choose a Riding Dog and just say that its breed is Elven Hound (just like many others might choose Elk Hound or Mastiff).
I think this will satisfy almost all of your concerns.
|
|
Again, those people are forcing you to accpet their changes which are not the default. Me 'forcing' you to play the default campaign is saying top play by the game we...The one that didn't include gunslingers, APG classes, spells from UM, etc? How about all the new druid companions? What if I don't like summoners being able to bring in *anything* they wish, regardless of how it fits? Mermen, cthulhu, mini dragons, whatever?By the same argument you are requiring the other player to accept *your* view of the world instead of theirs. If I don't like gunslingers, they ruin my feeling of fantasy, does that mean the gunslinger has to leave? If you don't like a reskin, your character is free to think it really is the base item/animal.You show up with a short sword and call it a bastard sword. If you expect the other PCs and any NPCs to see it as a short sword, that's not reskinning, but rather a false claim by your PC. (Maybe she's deluded, maybe she's a huckster.) If you expect the other PCs to see it as a bastard sword, that's reskinning.I guess that may be even more key. By reskinning you are requiring others to agree to your view of the world and of how you think play should be done. How much right does any player have to do this? My answer? 0%.
I have no worries about Kerney's example. It's a perfect example of how it can go right.
I'm mostly playing devil's advocate hear, trying to think of the positives and negatives of both sides. Are reskinners trying to skirt the rules? Some yes, some no. Are reskinners trying to force their view of reality on you? I have to say yes. Can this be handled at the table? Think so.
I can see this argument, but its wrong.
We are forcing everyone to accept the 'default' world. You know, the one we all signed up for when we started playing. I'm not the one trying to force a change to it.
So, what is the change between a summoner having an elven hound and a druid? What is the issue?
|
So, what is the change between a summoner having an elven hound and a druid? What is the issue?
There is a Major difference, Summoner by the rules are allowed to have the eidolon takes a form shaped by the summoner’s desires. Druids, Rangers, Paladins and Cavaliers are told specifically by the rules what Companions they can have, by the rules they can not change that at the players whim.
Which leads me back to that players that want to re-skin do not like the rules in the game so they want to be able to make up their own to get around the rules, which is what I am having the problem with.
|
|
...Again, those people are forcing you to accpet their changes which are not the default. Me 'forcing' you to play the default campaign is saying topThe one that didn't include gunslingers, APG classes, spells from UM, etc? How about all the new druid companions? What if I don't like summoners being able to bring in *anything* they wish, regardless of how it fits? Mermen, cthulhu, mini dragons, whatever?By the same argument you are requiring the other player to accept *your* view of the world instead of theirs. If I don't like gunslingers, they ruin my feeling of fantasy, does that mean the gunslinger has to leave? If you don't like a reskin, your character is free to think it really is the base item/animal.You show up with a short sword and call it a bastard sword. If you expect the other PCs and any NPCs to see it as a short sword, that's not reskinning, but rather a false claim by your PC. (Maybe she's deluded, maybe she's a huckster.) If you expect the other PCs to see it as a bastard sword, that's reskinning.I guess that may be even more key. By reskinning you are requiring others to agree to your view of the world and of how you think play should be done. How much right does any player have to do this? My answer? 0%.
I have no worries about Kerney's example. It's a perfect example of how it can go right.
I'm mostly playing devil's advocate hear, trying to think of the positives and negatives of both sides. Are reskinners trying to skirt the rules? Some yes, some no. Are reskinners trying to force their view of reality on you? I have to say yes. Can this be handled at the table? Think so.
I can see this argument, but its wrong.
We are forcing everyone to accept the 'default' world. You know, the one we all signed up for when we started playing. I'm not the one trying to force a change to it.
Sorry Alexander, I edited my reply out from under you when I realized I had misread your post.
Again, I'm neutral in the debate, just trying to see all sides.
I don't know, reskinning animal campanions just doesn't feel right to me. But the difference between a summoner and a druid? The summoners isn't an Elven Hound. It's an outsider that looks like an Elven Hound. Anyone who knows what summoners are will know that. As an animal comapnion you are asking to create a whole new actual critter based off of another which may or may not making any sense whatsoever.
|
|
So, what is the change between a summoner having an elven hound and a druid? What is the issue?There is a Major difference, Summoner by the rules are allowed to have the eidolon takes a form shaped by the summoner’s desires. Druids, Rangers, Paladins and Cavaliers are told specifically by the rules what Companions they can have, by the rules they can not change that at the players whim.
Which leads me back to that players that want to re-skin do not like the rules in the game so they want to be able to make up their own to get around the rules, which is what I am having the problem with.
So the issue isn't having an outlandish creature that looks like a griffon but couldn't actually fly. Its druids having one, instead of summoners.
Finally, as to the rules argument:"The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs."
The question is, will PFS give GM's the autonomy to utilize this rule at their tables?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...reskinning a pony as a pig (a) disguises the true nature of the mount, and (b) implies that the cavalier is at least 4th level, when she can take a boar, or has some other special properties that allow her a mount that would normally be denied. Leaving aside the advantages that a non-pony mount would have in that particular scenario, both (a) and (b) are intrinsic to all reskinning.
(And if you feel that everybody understands that it's not really a pig, that all the characters know it's really a pony, then I assert that's not re-skinning. That's a PC being eccentric about her pony.)
All the characters would see a pig. All the players would understand that it is really a pony, because the player wants her character to ride a small pig (not a big, hairy boar) and that is not an available option.
In this example,
A.) The true nature isn't disguised because the DM and all the players at the table are well aware of what is going on.
B.) Since the players are aware of what is going on, they aren't going to mistake her character as 4th level. The characters don't have access to the Player's Handbook so they don't know that "Cavalier" is a class, much less that you need to be "4th level" to have a boar. Even if they do, there is a difference between a boar and a pig, so if they know anything about animals (knowledge nature, I believe) they'll know the difference.
C.) Any other advantages of having a non-pony mount should be removed by the DM. If having a pony mount is specifically called out as being bad then just switch the reference in your head to "pig" and go with what would have happened normally. Reskinning should not be allowed a mechanical advantage.
Telling a player that they can believe their mount is a pig but everyone else is going to see a pony is you telling the player that their character is insane. Which could be viewed as a little insulting.
|
|
"The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs."
The question is, will PFS give GM's the autonomy to utilize this rule at their tables?
Here's the problem. An Organized Play campaign, by it's very nature, requires limitations in the name of playing fair. We all have to be playing the same game. One of those things is we do not get to pick and choose what rules we want to follow. We go to our GM for that. In this case our GM is Mike Brock. The GMs at the table are assistant judges who only have what authority Mr. Brock gives them. He get's to make the calls as to what we can ignore and what we must accept.
By following only the quote you give, I as a player can make anything I want in any campaign and the GM can't say a word about it. How many games do you know that let that fly? Would you want to run or play in such a game? I wouldn't.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
So, what is the change between a summoner having an elven hound and a druid? What is the issue?
Elven hounds cannot exist in Golarion due to legal issues. So it's by definition in conflict with the official PFS world.
In previous campaigns (LFR, Green Regent, Living Greyhawk, Xendrik and so on) I've done my share of reskinning (and funny characters), but in hindsight I regret this.
Insead forcing my character onto the world and bending or breaking rules and descriptions to make it fit I now try to create a character that is in accordance with the world both in canon and in rules. Really feng shui.
Everyone in this entire thread agrees that any reskinning that provides a mechanical benefit should be disallowed. If you want to argue that there's no such thing as a zero-benefit reskinning, be my guest.
I would phrase it differently: I think there's no way to know in advance whether a "reskinning" would have a benefit or not at some point in the future. That's what I was trying to get at with my giant-cat-that's-really-a-horse example; I think we can all imagine some situation where a giant cat might be treated differently from a horse in a PFS game (in terms of how an NPC might react, or in terms of "common sense", or what have you), above and beyond whatever the cat-horse's stats are.
|
|
I see another question just as big as the re-skin legal/ban question...what IS re-skinning?
I have a pirate PC who wields a scimitar, but calls it a cutlass. No mechanical change to the item.
Would you consider that a re-skin?
If a cutlass actually existing in the rules, would it be a re-skin?
If the GM says there is no re-skinning and says I have a scimitar, what's to stop my character from calling it a cutlass anyway?
Of course, calling a longsword a lightsabre would be re-skinning, but what about calling a camel a llama or alpaca?
|
Did you use the actual names or the reskinned names when filling out your character sheet or chronicle sheets? Example such as taking weapon focus:katana instead of weapon focus:bastard sword, or buying a masterwork bastard sword vs buying a masterwork katana. This is when reskinning can make a huge difference. If all your record keeping was done using the original items then it can be seen as just name fluff.On the other hand if you were using the reskinned names on all your paperwork. Do you now get to swap to the newer stats since all the text on your paperwork says you had the newly released item the entire life of the character? It creates an inconsistency within the campaign rules.
If you and another player with an asian character sitting down at the same table, both have a katana and one of you is using the stats of a bastard sword and the other the UC katana you might create confusion.
Not to mention the fact that it might create resentment by some that you had an “illegal” piece of equipment for months/years before anyone else got to have one. Regardless of what rules you were using to represent it.
It's one of those 'more is less' situations, and is one of the reasons I didn't buy UC.I’m not sure all the reasons you didn’t buy UC are. They don’t prevent the rules printed in UC...
Character (My first) was made during early season 1. There was no hint that there was ever going to be any exploration of Tian any time soon and APG wasn't out yet. So I did some research and came up with the best analogies.
So at that point was I used the rules availible at the time and reffered to (in play) as the 'Naginata', 'Katana' etc. I made her a 'Naginata' specialist (common for RL females in samurai families) but the sheet says, weapon specialist:Glaive. I also took 1 level in ranger because I felt it fit the shinto-esque feel I wanted for the character.The point is I followed RAW as closely as possible at the time. Rules changed and I had already leveled up and hence could not ret-con my character, because that would be illegal. So bluntly, I feel like the character is grandfathered in. I'm yet to encounter a player whose had an issue with that stance, though part of my feelings about re-skining are based off this experince.
I also have 2nd level alchemist who has Profession:BBQ CHEF and uses cooking terminolgy to refer to his use of formula and refers to his flail as a 'meat tenderizer'. My fear is if a strict no re-skin rule goes into effect, some humorless GM will react badly to that as well.
It's why I feel strongly about this issue.
|
|
I see another question just as big as the re-skin legal/ban question...what IS re-skinning?
I have a pirate PC who wields a scimitar, but calls it a cutlass. No mechanical change to the item.
Would you consider that a re-skin?
If a cutlass actually existing in the rules, would it be a re-skin?If the GM says there is no re-skinning and says I have a scimitar, what's to stop my character from calling it a cutlass anyway?
Of course, calling a longsword a lightsabre would be re-skinning, but what about calling a camel a llama or alpaca?
That’s an incredibly good point Bob.
I think the 3 or 4 point list I created alludes to exactly your point.
In my mind, reskinning is exactly calling your scimitar a cutlass or a camel a llama or any other of a myriad of changes that are just fluff. The same as me saying Bbauzh’s heavy flail is a huge steel ball manacled to his wrists by two chains, which is not functionally any different than using a locked gauntlet with his heavy flail. I purchased the manacles and the locked gauntlet with starting gold.
But a medium cavalier who wants a boar, but can’t get one until its large at 4th level, reskinning a pony as a pig is, well cheating in my mind. That’s trying to bend the rules to get something before you can legally get it.
There is a huge albeit sometimes subtle difference between reskinning and outright cheating.
|
|
That’s an incredibly good point Bob.I think the 3 or 4 point list I created alludes to exactly your point.
In my mind, reskinning is exactly calling your scimitar a cutlass or a camel a llama or any other of a myriad of changes that are just fluff. The same as me saying Bbauzh’s heavy flail is a huge steel ball manacled to his wrists by two chains, which is not functionally any different than using a locked gauntlet with his heavy flail. I purchased the manacles and the locked gauntlet with starting gold.
Agreed, and I think the this is starting to become a settled point.
But a medium cavalier who wants a boar, but can’t get one until its large at 4th level, reskinning a pony as a pig is, well cheating in my mind. That’s trying to bend the rules to get something before you can legally get it.
In the famous 'dumpling incident' at Gen Con, it was a small caviler using riding dog stats for a pig that would grow into a boar at 4th level. To me that is atmosphereic and good roleplaying.
There is a huge albeit sometimes subtle difference between reskinning and outright cheating.
If there is no mechanical gain, how is it cheating? If you say because of appearance, that is easily handled by, 'it's a juvinile boar that looks rather young and scrawny'.
Speaking of which, that might be a solution. Perhaps allowing a 'young companion template' that is balanced for PFS (rather than the young template which I'm not sure about balance wise off the top of my head) in play would solve this one sticking point that people seem to be arguing about.
One other thing, If I as gnomish bard paint my riding pony bright green, (because I like green) or decide that the sparkles from my glitterdust spell are bright green is that reskinning? Where is the 'mechanical advantage' I supposedly get for being weird?
|
|
But a medium cavalier who wants a boar, but can’t get one until its large at 4th level, reskinning a pony as a pig is, well cheating in my mind. That’s trying to bend the rules to get something before you can legally get it.There is a huge albeit sometimes subtle difference between reskinning and outright cheating.
Well, alright, so then using manacles as flails is cheating, as its bending the rules to get something you aren't strictly allowed to have.
And now, while risking a threadjack, I feel this must be added: we have no evil PC rules, but evil acts are allowed. Does that mean we are reskinning a PC's alignment?
Ultimately, I have enough faith in the GM's to make fair and ballanced judgements as they need to. If a player doesn't like it, thats fine, they can leave the table or run their character the way the GM prefers, and find a GM who is more permissive of non-standard characters. Please, I see "fun" as the primary goal of Pathfinder, don't replace "fun" with "profession: rules lawyer".
|
|
But a medium cavalier who wants a boar, but can’t get one until its large at 4th level, reskinning a pony as a pig is, well cheating in my mind. That’s trying to bend the rules to get something before you can legally get it.In the famous 'dumpling incident' at Gen Con, it was a small caviler using riding dog stats for a pig that would grow into a boar at 4th level. To me that is atmosphereic and good roleplaying.
...I think that is actually a very impressive way to look at changing your mount. And, again, there is a noticeable difference between the big, hairy, aggressive, wild boar that is a 4th level option (with ferocity and a 1d8+4 damage gore attack) and a smaller, more domesticated farm pig (which, using the pony stats, would have fewer hit points and a 1d3 damage hoof attack).
|
|
...I think that is actually a very impressive way to look at changing your mount. And, again, there is a noticeable difference between the big, hairy, aggressive, wild boar that is a 4th level option (with ferocity and a 1d8+4 damage gore attack) and a smaller, more domesticated farm pig (which, using the pony stats, would have fewer hit points and a 1d3 damage hoof attack).But a medium cavalier who wants a boar, but can’t get one until its large at 4th level, reskinning a pony as a pig is, well cheating in my mind. That’s trying to bend the rules to get something before you can legally get it.In the famous 'dumpling incident' at Gen Con, it was a small caviler using riding dog stats for a pig that would grow into a boar at 4th level. To me that is atmosphereic and good roleplaying.
Well if the farm pig doesn’t exist stat wise, then reskinning something to be a farm pig is not a problem.
Reskinning a pony to a Boar is. Because a Boar has stats, and you can’t choose boar until a particular level.
The question then becomes, if a class as a restricted list, does that list restrict reskinning? The FAQ already states that Cavaliers, rangers and paladins cannot have anything under the “and the GM may allow others”.
Pigs do exist with stats. They are a Familiar choice for one. They just aren´t a valid Cavalier Mount currently.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
One thing I think many people are overlooking about "flavor" reskins are how flavor interacts with crunch in numerous ways. (Someone may have mentioned this in a previous post that I skimmed over, but it bears repeating nevertheless).
An animal reskinned as a different one may seem innocuous until it encounters a witch's familiar of the same type or any other creature with the ability to talk to a given subset of the Animal creature type. In the now-classic pig example, could a pig familiar communicate with the riding dog reskinned as a pig? This is ignoring the flavor implications of having a pig that is not a pig, as was brought up re: goblins in the original reskinning thread.
For weapons, there are countless sources that offer all sorts of weapons. And all those weapons are usable with various feats and class abilities. But reskinning a dagger to be a fork or something that would otherwise be an improvised weapon gives someone with weapon proficiency with a dagger proficiency with something that should always have a penalty to attack without specific feats or class abilities. People have mentioned the bastard sword/katana reskinning. If it was done before the katana had legal stats, it's still a bastard sword, and any feats taken in support of that weapon (like Exotic Weapon Proficiency or Weapon Focus) don't suddenly change to being for the katana. And to avoid confusion at the table, it should be called a bastard sword so the player doesn't get the deadly quality added to it for free.
I understand that people want to have creative license to create their character how they want, and for the most part, we want to give people as much license to do so as we can. But for consistency in an ever-expanding game, anything with mechanics should have as limited a scope of what it actually is as possible, because everything interacts with everything else on a mechanical level that can have unexpected results when things are shifted about.
All that said, Mike and I will be reviewing all the comments and discussions on this thread and putting together as clear and concise a rule as we can for review by the venture-captains before we put it on the FAQ, and continued discussion may sway how that rule takes shape, so don't consider this a thread-killer, just more to consider.
|
|
That is, in fact, my claim, Jiggy.
And there we have our point of departure. I do not agree; moreover, the only you get there Chris is to make unfounded assumptions.
If you will forgive me for once again using the GenCon example, reskinning a pony as a pig (a) disguises the true nature of the mount, and (b) implies that the cavalier is at least 4th level, when she can take a boar,
No, it doesn't.
A PC with a reskinned critter is NOT the same as an NPC with one Chris. You keep repeating this as if were true and it isn't. We have never suggested NPCs should be reskinned to mislead the players during PFS play. The players, otoh, operate in an information rich environment and are never deceived by reskinning so as to believe the character has some mechanical benefit that they don't have. Accordingly, the misinformation you complain of never manifests and has ZERO impact during play.
Moreover, a pig is not a boar. A pig is a domesticated farm animal; a boar in Pathfinder is a WILD Boar. It is large, hairy, has tusks, and is a ferocious beast that fights below negative hit points. To whit:
The difference between the two is plain and obvious to the naked eye.
Nobody is getting something they aren't supposed to get (a beast with tusks that fights below zero hit points); nobody is receiving a mechanical benefit, and nobody thinks somebody else is receiving a mechanical benefit, either. No feelings of injustice occur.
This is the point of departure for that entire Gencon Pig thread. You are insisting that players at the table are mislead (they aren't) and that people are getting something they aren't supposed to get until 4th level (Pig mount is a non-combatant, has no tusks, no increased hits or damage, no ferocity). Neither proposition is true.
A pig is a pig. To look at one with the naked eye, even to an untrained modern human who lives in an urban environment -- the difference is plain and obvious.
No. We're not insisting that everybody knows it's "not really a pig." We're insisting that everybody at the table knows that the pig has the identical mechanics as a pony; therefore, the players know the pig isn't providing the player with some mechanical benefit that hasn't been paid for or that is somehow unavailable to another player if they were otherwise qualified to get a pony (and also asked for it to instead be a pig). In that manner, all players know it's FAIR and that no favoritism or unearned boon is in play.
In that manner, justice is not only done, but it is seen to be done.
Then we just get on with the frikkin' game.
|
|
Reskinning a pony to a Boar is. Because a Boar has stats, and you can’t choose boar until a particular level.But you're not getting the Boar's stats, so what's the big deal?
I actually, personally, have a problem with someone trying to skirt the rules because the rules don't suit their "creativity". There is a reason that boars have a certain set of stats. And at the very least, in PFS, if someone wants to use a boar, they should use the stats that the boar has. It gets way too confusing if a GM shows up at a table and six different players all have something reskinned as something else that already exists. Conceivably, you could have six boars, all not really a boar. How is the GM supposed to run that table when he has no idea what rules each player is using for their boar?
The problem is, if it already exists, use that. If the class says you can't, there is a reason. Just because you want a pig, and understand why the pig's stats aren't appropriate for a cavalier for whatever reason, doesn't mean you can say your dog is really a pig and use the dog's stats. A GM should be able to look up the stats for a pig, and that's what your pig can do.
The only reskinning that should be legal, is if the creature doesn't already have stats.
|
|
Reskinning a pony to a Boar is. Because a Boar has stats, and you can’t choose boar until a particular level.But you're not getting the Boar's stats, so what's the big deal?I actually, personally, have a problem with someone trying to skirt the rules because the rules don't suit their "creativity". There is a reason that boars have a certain set of stats. And at the very least, in PFS, if someone wants to use a boar, they should use the stats that the boar has. It gets way too confusing if a GM shows up at a table and six different players all have something reskinned as something else that already exists. Conceivably, you could have six boars, all not really a boar. How is the GM supposed to run that table when he has no idea what rules each player is using for their boar?
The problem is, if it already exists, use that. If the class says you can't, there is a reason. Just because you want a pig, and understand why the pig's stats aren't appropriate for a cavalier for whatever reason, doesn't mean you can say your dog is really a pig and use the dog's stats. A GM should be able to look up the stats for a pig, and that's what your pig can do.
The only reskinning that should be legal, is if the creature doesn't already have stats.
If they are using a boar with non-boar stats, then sure, its cheating. And if they use a riding dog to simulate a large pig or lizard? Things without stats as a mount? Why limit their creativity? I have never had an issue with reskinning, and from what I've seen here, I know of only one recorded instance where it was an issue.
|
|
An animal reskinned as a different one may seem innocuous until it encounters a witch's familiar of the same type or any other creature with the ability to talk to a given subset of the Animal creature type. In the now-classic pig example, could a pig familiar communicate with the riding dog reskinned as a pig?
Hi Mark,
The one point that we all seem to agree on is that, if allowed, reskinning should not grant any mechanical benefit. So in this example, the answer would be no. The reskinned pony should not be able to communicate with the pig familiar, since for all mechanical purposes it is still a pony and letting it chat with the pig would be a benefit it otherwise wouldn't have. Maybe the Cavalier's mount just isn't the talkative type. Maybe the familiar and mount just don't like each other. Handwave it however you want, but the player with the reskinned pony would just have to accept that their mount doesn't get the crunchy benefit of talking with a familiar.
|
|
It gets way too confusing if a GM shows up at a table and six different players all have something reskinned as something else that already exists. Conceivably, you could have six boars, all not really a boar. How is the GM supposed to run that table when he has no idea what rules each player is using for their boar?
The same way the GM is supposed to run a table containing six different animal companions/mounts. If this theoretical party all has reskinned piggies (again, as Steel Wind pointed out just before your post, there is a big difference between the boar depicted in the rules and a less aggressive pig) then they should all be reskinned from legal animals the characters would otherwise have access to. So the GM doesn't have any more work then they otherwise would. Less, potentially. If the character is asking to reskin something then they should have a pretty good understanding of the base object to make the adventure as painless as possible.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Aberrant,
I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position so clearly. In particular, I appreciate your patience with posters whom you think clearly miss the point.
Here's my concern with your proposal: So, the witch's pig familiar cannot communicate with the halfling's "pig". So, the witch knows the halfling doesn't actually have a pig -- if it were a pig, the familiar could communicate with it.
Some goblins coming along will attack the halfling's "pig" with the same hatred they would to any other horse. The horsebane dogslicer +1 does its extra damage to the animal. So, the NPCs know it's really a horse / pony.
And a very easy knowledge (nature) check would reveal that it's all wrong as far as pigs go. (For one thing, it's Medium sized. The only Medium porcine animal in the game is a Boar.) If you're suggesting that a knowledge (nature) check wouldn't reveal its true nature, then I'd call that a mechanical advantage.
Under those circumstances, when the halfling's player asserts that the mount is a pig, but (1) it certainly doesn't act like the pig from the Bestiary, and (2) all the PCs and NPCs understand it's really a pony, then I wouldn't even call it a reskinning. That's a halfling being quaint.
Peace rest upon you.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
The fact is people can and do bring obnoxious character concepts all the time (Captain Andoran! anyone!). People don't need reskinning to be annoying. So it's immaterial to this conversation.
I happen to love my Captain Andoran! And the players who have sat a table with him have enjoyed him too!
|
First off: reskining has no mechanical effect as mentioned many times. even to npc reactions.
I sit down to play with people who I have not played before. I open declare my (longsword is the mighty flamberge of clan pickle hunter because i stained it red, boar is county fair prize sow named Petulia, barbarian wearing a tartan kilt is adventures cloths not an armored kilt)
option A: No prob, so I run with flare
Option B: A player or GM not crazy about it. So I don't add flare.
Option C: A player or GM willing to see how it goes.
during game.."I swing my red flaming flamberge toward the giants arm in rage. ie I swing my longsword at the giant"
If you add the extra narrative in every action you due, every table I've played at was ok with me dropping the extra narrative and quoty fingers after 10 minutes. If they chose for me to drop the flare, I would.
Simple as that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that people want to have creative license to create their character how they want, and for the most part, we want to give people as much license to do so as we can. But for consistency in an ever-expanding game, anything with mechanics should have as limited a scope of what it actually is as possible, because everything interacts with everything else on a mechanical level that can have unexpected results when things are shifted about.
Very true Mark, but this makes me think of another area where reskinning could come into play. Traits. I'm using a spoiler tag to save page space.
All of these traits provide mechanical benefit, but the descriptions are so generic that they could easily be reskinned to cover other, similar backgrounds and it wouldn't affect the balance of organized play. The bandit trait, which is arguably the strongest of the three I've mentioned since it is one of only a few ways to gain stealth as a class skill, is already open to anyone who wants to take it. Anyone at all. The only limiting factor is that you have to include a year in the River Kingdoms in a background paragraph that you don't even have to write. The Guide doesn't require you to create a detailed character background for organized play. The only fluff mentioned in chapter 2 is a short description of your character's appearance. It isn't as if a DM is going to take time out of the four hour slot to read every character's background. Even if they do, are you going to ban a character because every month of their totally optional background isn't properly accounted for?
So if anyone can take the Bandit trait, they why enforce the limitation that you have to include a year in the River Kingdoms? If I wanted to make a Tian fighter who made his living as a bandit, but fled prosecution and ended up in Absalom ... how does that disrupt the balance of the game? I'm gaining a mechanical benefit by taking the trait, but all I need to do now is included a short stopover in the River Kingdoms and it's perfectly legal as written. Or, I can not write a background at all and take the trait. Just shrug and say "yeah, he went there" if anyone bothers to ask about it.
Same for the Princess trait. It appeared in the Qadira companion, but it isn't limited to that region or faction. The only written limitation is gender. Since absolutely everything else between genders is mechanically identical, how does letting someone drop the "ss" from "Princess" affect organized play?
There have been some fairly outlandish "examples of reskinning" being bounced around the thread, but the problem I have with them is that they are exactly that. Outlandish. They are possible in theory, but if someone actually sat down at a table with a dagger reskinned as a greatsword, or a half-orc reskinned as a lich, would everyone just quietly accept it? Pathfinder society isn't a video game where players can exploit programming errors and the computer just has to take it. This is a social game. There is a DM serving as referee and 2 - 6 other players all sitting at the table who can and will call shenanigans. My position is that the vast majority of players looking to reskin something are doing so for honest reasons, and the minority that are looking for a loophole already exist and will look for those loopholes no matter what options are allowed or banned.
I'm not trying to come off as being sarcastic, so please don't read it that way and I apologize in advance if this comes off as such. I just don't see a problem with getting more mileage from existing material by looking at it from a creative angle and adjusting the fluff accordingly. I'd rather do that then create three different traits (to cover princes, princesses, and non-royal nobles) when we already have one trait that can easily cover dozens (or even hundreds) of potential origin stories.
Amusingly, reskinning a trait is more of a big deal in a home game than in organized play, since in a home game the DM has the ability to work the traits into the campaign. In organized play character backgrounds really only matter to the player, not the campaign.
|
|
Aberrant,
Here's my concern with your proposal: So, the witch's pig familiar cannot communicate with the halfling's "pig". So, the witch knows the halfling doesn't actually have a pig -- if it were a pig, the familiar could communicate with it.
This is easily handwaved as a bad accent or 'they speak different dialects of 'pig'.
Some goblins coming along will attack the halfling's "pig" with the same hatred they would to any other horse. The horsebane dogslicer +1 does its extra damage to the animal. So, the NPCs know it's really a horse / pony.
Realistically, the horsebane dogslicer a highly unlikely thing to happen. We've had close to a hundred PFS modules by now and ONLY ONCE have we come remotely close to this happening. So realistically, it has about a 1 in a 100+ (I assume it will be at least 50+ module where it might come up again) and even then nothing even remotely that extreme has ever come up.
That is why I would settle this with making the rule confers no mechanical advantages in the vast majority of situations likely to be encountered by the PCs.
Lets face it. We've had one module where reskinning like this has been an issue and even then, it has been very easy to find reason to treat the said pig 'just like' the standard riding dog. That is why it's called roleplaying.
And a very easy knowledge (nature) check would reveal that it's all wrong as far as pigs go. (For one thing, it's Medium sized. The only Medium porcine animal in the game is a Boar.) If you're suggesting that a knowledge (nature) check wouldn't reveal its true nature, then I'd call that a mechanical advantage.
No, you go to the riding dog stats which the 'variant pig' is using and point out the picture just doesn't match, if need be spelling it out, and point out the appropriate stats just like you would with a standard knowledge:nature check.
Of course, very seldom would one player look up the stats of another PC's animal with a Knowledge:Nature check.No mechanical advantage is gained.
Under those circumstances, when the halfling's player asserts that the mount is a pig, but (1) it certainly doesn't act like the pig from the Bestiary, and (2) all the PCs and NPCs understand it's really a pony, then I wouldn't even call it a reskinning. That's a halfling being quaint.
Even if PCs and NPCs were to go through all that trouble (highly unlikely)
1) It acts like a pig.2) No, the PC's understand it's a pig.
If the GM insists it's a pony, he's being the kind of stick in the mud that tends to alienate players and encourage them to leave organized play, which Paizo, who wants people to play PFS, should actively discourage. This is the primary light from which ruling should be made.
Peace rest upon you.
And you.