|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi Chris, thanks for writing back and giving me a rational response. We have a rules thread where people are actually discussing rules and that makes me happy. Here is my response (spoiler tags again to limit size):
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.
The players in question both know that the halfling character is riding a pony. The player of the halfling wants to play a pig-riding halfling that will someday (4th level) grow into a boar-riding halfling, but pig is not an available option so they're going with the legal pony option but calling it a pig. The players know this.
So the players know that the pig familiar can't talk with the "pig" mount because that would be unfair. That would give the pig mount an ability it doesn't already have and we all agree that reskinning should not give a mechanical benefit. So one of two things can happen.
1.) The players can simply not make an issue of it at the table. The "pig" mount is mechanically still a pony, and both players know that the familiar can't talk to ponies. So neither player pushes the issue, their characters don't think of it, and everyone plays a good game.
2.) As above, only the players come up with some creative in-character reason why the familiar and mount don't talk. Maybe they don't get along. Maybe the mount is mute. Maybe the two get along so well that they don't want to let the big folk in on their inside jokes. Maybe the two pigs are former lovers who had a bad breakup. The possibilities are endless, so long as the two critters aren't used to exchange meaningful information. A lot of creative roleplaying can come from this. Especially if it happens more than once and your character ends up witha very ... friendly ... pig. I can hear it now "wait, you two also know each other?"
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.
As for the extra damage, the goblin characters can't see the damage dice so they have no idea how many points of damage they are doing to the pig/horse. They may understand in general terms ("I'm really kicking this pig's bacon!") but, again, you can just roll with that in-character. The players and DM all understand why the "pig" is suffering extra damage, but the characters can write it off as bad luck or skill, or whatever. However the players want to rationalize it. The goblins will probably rationalize it in song ... that I hope you sing to the players while hacking apart the cavalier's pig.
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.
How you handle it depends entirely on how you handle knowledge checks. You can just read straight information from the pony entry but show the picture of a pig, or you could take the opportunity to remind everyone that you're using the pony stats. Whatever. Of course, since players are the ones doing the reskinning this isn't that big of an issue. The NPCs know what the DM wants them to know, which probably ends up being "that there is a big pig". I would have a few farmers offer to buy it. Just for fun. Maybe improvise the companion winning a blue ribbon in the local village stock show. Time permitting, of course.
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.
I'd only lean in that "people will treat you like you're crazy" direction if what they wanted truly was insane ... I'm talking "my character is the avatar of a god!" or "I'm a lich!" level of wacky ... then I'd at least point out the flaws in that concept (you have 6hp ... and your character isn't undead) before reminding them that running around telling people you're an avatar of a god would get the same sort of response in the game world that it gets in the real world.
If I'm going to flex the rules as a DM, I'd rather flex them to be more inclusive than to be less inclusive. This is especially true in organized play where I have to sit at a table with complete strangers instead of my regular friends. I pretty much know now exactly what my friends are going to play in our home games. Who will be a fighter, who will play the cleric, etc. In organized play, I have no idea who I'm sitting down with so I sort of have to keep an open mind. I may not like Numeria, for example, but it is an established part of the campaign world that has been involved in published adventure paths, so if someone sits down with character from there I don't really have a right to complain, now do I? There are even published traits from that region. It's fair game. I have to adjust my expectations by what other players bring to the table. That's not just a hallmark of the in-game Pathfinder organization that my character is a part of, I feel it is the polite thing to do.
Peace rest upon you.
To you as well. Right now, I'm more interested in the rest though. Goodnight.
...note to self, remember to work a tribe of vegan goblins into next week's adventure. Also, halflings with promiscuous pigs. Also, Numeria. I actually do have a big soft spot for that zany place. I bet it could be done really, really well. Especially if combined with some "John Carter of Mars" style planet hopping. Hmmm ....
|
After Reading most of the posts on this topic I would have to say I would not support reskining.
I would like Mark and the other DEVs to increase the number of animal companions and mount choices for Rangers Paladins Cavaliers and other archtypes that get animal buddies, I think this would solve the probelm of reskining with animal comapnions and mounts.
|
I'd recommend adding a few more options for the cav and/or ranger (from the list of 'may be allowed with GM's discretion') to counterbalance cutting down on reskinning.That is an entirely different topic saved for another day. We aren't going to touch this one yet as I am trying to balance read feedback with work.
I don't think you should restrict reskinning without vastly expanding options available for animal handlers in PFS. B3 won't help us any if B2 still isn't even on the approved-for-PFS list, which it wasn't as of last time I checked.
I'm of the opinion that the majority of reskinning is just players' attempts to deal with the flat restriction of PFS GMs from having any leeway to grant 'additional choices with GM's permission'.
I don't have the breadth of experience in PFS as most but I don't think most players' desire to use reskinning is more of an issue than this. I hadn't even heard of Star Wars refugees in Golarion before Michael's expression of his fear of letting in a horde of them.
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been following this thread with interest. Technically there will be very few times where reskinning will have zero impact on mechanics of play, though in many cases will have an impact so tiny as to be negigible.
On the famous pig, in RL pigs, domesticated porcines get large enough for something the size of a halfling to ride. It is a flaw in the rules albeit an understandable one that all pigs from a potbelly to Yorkshire are small and all boars are medium.
If the a tiny PC could ride the pig then allowing a small one to ride a pig the same stats but classed as medium seems to be sensible. Putting it in rules terms should not be too complicated.
20 years ago I had a NPC who used a fork which he had to use a weapon proficiency to use without penalty. It eventually got enchanted and was a fondly remembered bit of fluff. It is an improvised weapon and there are mechanics for that. Equally the pre katana build of an eastern style PC is legally built and calling the hand and a half sword with a slightly curved blade a katana is so minor as to be what I think lawyers refer to as de minimus..... i.e. Too small to count.
So I guess I am saying that reskinning to smooth over gaps on the RAW should be legislated for but not there is a significant mechanical effects.
W
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I really dislike this interpretation.
If I reskin something, then it is that something else for all intents and purposes, except its stats might be a bit skewed from the stats of what that thing really is.
For the pig example. The riding dog/pig thing is a pig for all intents and purposes in how it is reacted to by the NPCs and the scenario. It just uses the stats of the riding dog so that it has some stats.
The problem with this, is that the pig already has stats, and there is a reason why a pig (might not be any other reason than at the time of the FAQ question, the campaign staff didn't want to take / didn't have the time to vet a list of extra animals for ranger companions and paladin/cavalier mounts) is not available for the cavalier.
The only animals that should be allowed as new "skins" would be animals that don't already have stats.
For familiars, if someone wants a platypuss they could reskin a rat or a toad I suppose, and it grants all the bonuses and has the stats of the rat or toad, but it will interact with the world as a platypuss.
With your interpretation of reskinning, everyone who wants to do so is deciding to play a delusional character.
So in this case, just ban reskinning and have done with it.
|
For familiars, if someone wants a platypuss they could reskin a rat or a toad I suppose, and it grants all the bonuses and has the stats of the rat or toad, but it will interact with the world as a platypuss.
With your interpretation of reskinning, everyone who wants to do so is deciding to play a delusional character.
I have been following this thread with interest. Technically there will be very few times where reskinning will have zero impact on mechanics of play, though in many cases will have an impact so tiny as to be negigible.
On the famous pig, in RL pigs, domesticated porcines get large enough for something the size of a halfling to ride. It is a flaw in the rules albeit an understandable one that all pigs from a potbelly to Yorkshire are small and all boars are medium.
If the a tiny PC could ride the pig then allowing a small one to ride a pig the same stats but classed as medium seems to be sensible. Putting it in rules terms should not be too complicated.
I think that you are coming off far too rigid in this. I can appreciate the position behind it being immersive, but not the angle that you are taking with it and how that will come across to players. It was this approach, imho, that cause the problem with the pig at your table where it didn't at any other table that convention.
Had you approached the situation differently, from the sound of things, the players in question would have been fine with things. But the way you reacted caused a situation where they were not having fun.. rather than the 're-skinning' causing the problem.
All three of these posts get to the heart of the matter. It wasn't reskinning that was the problem; it was bad, overly rigid GMing, said GM came online, made an issue out of nothing on his very bad call(and we've all made them), and now we all may suffer have something vague and open nailed down in a pretty draconian fashion.
This is bluntly, a non problem on one table that the GM MADE a problem of which 70% of people have no problem with and another 27% can live with the current vague non ruling even if they don't necessarily, like it.
Secondly, nobody is is gaining a mechanical advantage, unless they go to absurd extremes as was inadvertantly illustrated by the post these people are refering to. Even then it was HIGHLY unlikely to come up, unless again, you go through all the steps are in all the steps that GM illustrated. 98.5% of players use Knowledge:Nature checks on an OWLBEAR, not on a horse/pig/dog and 1% of the 1.5% give it up once they get over being Newbys.
Unfortunately we can't legislate against bad GMing.
But should the game be held hostage to the lowest of low common denominators while most people 'get it' and even if they don't like it can live with it.
Bluntly, an outright ban on reskinning is the kind of thing that will drive away more players than it will satisfy.
All the Best,
Kerney
.. several negative and incorrect things...
Kerney, I don't play PFS and it is, in part, attitudes like this that keep me out. You might like to think that "flexibility" is the key to attracting players, but that's only true for some. For others, like me, I want to see rules enforced as rules, not excused by some GMs and not others. Yes, I take a strict interpretation approach. I'd be a "bad GM" in your view, and I would be offended at that.
Go back and re-read the "Pig Incident" thread. In the original post, Chris Mortika described being put on the spot in a particularly bad way.. a way in which the re-skinning directly contradicted the spirit of the adventure and clashed with the specific instructions in it.
Chris made his best judgment at the time, then came on-line to solicit advice for how to better clarify or handle such cases. He got some support, some advice, and a surprising amount of condemnation for being a "bad GM".
Coming on-line to look for a better solution is hardly what I would consider the mark of a bad GM. It is, really, the mark of a GM that cares about balancing the needs of all.. recognizing that standard rules are required to give consistent play results in an organized play environment, and that they must be applied consistently for that to work.. while also trying to ensure that everyone gets to be the hero they imagine.
It can be a tough call, and the last thing anyone else who was not there at the time should do is pronounce any such call "bad GMing" just because you don't agree with it. Your post comes across as "my way is right, and any other decision is incompetent or stupid". If anything, *that* is what I would say marks a "bad GM".
|
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.
Once is too much
The problem here is we all agree that Mechanical Advantage is bad. We cannot seem to agree where it's given. In the pig incident it wasn't even the mechanics that gave the advantage, it was the fluff! If the fluff gives you an advantage, its also too much.
It wasn't reskinning that was the problem; it was bad, overly rigid GMing,
The Gm followed the rules as had been set down by campaign admin. That makes him a bad GM?
By ignoring the rules you are not doing your players any favors. Especially if they travel to play at all under other judges. The person who should be blamed is the person who told them they could skirt the rules in the first place, not the judge that called them on it.
|
|
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.Once is too much
The problem here is we all agree that Mechanical Advantage is bad. We cannot seem to agree where it's given. In the pig incident it wasn't even the mechanics that gave the advantage, it was the fluff! If the fluff gives you an advantage, its also too much.
It wasn't reskinning that was the problem; it was bad, overly rigid GMing,The Gm followed the rules as had been set down by campaign admin. That makes him a bad GM?
By ignoring the rules you are not doing your players any favors. Especially if they travel to play at all under other judges. The person who should be blamed is the person who told them they could skirt the rules in the first place, not the judge that called them on it.
Ironically, the current campaign co-ordinator is the one who allowed the pig mount. Interesting, no?
|
|
I wanted to clear up one misconception: this proposal was not based solely on one incident, but on feedback from Venture-Captains & GMs, past experiences at conventions, and threads on these messageboards. IIRC, the original Josh board ruling was because of a boar-riding dwarf cavalier.
Much of the problem comes in trying to set a standard for something which is very subjective.
The one thing the "pig thread" did show was that the current situation is a problem. Whether you agree with the actions of the GM or not, it is clear that "GM judgement" is not sufficient because of all the bad blood that call created.
I think we can all agree that for Pathfinder Society, we want no advantage through reskins, nothing patently ridiculous, and nothing which would not appear in Golarion. And we need to make sure that a GM is not placed in an untenable situation when they follow the rule/FAQ.
Is there a wording which covers this without being a ban, open season, or subjective?
|
|
i'm in favor of a no-reskinning rule. but i too would like more choices for rangers.
a reason some Rangers might want to reskin is because the list of animals in the core book is so small. while druids may have 60+ animals to choose from once bestiary 3 is codified for pfs play, the ranger is still limited in what they can choose. none of the extra anmials from any of the bestiaries have been added to the ranger's list of animal companions. there's no love.
if an elven ranger could legitimately choose an elven hound as his animal companion, he wouldn't need to reskin. there's room to legitimately stat out some commonly reskinned things, publish them in a pdf for PFS play, and have consistency.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
Is there a wording which covers this without being a ban, open season, or subjective?
This of course is the nub of the issue. How to codify it all.
Incidentally I had not thought of it but in my first PFS game reskinning reared it's head. We have a player in our local group who really wanted to use sharpened fans as her witch's weapon. We said that within our local group we would play along but they were mechanically the same as daggers and if she played elsewhere they were in fact just daggers. Nor could she use their fan like appearance to e.g. smuggle a weapon in, the fan was clearly a weapon.
I think that if we want a rule that can be defined in a single sentence then a total ban is the only option. If we are prepared to give it a little more ink then we need to separatey address the main circumstances reskinning becomes an issue and I certainly hope we can.
On animal companions etc the rules IMHO should allow someone to apply a template to a boar to allow them to be a pig rider from the word go. A little work expanding what can be used in PFS might defuse reskinning in this area?
On allowing spell casters to claim their spells look different to each other. I would say absolutely not. I like the idea of magic as being something that wizzies tap into and just about control. I would ask for a trait that allows some personalisation of spells e.g. Allowing force spells like magic missile to look a bit icy while still mechanically just a vanilla magic missle.
I will have a think about exact wording but I hope someone can suggest a good compromise.
W
|
|
I think we can all agree that for Pathfinder Society, we want no advantage through reskins, nothing patently ridiculous, and nothing which would not appear in Golarion. And we need to make sure that a GM is not placed in an untenable situation when they follow the rule/FAQ.
Is there a wording which covers this without being a ban, open season, or subjective?
I don't think you'll ever have a magical wording that covers everything, but I also don't think you have to. The "Reward Creative Solutions" section of the Guide doesn't go into every possible situation or solution that could crop up. You give a general idea of what the intent is, you give a few examples to put us in the right ballpark, and you trust GMs to make the right call. "Dealing with Death" is the same. You kinda, sorta discourage killing off the whole party and encourage DMs to go easy on new players because in both cases doing otherwise could push people away from the campaign. You don't lay out specifics, or go into every possible situation where the players can otherwise derail an adventure, you just give a bit of general direction and trust the people at the table to work it out. Both of those sections contain a certain amount of subjectivity. It's just the nature of tabletop roleplaying.
So why not word it exactly like you worded it above? No advantages, nothing patently ridiculous, and nothing that does not appear in Golarion. Explain that if it ever matters mechanically in-game, the reskinned object should be treated like the base object. Is there subjectivity there? Of course. But it's not unreasonably subjective and it doesn't cause problems that don't already exist. There already are players who will try to take advantage of the rules. Players already can already bring ridiculous characters to the table. Players can already argue with the DM over enforcing the rules. Nothing really changes, except that players get a little more flexibility if they don't try to go crazy with it.
Give guidelines and examples. Explain the intent. Then let give the DMs and players flexibility to decide what they're willing to allow at the table. People just have to not be jerks and try to game the system, which isn't something you can legislate in a rule book.
|
|
Ironically, the current campaign co-ordinator is the one who allowed the pig mount. Interesting, no?
I was one of six GMs that did so and I gave my reasons why in that thread. I then admitted later I was in the wrong because I violated the current rule in place even though I thought there was room to improve the current rule. Lead by example and I did a very poor job as a Venture-Captain in that instance. I apologized for that and moved on. That incident and my actions taken is the primary reason I posted this topic for discussion so that I could receive feedback from the player base in regard to tweaking or changing the rule to make the campaign better for most. Unfortunately, some people perceive I've already decided this will be the rule when that is the farthest from the truth. Mark and I will take all the feedback provided here back to the Venture-Captain forum where we will decide the best ruling for the campaign at large.
|
|
Kerney, I don't play PFS and it is, in part, attitudes like this that keep me out. You might like to think that "flexibility" is the key to attracting players, but that's only true for some. For others, like me, I want to see rules enforced as rules, not excused by some GMs and not others. Yes, I take a strict interpretation approach. I'd be a "bad GM" in your view, and I would be offended at that.
Well, I enforce the rules when I GM when it come to all the mechanical aspects of the game. Reskining IMHO is not a mechanical aspect, but rather character flavor, therefore I'm fairly liberal even handed about this i.e. a platapus familar using rat stats, yes, a 1/2 pixie 1/2 dragon weretiger with a demonic bloodline who is the secret heir to the kingdom of the fuzzy wuzzies--no. As a player, I take my cue from the GM as far as that goes.
I have have a definition of a bad GM and it's not whether they take a strict interpretation approach or not. It whether they get players to leave the table, wish they left the table, or never come back to organized play.
Clearly, Chris on the day of the 'pig incident' ventured into that territory because, in handling the situation contributed to two players leaving (it wasn't the only thing, for example, vetoing perfectly reasonable actions like trussing up said goblins).
Chris made his best judgment at the time, then came on-line to solicit advice for how to better clarify or handle such cases. He got some support, some advice, and a surprising amount of condemnation for being a "bad GM". Coming on-line to look for a better solution is hardly what I would consider the mark of a bad GM. It is, really, the mark of a GM that cares about balancing the needs of all.
I'm one of the people who gave advice but also said his choice was bad GMing. That post is the most favorited post of the thread because I pointed out several cases where reskining is either required or highly desirable.
The fact that he came online is admirable. The fact that some people said 'dude, on that one, you screwed up' is also a reasonable reaction. We all learn and grow and I can honestly say my first time as a GM was PFS was BAAAAD. That Chris seemed to be picking up tips from that is a credit to him, as I also said at the time.
Your post comes across as "my way is right, and any other decision is incompetent or stupid". If anything, *that* is what I would say marks a "bad GM".
I never said his way was incompetent or stupid so please, don't put words in my mouth. If it came off as 'my way is right' the only thing I saying no to is the absolutist positions that many of the anti reskining people are expousing.
Once is too much
The problem here is we all agree that Mechanical Advantage is bad. We cannot seem to agree where it's given. In the pig incident it wasn't even the mechanics that gave the advantage, it was the fluff! If the fluff gives you an advantage, its also too much.
There are many once in a 100 or 500 time situations that come up in roleplaying that give one side a mechanical advantage and there is no way we could make rules to cover each and every one.
The Gm followed the rules as had been set down by campaign admin. That makes him a bad GM?
By ignoring the rules you are not doing your players any favors.
No, he was making an off the cuff ruling which the player was willing to abide by which, but along with several other rulings cumulated with the players leaving the table. The tone he set in enforcing his ruling was the problem.
Joshua Frost's post btw, was a suggestion rather than a hard rule, so saying I or anyone else is ignoring rules is not right. Therefore the part about 'ignoring rules' is irrelevant because no rules were broken.
In fact:
The "Reward Creative Solutions" section of the Guide doesn't go into every possible situation or solution that could crop up.
This reasonably could be interpreted to support reskining. Basically, using 'riding dog stats' to represent a 'pig' that at 4th level will grow into a boar could be seen as a creative solution (and you can reasonably disagree) to avoiding a break with roleplaying reality. And this is actually in the rules.
FINALLY from reading the responses to my posts it is clear I was coming off as an absolutist jerk, at least to some people. That was not my intent and for that I appologize.
|
|
Is there a wording which covers this without being a ban, open season, or subjective?
TBH, subjective seems to be the way to go. The GM at the table is the one who can best tell whether a reskin is going to affect the mod. It may be best to leave that in his realm. Barring that, I'd lean towards a ban.
FINALLY from reading the responses to my posts it is clear I was coming off as an absolutist jerk, at least to some people. That was not my intent and for that I appologize.
I have a habit of doing so as well. It tends to make me a tad paranoid at times as to how this or that will be taken. You've been reasonable but everone's frustration has shown through both on this topic and the 7-man table one.
I too will apologize if I came off as a jerk at some point. :)
|
|
No, he was making an off the cuff ruling which the player was willing to abide by which, but along with several other rulings cumulated with the players leaving the table. The tone he set in enforcing his ruling was the problem.
Joshua Frost's post btw, was a suggestion rather than a hard rule, so saying I or anyone else is ignoring rules is not right. Therefore the part about 'ignoring rules' is irrelevant because no rules were broken.
See this is something I'm not sure everyone was 100% on, but that may be because I took some time away from the boards recently.
People took the message board as suggestion 2 different ways. Some said that was from time immemorial and some said it was from that point on. How you interpret that will lead to a different response. Was there a time they cleared that up?
See this is something I'm not sure everyone was 100% on, but that may be because I took some time away from the boards recently.People took the message board as suggestion 2 different ways. Some said that was from time immemorial and some said it was from that point on. How you interpret that will lead to a different response. Was there a time they cleared that up?
No, so far as I know, neither Mark nor Hyrum posted that the decision was ever retroactive. And that puts me in the camp of any official rulings made in the forums before the date of that stickied announcement were still legal and enforceable. Though the wording in the current version of the Guide may have negated all of that anyway. But as I said in another thread, an official clarification is not a suggestion or a rules change, it is simply the writers of the rule showing how it really works to those that do not understand it. And once it is explained how it really works, it is expected that it is used correctly from then on.
|
|
I wanted to clear up one misconception: this proposal was not based solely on one incident, but on feedback from Venture-Captains & GMs, past experiences at conventions, and threads on these messageboards. IIRC, the original Josh board ruling was because of a boar-riding dwarf cavalier.
Much of the problem comes in trying to set a standard for something which is very subjective.
The one thing the "pig thread" did show was that the current situation is a problem. Whether you agree with the actions of the GM or not, it is clear that "GM judgement" is not sufficient because of all the bad blood that call created.
I think we can all agree that for Pathfinder Society, we want no advantage through reskins, nothing patently ridiculous, and nothing which would not appear in Golarion. And we need to make sure that a GM is not placed in an untenable situation when they follow the rule/FAQ.
Is there a wording which covers this without being a ban, open season, or subjective?
I think the proposed wording I've posted twice now does exactly that.
|
|
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.
I went through the entire thread one more time and I think mechanically, this would be a fair solution. A trait which allows the reskining of an animal companion, familar, whatever is commensurate with the very small mechanical advantage that can be gained in very limited situations, like one module out of 100 where a 'riding pig' gets to go with the goblins seems right, and less mechanically useful than having a new skill but still satisfy most 'anti reskiners' who see some mechanical advantage.
And it would be a popular trait none the less, in spite of it's mechanical inferiority to most traits.
Another trait that could allow minor changes in descriptors of spells, like my fireball is bright blue or the grease is rainbow colored.
Weapons could remain untouched with the understanding that the player has to make clear what they are (in the case of older characters), the most current rules should be used in the future and in the case of 'unwritten weapons' should use a reasonably accurate analogy, bola for net for example, not dagger for glaive.
What do people think of this suggestion?
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
In an earlier post I suggested that a trait could allow reskinning of spells.
The problem with animals and weapons is phrasing it to restrict abuse. Reskinning should not be a minor version of glamour. How to allow the rules to handle someone who wants the reskinning of eg a riding dog to an oversized pig and someone who wants a pony in a Rhino suit.
In principle I obviously agree that using a trait as a quid pro quo for the potential mechanical benefits is a good line of enquiry to go down. The devil is in the detail
W
|
|
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.
I went through the entire thread one more time and I think mechanically, this would be a fair solution. A trait which allows the reskining of an animal companion, familar, whatever is commensurate with the very small mechanical advantage that can be gained in very limited situations, like one module out of 100 where a 'riding pig' gets to go with the goblins seems right, and less mechanically useful than having a new skill but still satisfy most 'anti reskiners' who see some mechanical advantage.
And it would be a popular trait none the less, in spite of it's mechanical inferiority to most traits.
Another trait that could allow minor changes in descriptors of spells, like my fireball is bright blue or the grease is rainbow colored.
Weapons could remain untouched with the understanding that the player has to make clear what they are (in the case of older characters), the most current rules should be used in the future and in the case of 'unwritten weapons' should use a reasonably accurate analogy, bola for net for example, not dagger for glaive.
What do people think of this suggestion?
This could work pretty well.
|
|
The trait for reskinning isn't a bad idea, but I don't think it should be brought up for reskinning spells.. as I think that's a completely different situation than calling a riding dog a riding pig.
Who's to say that my hold person can't appear like bands of iron materializing around the victim? Who's to say my fireball can't take the shape of a phoenix as it heads to its point of detonation?
Not any GM, that's for sure.
So long as the player is roleplaying responsibly.. ie not insisting his spells have a wrong-for-setting look (my spiritual weapon appears like a lightsaber from star wars..).. saying NO to this sort of roleplaying is wrong on several levels.
Ruleswise: The book doesn't say it can never look this way..
Fluffwise: Magic is not scientific. The same spell doesn't necessarily need to appear the same way twice. When one casts Lightning Bolt, one is not manipulating the disparities in static electricty to cause a discharge.. one is literally making magic that has no, zero, zilch basis in science or any laws of nature. It's magic, it just happens.
Tablewise: The cardinal rule of free-form acting (ie, roleplaying) is you don't contradict what someone else has already established. Who's going to remain in their suspension of disbelief when the GM says "no, wait. Your spell can't look like that.." This goes both ways.. the player has a responsibility to be reasonable and stay both in character and in setting. If it needs to be said, then say "One cannot reskin Star Wars into Golarion." But reasonable people don't need that, and unreasonable ppl can never be legislated about ;D
|
|
Who's to say that my hold person can't appear like bands of iron materializing around the victim? Who's to say my fireball can't take the shape of a phoenix as it heads to its point of detonation?
Not any GM, that's for sure.
So long as the player is roleplaying responsibly.. ie not insisting his spells have a wrong-for-setting look (my spiritual weapon appears like a lightsaber from star wars..).. saying NO to this sort of roleplaying is wrong on several levels.
This is why we can't have nice stuff. The staff tries to open things up and you have people exclaiming indignantly that reskinning is their God-given right and the GM has no say in that matter.
That's why the eventual rule will be no reskining, because there are enough people in the campaign who will take any allowed flexibility to extremes, even if it is repugnant to the GM and other players.
|
|
The trait for reskinning isn't a bad idea, but I don't think it should be brought up for reskinning spells.. as I think that's a completely different situation than calling a riding dog a riding pig.
Who's to say that my hold person can't appear like bands of iron materializing around the victim? Who's to say my fireball can't take the shape of a phoenix as it heads to its point of detonation?
Not any GM, that's for sure.
So long as the player is roleplaying responsibly.. ie not insisting his spells have a wrong-for-setting look (my spiritual weapon appears like a lightsaber from star wars..).. saying NO to this sort of roleplaying is wrong on several levels.
Ruleswise: The book doesn't say it can never look this way..
Fluffwise: Magic is not scientific. The same spell doesn't necessarily need to appear the same way twice. When one casts Lightning Bolt, one is not manipulating the disparities in static electricty to cause a discharge.. one is literally making magic that has no, zero, zilch basis in science or any laws of nature. It's magic, it just happens.
Tablewise: The cardinal rule of free-form acting (ie, roleplaying) is you don't contradict what someone else has already established. Who's going to remain in their suspension of disbelief when the GM says "no, wait. Your spell can't look like that.." This goes both ways.. the player has a responsibility to be reasonable and stay both in character and in setting. If it needs to be said, then say "One cannot reskin Star Wars into Golarion." But reasonable people don't need that, and unreasonable ppl can never be legislated about ;D
I think what you are saying makes perfect sense and I'd be glad for something along the lines of what your suggesting. I would take what you wrote and copy it into the ruling, particularly torwards magical fluff. I only think it needs to be spelled out because, honestly, this thread illustrates that not everyone see things the same.
The only thing I disagree with is that there are GMs who would not only object to your 'chains' hold person and the 'phoenix' fireball, they would make an issue of it.
All the best,
Kerney
|
|
The only thing I disagree with is that there are GMs who would not only object to your 'chains' hold person and the 'phoenix' fireball, they would make an issue of it.
Well, I won't try to pretend that I'm being objective, but I will throw out my nerd membership card.. proud D&D player since, well, before most board members were born, I say with full confidence. The purpose of laying this card is to say that the VAST majority of this time has been on the DM's side of the screen.
It is with this experience that I say that I also can forsee GMs having issues with it, but only the bad ones(or inexperienced ones, to put it more kindly) for the reasons I stated earlier.
Not to say that primadonnas can't push this too far.. what I'm saying in that extreme case is that any GM can easily handle it with a time out and a talking-to. Needn't be codified as to when or how, since each situation would be different. (and, unlike a 'reskinned' animal, using imaginative/original descriptions of one's spells has absolutely no mechanical impact on the game. again, we're not talking about a fireball being described as a snowball in some flim-flammy excuse to get cold damage or to scare cold-vulnerable critters here..)
|
|
Can we please stop calling GMs against re-skinning Bad GMs, that is rude and uncalled for. Not only is being against re-skinning not related on how good a GM I am but that type of language just fosters anger from those against re-skinning.
Reskinning when there is no mechanical difference (spell's appearance) is not the same thing as reskinning when there is a mechanical difference, even a slight one. (dog to pig)
Being against the former IS being a bad GM (because it serves no purpose but to antagonize a player), being against the latter is not (because there IS a difference).
Sorry if it hurts feelings, but that doesn't change the truth of the matter. :(
|
|
Another thought.. being against reskinning has another blowback that a GM has to consider.
You won't get to do it, either.
Yep, that means you'll have to memorize what the color/taste of EVERY potion in the game is. You'll have to say potions of Cure Light Wounds are white, and taste like peppermint. (or whatever the PFS OP official standard would become). You won't be able to use your own leeway.
Thats just a starter.
|
|
Can we please stop calling GMs against re-skinning Bad GMs, that is rude and uncalled for. Not only is being against re-skinning not related on how good a GM I am but that type of language just fosters anger from those against re-skinning.
Can we please stop calling players and GMs for re-skinning cheaters or bad GMs? That is rude and uncalled for. Not only is being pro re-skinning not related on how good a player or GM is, but that type of language just fosters anger from those in favor of re-skinning.
Yes, both sides need to work on politness. Believe me, I'm trying.
As for a definition of bad GMing, it's any GM who alienates players to the extent that players either leave or wish they left or actively avoid playing at a table where they are GMing in the future. That can involve a lot of things, including making issues when there is no need or being too loose with the rules so that some players feel cheated.
Dragonmoon, do you have any solution that involves moving the conversation forward? Or are you saying 'I'm right and your wrong', end of story?
|
|
Dragonmoon, do you have any solution that involves moving the conversation forward? Or are you saying 'I'm right and your wrong', end of story?
All I am saying Is stop being rude to those that think re-skinning does not belong in Org play.
This has nothing to do with being a Good or Bad GM, and I am getting tired of seeing that Here.
You can give your opinion about re-skinning without offending those that don't want it.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
Things are getting a bit heated. There is a long standing divide over D&D magic, is it that you say the words and those words always have an identical effect (classic Vancian) or are you creating something out of nothing and can determine the appearance, the rules only dealing with mechanical neccesities.
In my best campaigns, all played so so long ago ... it was the case after few months players were basing potion identification on colour, smell and taste. They had a pretty shrewd idea what spell might be coming because of the special effects they had come to know and hate that precede it.
For me the spells in the game book were the most efficient way get the spell effect.
You surely could make your own version of a spell but if you wanted to add customisation then you were trading efficiency for flash, making the spell either weaker or requiring more power (higher level) for the same effect. Just like putting fairing on a motor vehicle looks cool but drags down performance.
Now I appreciate that PFS ain't my campaign. Both views have merits, I will happlily leave to Mike et al to decide if spells permit free customised effects or not, though clearly I would rather they did not.
W
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
My view for reskinning spells is: if spellcraft can tell what it is, then it's not even reskinning in my book.
"My magic missiles take the form of "icicles of force" that ram into my foes" is great, so long as everybody who's conversant with spells call tell that it's magic missile. It's not so great, if the caster implies that people think she's casting some other spell (maybe with the cold descriptor) instead.
You may not agree with my position, but at least I'm trying to remain consistent.
|
|
My view for reskinning spells is: if spellcraft can tell what it is, then it's not even reskinning in my book.
"My magic missiles take the form of "icicles of force" that ram into my foes" is great, so long as everybody who's conversant with spells call tell that it's magic missile. It's not so great, if the caster implies that people think she's casting some other spell (maybe with the cold descriptor) instead.
You may not agree with my position, but at least I'm trying to remain consistent.
So, changing the fluff of the spell but not the mechanics is fine? We can handwave the fact that enemies would think it was a cold spell, for example "Gah! Wait...that wasn't even cold!"?
|
|
So, changing the fluff of the spell but not the mechanics is fine? We can handwave the fact that enemies would think it was a cold spell, for example "Gah! Wait...that wasn't even cold!"?
The difference between someone changing the description of a spell for roleplaying reasons and someone changing the spell in attempt to sneak some sort of advantage is very obvious. No matter how sneaky those who fall into the latter think they are. In fact, the sneakier they think they're being, it's been my experience that the more obvious their attempts are.
Those who are merely trying to embellish their fantasy roleplaying experience (which in turn enhances everyone elses, let's not let that go unsaid) should NOT be lumped in with those who are abusing 'reskinning' in attempt to sneak an advantage in, nor should they be punished for those abuses. Any GM, even the 'bad' ones ;D can easily deal with such abuses at the table, rather than needing to legislate it from the rulebook.
I'm pro-reskinning when there's no mechanical effect, but changing the appearance of a spell can have mechanical benefit if the enemy puts up resist energy cold in response to your 'ice crystals'. If the player describes them as blue-tinged magic missiles that's fine, as it's clear what they are.
Some class features do actually allow the spell descriptor to be changed (although not MMs that I'm aware of), so my Wizard will be able to cast iceballs instead of fireballs for example, but there's a rules-legal way of doing that and the energy type does change as a result. If a character wants to be a frozen style caster then they should select a class ability that lets them do that, such as the elemental bloodlines. That way they get to chuck around *cold* spells, rather than spells that look blue but aren't really cold, which is surely more satisfying?
Reskinning should only exist when there's no way to achieve the same result within the rules, or there wasn't when the character was made - assuming we don't allow retraining.
|
|
My view for reskinning spells is: if spellcraft can tell what it is, then it's not even reskinning in my book.
"My magic missiles take the form of "icicles of force" that ram into my foes" is great, so long as everybody who's conversant with spells call tell that it's magic missile. It's not so great, if the caster implies that people think she's casting some other spell (maybe with the cold descriptor) instead.
You may not agree with my position, but at least I'm trying to remain consistent.
Chris - I respect you a lot - but how do you know your fluff isn't a problem at the next table.
I just had a monster/NPC afraid of fire. So your fluff of magic missile appearing as icicles is okay but if they appear like flaming darts I have to ask you to restrain yourself because you gain an advantage through your reskin?
Don't get me wrong - I don't have any problem with this. As a GM I'm more than capable to deal with issues like that. I just roll with it and adapt.
But your example isn't that fluffy and no other effect as you might think. You can actually use a metamagic elemental rod to get exactly the above effect. I do have a local sorcerer who is doing this as the character comes from the north and the bloodlines is White dragon. The character hates fire and turns fire spells into ice descriptions.
So please be aware you have no issues with a reskin that looks identical to the effect that did cost this player 3000 gp and he has three charges or would need the Elemental Spell feat and a higher level slot for each use while you offer it for free.
And in 80%+ of cases if monsters have no vulnerability to ice all that player achieves is fluff through an option that the rules allow with or without reskin.