|
What if the sorcerer walks around without a shirt though and with the small wings? I'm not sure how saying "you can have mechanically justified visual fluff as long as no one can see it" counts as allowing people to exersize their creativity.
This is exactly what I've been thinking and is why I'd love to see a clarification from campaign staff "you can do it as long as only you know about it and it never becomes aware to anyone ever" doesn't seem to make much sense from the perspective of an imaginative fantasy game.
|
The problem here, Stonecutter, is that we have to adhere to RAW as much as possible. So if it's not in RAW, it doesn't exist.
Let me give you a hypothetical for why there could be issues in play with your fluff:
You are going up against a villain who has spent most of the mod slaying winged creatures (a winged aasimar, a dragon sorceror, whatever). Tactics in the mod say that he will attack any creature with wings first and foremost with his awesomesuperdeathray(tm) but wont use it otherwise.
Now your vestigial wings have become a rules issue. Do I attack you with awesomesuperdeathray(tm)? You don't really have wings, but you did fluff them out and made a point of it. You seem to be fairly a reasonable in such a situation and it seems like you would say yes. But what about the other player who can't handle that decision? We just gave him the awesomesuperdeathray(tm) based on no real rule at all.
The reason people rule the way they do is that they are trying to be as fair as possible to everyone across the board. In doing so, some ideas are going to fall along the wayside in order to ensure that fairness.
|
|
puts on her white gown and sprinkles the ground behind W with purple sprinklesfollows along, collecting sprinkles
Hey, don't look at me like that! Do you have any idea how much catbunnygnome dust sells for?! I've got to make a living somehow!
bounces to drop some "dust" off her tail... and walks away giggling
|
|
Now your vestigial wings have become a rules issue.
Because of an insanely contrived strawman designed specifically to present an unlikely scenario in which vestigial details become a game effecting thing? This has just as much likelihood of coming up as a villain who hates blue. Well, now my wizard in a blue robe is screwed!
If we adhere to RAW so strictly that fluff becomes disallowed for fear it effects the game in any way, shape, or form, then we are playing a computer game with dice.
|
|
Stonecutting, this is exactly what happened that caused the original reskinning issue.
Player wanted a pig companion. Reskinned a dog as a pig. Played mod with goblins. Goblins have a racial hatred towards dogs. Is it a pig or a dog?
These things happen.
And if you're unwilling to discuss the possibility that it could, there's no real reason to continue the conversation.
|
|
Flint Bione,
I'm not saying that it's impossible, I'm saying that it's so unlikely that banning things left, right, and center isn't a rational response considering it's a fantasy game in which anything can happen. Also, there's still a difference between saying that the dog is a pig because you're fundamentally changing the race of a creature. Even then, the answer should relatively easily be "wing it!" If I happen to be wearing a holy symbol outside of my shirt where all can see it, only to find out the NPC has a thing against that god, I can't say "oh never-mind I didn't wear my holy symbol this morning" just like I can't say "Oh never mind I don't have vestigial details!"
Flavor stuff works because it's held to the same standards of consistency of any other kind of action. I don't think I've played in a PFS game where a GM hasn't had to wing it due to player interactions at least once per game, so arguing internal consistency be paramount above all in PFS doesn't make the most sense.
Not to bring up the pigdog argument again, though.
|
|
As I said, you appear to be one who would handle this reasonably, but there are a lot of people who wouldn't. That's why the original rule was created. It's unfortunate that sometimes rules have to be made for the lowest common denominator.
But the difference is that rule said "You can't take thing X and say it is thing Y." What's being discussed here is "Can thing X use flavor and incidental mechanics to indicate a non-major-or-mechanical similarity to thing Y as a bit of fluff that GMs may be forced to deal with in game terms every once in a while?"
I don't like playing in games with Kitsune, I wouldn't begrudge someone for the entire game and make their time miserable trying to pull off their "costume" if I happened to play with one.
|
I don’t want to continue the previous discussion, but I want to clarify one point.
In no way was I saying that I would have NPCs randomly trying to “pull off your costume”. That is something you inferred when there was no implication made.
I was merely making the distinction between an actual costume created with the Disguise skill, and an actual feature. If it is an actual costume, then NPCs could see through it with Perception and perhaps Sense Motive depending on if there is performance involved with the “new role”.
And there are several scenarios/modules where NPCs can capture PCs and take their stuff. Stuff can include clothing.
I wouldn’t go out of my way to mess with the player who chose to have their character wake up with a disguise. But conversely, the NPCs would have a chance to see through it.
|
|
I wouldn’t go out of my way to mess with the player who chose to have their character wake up with a disguise. But conversely, the NPCs would have a chance to see through it.
I don't disagree with you, actually. What I'm saying is that since I'm not trying to disguise a character as, say, half-shoggoth but more an orc with some shoggoth-y traits way down in its blood, that there isn't really anything to "see through" in the first place (unless the GM feels like messing with the character's backstory by pointing out "HAH, I CAN SEE WHERE THAT SECOND MOUTH IS GLUED ON WHAT AN AWFUL COSTUME" which is kind of a pointlessly mean move to do to someone trying to roleplay).
|
|
I don't disagree with you, actually. What I'm saying is that since I'm not trying to disguise a character as, say, half-shoggoth but more an orc with some shoggoth-y traits way down in its blood, that there isn't really anything to "see through" in the first place (unless the GM feels like messing with the character's backstory by pointing out "HAH, I CAN SEE WHERE THAT SECOND MOUTH IS GLUED ON WHAT AN AWFUL COSTUME" which is kind of a pointlessly mean move to do to someone trying to roleplay).
I wouldn’t go out of my way to mess with the player who chose to have their character wake up with a disguise. But conversely, the NPCs would have a chance to see through it.
So you get to use mechanics but a GM can’t, because you are roleplaying? Really?
If you actually use the Disguise skill, NPCs get a chance to see through it. You have the option to roleplay through the repercussions and fallout if they do.
|
|
Okay, lets run through a situation:
Character wakes up, puts on shoggoth-y costume, goes about day.
Final encounter with BBEG, the player could
A: not mention his costume in a more than passing way. There's no reason for the NPC to comment on it, since it's clear to the NPC it's a half orc anyways.
B: Try and seem more intimidating due to his extra costume parts. The NPC can try and see through his costume. If he doesn't, then holy crap, it worked! If he does, then he laughs off the attempt to seem more intimidating (though maybe the character is intimidating enough on his own, since we're talking about a circumstance bonus anyways).
In neither case is there a particularly necessary reason for the NPC to call out the costume for being a costume other than the GM being a bit of a dick or the NPC wanting to bring attention to his allies that there's nothing to be afraid of (In that case, he/she could easily just yell out "It's just another half-orc men, nothing to be afraid of!). The rules of using it as a costume are maintained, the players flavor of it not being a costume are maintained, and we've now discovered a way for those vestigial features to give circumstance bonuses to checks based off of the shoggoth-like traits.
No rules are broken or bent, nothing is truly "re-skinned" from a mechanical perspective, there's just an agreement between the PC and the GM to treat something as a part of the character in a way that doesn't grant an advantage not any character could just do.
|
|
As a comment, I was reading through the FAQ again and this really stood out at me:
Can I re-skin or re-flavor an animal companion or item?You may choose a specific type of animal companion from any of the base forms listed on pages 53–54 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook or a legal Additional Resource but may not use stats for one base form with the flavor of another type of animal. Thus, a small cat could be a cheetah or leopard, as suggested, as well as a lynx, bobcat, puma, or other similar animal; it could not, however, be "re-skinned" to be a giant hairless swamp rat or a differently-statted wolf. If a GM feels that a re-skinning is inappropriate or could have mechanical implications in the specific adventure being played, he may require that the creature simply be considered its generic base form for the duration of the adventure. A player may not re-skin items to be something for which there are no specific rules, and any item a character uses for which there are no stats is considered an improvised weapon (see page 144 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook).
Considering a half-orc and a half-orc with maybe a tiny bit of aberrant blood are the exact same mechanically but maybe a tiny different in how they are visually represented, the FAQ actually seems to be supporting allowing me to do what I want to do, with the caveat that there is an allowable DM override. I couldn't say "I'm a tiny bit aberrant therefore I've got a +10 to intimidate checks because I'm freaky looking."
|
|
But the difference is that rule said "You can't take thing X and say it is thing Y." What's being discussed here is "Can thing X use flavor and incidental mechanics to indicate a non-major-or-mechanical similarity to thing Y as a bit of fluff that GMs may be forced to deal with in game terms every once in a while?"
I agree that the FAQ post doesn't cover your exact scenario, I've asked Mike to look into it.
|
|
It does seem to kind of make sense that maybe if a Rogue can have fingertips cut up from years of disarming traps that an oracle or wizard could have a slightly visible otherworldly taint from years of messing with that which shouldn't be messed with. Just because one is possible in reality and one isn't doesn't make sense when we're contrasting people whose parallels exist in reality and, you know, spellcasters.
Removed some posts. Flag it and move on, people. Agree to disagree. Recognize that some things are not allowed in PFS. Ask for clarification, but be respectful of other posters if the answer isn't something that you like.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stone,
You have a right to disagree with what several VOs, including Andrew are telling you. But you keep asking for someone of authority to give you a definitive answer on the subject. While none of us Venture-Captains or Venture-Lieutenants have the authority to make final decisions on rules and are certainly not infallible, I would think that you should take our opinions as meaning something. We have more direct interaction with Mike and Mark than the average PFS player, and feel it is our responsibility to provide appropriate feedback on these subjects so that Mike and Mark can concentrate on their many responsibilities. Andrew and others have stated that what you are asking about, something such as vestigial wings on a character with no mechanical justification violates the rules against re-skinning. And at our tables (I'm including myself as I also believe it to be against the rules on re-skinning) we would likely tell you that your character does not actually possess vestigial wings. You are welcome to get up and leave my table at that point, and I honestly wouldn't hold any ill will towards you, but I also wouldn't feel bad about doing what I believe is appropriate in the PFS setting. You have made your point that you feel the re-skinning guidelines are ambiguous and/or that they do not apply in this situation, several of us have disagreed with you.
As Andrew stated a while ago, you are welcome to attempt to make the character that you are describing, but I think you are likely to sit down at a number of tables that don't allow you to roleplay the character in the way that you envision. Based on that alone, I would suggest you come up with another concept that you would enjoy that would not be at the GM's discretion to such an extent. There are many character concepts that unfortunately are not compatible with an organized play setting (or specifically this organized play setting) and this may just be one of them.
|
|
The Venture Captains have said "The faq clearly states minor non-mechanical details aren't allowed" and yet the bolded section I commented up above pretty much says exactly the opposite. Considering there's no clear answer, it seems rather silly for a VC to say "It's ambiguous so I'm saying no you can't have your fun."
|
|
Can I re-skin or re-flavor an animal companion or item?
You may choose a specific type of animal companion from any of the base forms listed on pages 53–54 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook or a legal Additional Resource but may not use stats for one base form with the flavor of another type of animal. Thus, a small cat could be a cheetah or leopard, as suggested, as well as a lynx, bobcat, puma, or other similar animal; it could not, however, be "re-skinned" to be a giant hairless swamp rat or a differently-statted wolf. If a GM feels that a re-skinning is inappropriate or could have mechanical implications in the specific adventure being played, he may require that the creature simply be considered its generic base form for the duration of the adventure. A player may not re-skin items to be something for which there are no specific rules, and any item a character uses for which there are no stats is considered an improvised weapon (see page 144 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook).
I have bolded the portion that I believe justifies why I would rule that you do not have the vestigial wings in the hypothetical that we are discussing. You have the right to disagree and I respect that, it does not however change how I would handle the situation.
|
|
I have bolded the portion that I believe justifies why I would rule that you do not have the vestigial wings in the hypothetical that we are discussing. You have the right to disagree and I respect that, it does not however change how I would handle the situation.
Considering that A: it is your right to do so and B: there is clearly some ambiguity in the rules, I'd hope your response would be to explain to the player that for this adventure we'll have to ignore it (though necessarily say it isn't there) for legitimate, predetermined in-game reasons in which it would become problematic. I would hope that you don't just arbitrarily decide you don't like what someone has done with their flavour and tell them "No, you don't have feature X. Deal with it." when it wouldn't reasonably come up in the adventure.
Because while the outcome in both cases is the exact same for everyone, only one of those two solutions doesn't feel like the DM imposing his view on how someone else's character "should" be in a really hostile way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ok, we are going round and round in this message post and people are starting to stoop to areas they shouldn't. Stonecunning, the VCs and VLs have done a good job at answering your questions while I've been tied up in meetings and Paizo Con planning and prep. There is no need for me to restate everything that has already been stated by the campaign volunteers I have put into place.
At this point, it appears to be solely argumentative and this thread is locked.