|
OK, so as to be clear, this would apply to home games, not PFS (as reskinning equipment is not RAW and is therefore not doable in PFS).
That said, do you allow reskinning of equipment (i.e. - allowing armor of type X to have the stats of armor Y, or allowing weapon X to have the stats of weapon Y)? Please give your reasoning behind your answer (I'm looking for more than a yes or no here).
EDIT: To be clear there are (at least) two types of reskinning. The first being exchanging the stats of weapon/armor X for weapon/armor Y.
This is the main focus of this thread.
The second would be a PC having weapon/armor X but simply calling it weapon/armor Y. This has no mechanical issues (though could lead to some interesting role playing ... "hand me your short sword. What short sword?"), and is not the main focus of this thread.
|
|
OK, initial post out of the way. My personal stance is no, I don't allow reskinning of equipment. I view the stats for a listed weapon or armor to be the definition of that specific weapon or armor type. It is, in essence, the in game definition of what exactly a longsword is ... or banded mail, etc.
Change the stats, you change the definition. You change the definition and you get a cascade effect as other rules related to those items become affected by the change as well.
I reskin magical weapon properties all the time. But as far as mundane reskinning goes, not so much. I've reskinned daggers as "long knives" for a player who wanted to play a "knife fighter" before there were any knife fighter options. I've reskinned javelins into other thrown weapons and stuff like that. But that's always to support a character concept that could not be obtained (or we couldn't figure out how to obtain) from the rules.
I wouldn't reskin a longsword to do damage like a greatsword, if that's the sort of thing you mean.
|
|
Yeah, this is more specifically looking at reskinng a specific mundane weapon to have the stats of a different weapon, or one type of armor to have the stats of another.
I can see an argument within the same group (such as the scale mail/breastplate discussion that resulted in this thread to avoid further derailing), but don't really agree with it. I can't see an argument for a shift between two completely differing groups (such as the longsword/great sword discussion in the same thread).
|
|
Eh if you mean reskin as in using the mechanical stats of a greatsword but calling it your boomstick or whatever then that's fine as long as the rules are consistent and being applied properly who really cares.
yeah, that falls into the second type outlined in the OP, the one I'm not concerned about.
Changing the stats though that's questionable although there is a fair argument for it on the basis that it would reduce the overall bloat of obvious trap picks in the game.
|
|
Sure, but if you are playing for a specific feel and look, without any concern for optimizing or reskinning (where scale mail is scale mail and not breastplate), the the argument remains valid and enchanted scale mail remains an valid option. Running with the stance of "must get armor A, B or C if you want light, medium or heavy armor" tends to lead to a vanilla feel to a campaign IMO.
|
|
Sure, but if you are playing for a specific feel and look, without any concern for optimizing or reskinning (where scale mail is scale mail and not breastplate), the the argument remains valid and enchanted scale mail remains an valid option. Running with the stance of "must get armor A, B or C if you want light, medium or heavy armor" tends to lead to a vanilla feel to a campaign IMO.Maybe but if you only let scale mail be scale mail and someone wants to wear it then they are going to have a weaker character, if you're okay with that and everyone is at the same level of power that's fine.
If however you have the leather wearing Rogue and the Chain Shirt Rogue in the same group in combat, then the guy in leather is going to be less useful. If however you make a chain shirt and leather the same mechanically then they are both just as good as each other and they can look however they want to look without it getting in the way of the gameplay.
Yes, but then you take away the cost of making a conscious decision. If a rogue wants to be leather clad because it fits the player's concept for their character, then there is a cost associated with the decision (-2 AC but no penalty to Dex and Str based skills) just as a chain shirt wearing rogue has costs associated with that concept (+2 AC but a -2 to Dex and Str based skills).
I am a HUGE proponent of skinning. One of the favorite examples I have heard is skinning a Samurai class who uses a Katana as a Knight wielding a bastard type sword. The role-playing is paramount and the skinning allows the rules to stay consistent while allowing the imagination to run wild with what type of character someone wants to play.
Another case might be using non-lethal sneak attacks and unarmed strikes as light touches from a master martial artist to disable an opponent using special locations on the body.
Yeah, to me skinning opens up a TON more options in the game with out giving up control of the balance.
Sean
For me:
Type 1 is a no.
Type 2 is a yes. Within reason.
A dagger is a long knife. In fact the word knife comes from another language wherewithal it meant dagger. It was corrupted by English.
A Longsword and a Broadsword are so close it is ridiculous. Quite literally the two most common examples of each have a 1/2" difference!
There is a reason why 3.5 stated a Katana was nothing more than a Mwk Bastard Sword. It was because the only difference in their functionality was the Katana was curved and there for better at slashing where as the Bastard Sword was better at stabbing.
Which now that I think about it is there even a difference in their stats in Pathfinder?
What I'm getting at is weapons might have close relatives, but some weapons are better. The Shotel, Sica, and Falcata all are related both in region and functionality. BUT the Falcata done the job better. There was a reason why it was carried by Greco-Roman troops all the way til WWII. It was light, fast, and can keep an edge for a lot of use.