Given the plethora of options available in the Pathfinder d20 system, how open are you to customizing rules to fit your characters?
Would you allow racial traits, feats, and such to be re-tooled or skinned according to your players' back-stories? Or, do you require they meet all prerequisites described in flavor text?
For example, a player wants to play a hardy elf character, but they hail from a forested region rather than a desert. Would you allow them to select "Desert Runner" in place of "Elven Magic?"
I tend to try to provide player's the opportunity to play a desired concept and will work hard to adjust things to allow it, while still keeping the character balanced.
In our group custom races aren't rare. Custom traits, features or spells are even more common than custom races.
Another example might be languages.
If a character has 12 Intelligence, they are allowed a bonus language. Would you allow any language to be selected, even if the character has no way of justifying having learned it? Or would you require the character first have come into contact with a speaker and studied the language for some time?
I'm sure this one shows up often as adventurers gain levels, too. If a character puts a rank into Linguistics while stranded in a dungeon, do they somehow find the time to miraculously learn to speak Aklo or Undercommon?
I always allow reskinning(changing fluff that does not impact the rules).
If the flavor and mechanics are intertwined then it is a case by case basis. For traits I pretty much ignore the flavor text. All I do is make sure it stays in the same category. As an example a regional trait can be reskinned to fit another region.
Using your example of the desert trait being reassigned to a forest I could just make up a reason why they had a hard time staying alive in the forest in the forest. Maybe they were an outcast, and had to fight for their food or survival in another way.
For the bonus languages they are restricted to what the race can learn at character creation, per the book. I might relax restrictions, but I don't impose more restrictions. I don't think it makes the game more enjoyable. If you are gaining levels it just says you if you take ranks in linguistics you get to choose a language. You can always say they have books with languages in them. It is assumed the characters are improving themselves in their off-time.
An another example if someone wants a level of rogue I will assume they had some prior experience and were learning it all along. You can have your players plan their entire character up front, but not everyone likes to play like that. I do it, but many people want the character to grow with the story.
If the flavor and mechanics are intertwined then it is a case by case basis. For traits I pretty much ignore the flavor text. All I do is make sure it stays in the same category. As an example a regional trait can be reskinned to fit another region.
I've done this before, specifically with "Indomitable Faith" as many characters aren't religious. Still, it sort of feels like cheating. At least, it is if the name is kept the same. Usually we'd drop the "Faith" part and call it simply "Indomitable," or in some cases we've scratched out "Faith" and wrote "Mind." It gets harder with racial traits, though.
Actually for some odd reason traits are one of the few things I don't like to re-skin.
A problem I've run into with a character involves the "City-raised" alternative racial trait available to half-orcs. Now, normally I'd be fine with a player selecting this trait in place of "Weapon Familiarity," but the character in question was raised amongst a nomadic clan of orcs (not humans). Now, the character would have visited a city from time to time (Urgir, in the Hold of Belkzen) but still--doesn't feel like enough to warrant the racial trait, as it specifies the character being raised by humans.
I use to allow this kind of stuff in the past. It always turned out bad. Perhaps I just had evil players back then :P
I think it's important to know what your standing on. I don't let the players change the rules and I don't change the rules. My players know that they can really on the rules being there when they need them and they can really on there GM following those rules.
I sometimes consider allowing something that I would consider an oversight or that there is clearly a place for.
If they just want Desert Runner because they like the ability then you should say no. That's not what traits are for.
With traits if you pick the trait you also follow the description. This is the only time except alignment restrictive classes where I demand the players play the flavor text.
For the bonus languages they are restricted to what the race can learn at character creation, per the book. I might relax restrictions, but I don't impose more restrictions. I don't think it makes the game more enjoyable. If you are gaining levels it just says you if you take ranks in linguistics you get to choose a language. You can always say they have books with languages in them. It is assumed the characters are improving themselves in their off-time.
Does it make sense to just gain a language though? Wouldn't it require actually speaking to someone fluent in that language? You might be able to learn its written form, but in the cases of dead or foreign languages--I'd imagine you'd have to hear is spoken aloud.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An example of why I am laid back with traits-->I think the regional trait to gain perception as a class skill limits you to Abadar. No other trait, unless you include campaign traits can do it. I don't see why you have to be in Abadar to learn to be observant.
There's one that precludes a career as a tomb raider, limited to (I think) Osirion, but it suffers from the exact same problem you listed. It's too inclusive. Then again, why isn't Perception a class skill for everybody?
This game gives me headaches sometimes.
Does it make sense to just gain a language though? Wouldn't it require actually speaking to someone fluent in that language? You might be able to learn its written form, but in the cases of dead or foreign languages--I'd imagine you'd have to hear is spoken aloud.
It says you learn to read and speak. It doesn't say you speak the language well.
I figure if you have a ton of ranks in linguistics you pick it up fast-fast.
As for long dead languages. Your player can't pick the language if he can't write it's name down on a sheet.
I would say no a long dead languages isn't common enough to learn.
For the bonus languages they are restricted to what the race can learn at character creation, per the book. I might relax restrictions, but I don't impose more restrictions. I don't think it makes the game more enjoyable. If you are gaining levels it just says you if you take ranks in linguistics you get to choose a language. You can always say they have books with languages in them. It is assumed the characters are improving themselves in their off-time.Does it make sense to just gain a language though? Wouldn't it require actually speaking to someone fluent in that language? You might be able to learn its written form, but in the cases of dead or foreign languages--I'd imagine you'd have to hear is spoken aloud.
If the game were meant to be more realistic I would agree, but it is just an abstraction. As an example speaking a language and reading a language are not the same thing. The game does not separate them though, and the rules don't say even if you take a rank in linguistics that you can't select a language unless the GM allows you to hand around certain people for X amount of weeks in game time. If the language is a dead language then maybe he has some past exposure to it.
If I want to pick on the rules for not being realistic I can do it in other places.Using your shield to block the attack of a huge creature will probably leave you with a broken shield, or at least a broken arm. Not being able to move should deny you, your reflex save. A tiny creature's sword should not even pierce a dragon's scales. It would more likely break first, and/or not be long enough to achieve penetration. There is an entire thread on this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's one that precludes a career as a tomb raider, limited to (I think) Osirion, but it suffers from the exact same problem you listed. It's too inclusive. Then again, why isn't Perception a class skill for everybody?
This game gives me headaches sometimes.
Fighters don't get perception, but commoners do.
PS:In my games everyone gets perception. :)
I agree it isn't realistic, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Just because a PC can learn a language by putting a rank in Linguistics, doesn't mean a player should choose that option. If it doesn't make sense in context of the game he's playing, he should consider another option.
What makes sense is not subjective though, and you have to decide what you can and can not except. I think you are speaking more of immersion. As an example, choosing to take 1 level in class X to get a class feature would not sit well with you if it was only for mechanical reasons.
I believe you are correct.
I allow refluffing in most parts, custom traits, and even class skill swaps.
All within reason of course!
(No swap of CS Profession for CS Perception, e.g.)
But a witch with bluff instead of intimidate as CS? Sure, why not.