Reflavoring... is it legal?


Pathfinder Society


So, I am curious. How legal is reflavoring in PFS? Below are some examples of things I might like to do with various characters...

The most obvious example is with any spellcaster, describing the effects of their spells in some custom manner. Still giving the DM the actual status effects, damage types, etc deal by the spell, but describing the attack in some different manner; be it minor (my magic missiles are purple skulls) or major (instead of an amber pea sized missile flying forth and exploding into a fireball, a sunflower grows out of the ground in the area I designate, then as it continues to grow and swell, the seeds each start to pop in small bits of flame, before it explodes into a huge ball of fire on that spot).

Another potential example; if I take a character who intends to acquire an exotic mount or companion later in his career, but for whatever reason cannot do so yet. Can I either have a non-functioning (flavor only) animal accompany me most of the time, just describing it as there for flavor but never using it in actual game play, and/or have a lesser creature which I mechanically play exactly as it is, but call it something else? Perhaps I will at a later level acquire a lion animal companion I intend to use as a mount; in the interim, I buy a more typical mount such as a horse or pony, and call it a lion; but still use the statistics for the animal I actually have. Then at later levels, I mechanically swap them out, but by flavor it is still the same beast?

Also - as improvised weapons have some gray areas in the rules, and I am unsure if it would be possible to get a masterwork or magical improvised weapon; would it be legal to take a standard weapon (say, a type of hammer or mace) and call it a mundane object (frying pan, rolling pin, etc.)? Using all of the standard rules for the true weapon selected, but just reflavor it as what would be an improvised weapon...

Dark Archive

In general, it is not legal.

If a description is not given for a spell, make up what ever you want. In your Fireball description, there is a reason it is an amber pea-sized missile.

Quote:
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.

You cannot re-skin animals. Please read The Great Pig Indecent of 2011. You can search the boards for follow-up remarks to this issue.

You can't reskin weapons the way you want either. Let's say you go into a place that doesn't allow "weapons" But you say, I don't have any weapons, just this rolling pin. But in truth its a club, reskined as a rolling pin. Now you go into combat and you can use all feats that give benifits to clubs that you've taken over the levels.

So in short, keep it simple, no reflavoring/re-skinning

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You can re-skin Character Traits, to my understanding, but that's about it. You definitely cannot re-skin Animal Companions, Familiars, or items.

Help/FAQ wrote:

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).

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

There are rules for improvised weapons, though, and a frying pan is one I've seen frequently, due to the Rough and Ready Equipment Trait.

Dark Archive

You will get some mixed answers here.

On one hand, you are not allowed to rebrand one animal as another. The most famous example is that you cannot have your riding dog actually be a pig; this is because certain creatures will react to your animal based on what it actually is, and it leaves the GM reeling trying to make the universe make sense.

As a GM, I would have no problem with you having a unique display of a magic missile spell, so long as it were still easily identifiable by all with a Spellcraft check. It may have a strange look to it, but the same DC 16 Spellcraft check would have everyone know that your purple skulls are magic missiles.

The sunflower effect is stickier, because you still need to have the pea-sized missile come out of your finger. However, I would be fine with you making it a fire seed of sorts that explodes into a fiery flower (easily identified by all as a fireball). You can't change the way the spell mechanically happens, but as for visuals, I think the more description, the better.

You can't call a horse or a pony a lion, for previously stated reasons. You could, however, purchase a lion (or hey, even a housecat), and say that you're training it and feeding it a growth serum. :)

Improvised weapons need to be what they are. A mace is a mace and a rolling pin is a rolling pin.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Cats and Tigers do share 95.6% of their DNA...

3/5

Even in PFS where people are super anal about flavor and reskinning I would think that you'd be fine with the spell descriptions. I believe that the spellcasting rules explicitly say that spell effects vary between casters and I would hope that a DM would be happy that someone is describing their spell effects beyond just saying what they cast rather than trying to tear down what you are doing because of the reskinning rules.

With respect to animals you are not going to get away with that in PFS. In a real campaign maybe, you could talk with the DM, but you can't do that in PFS so you are just going to have to make a bald-faced retcon of your character when you get the desired mount.


Nefreet wrote:
Cats and Tigers do share 95.6% of their DNA...

I would have thought it much closer considering human/bonobo (96+%) and dog/wolf (96%) human/banana percentages :).

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

10.8 million years of divergence does a lot to a genome.


Nefreet wrote:
You can re-skin Character Traits, to my understanding, but that's about it.

Does that include Regional Traits? I have a character I'd like Acrobatics training on, but he's not Andoran faction, and I'd rather not have to have him be from Tian Xia just so I can take Rice Runner.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Here is Mark Moreland's stance. I couldn't find one from Mike Brock, but Mark should be good enough.


Yup, that's pretty clear. Thanks for the quick response.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adam Mogyorodi wrote:
You can't call a horse or a pony a lion, for previously stated reasons.

I would amend this to say "You can't call a horse or a pony a lion out loud". What you call your horse and/or pony in your own mind is up to you; there aren't any PFS Thought Police to worry about. :-)

Shadow Lodge

The regional traits thing does touch on a gray area and you're right to think about it.

Say for example, someone uses a kitsume boon to make a short haired, dark furred cleric or oracle, put it in the Osirion faction, and picked the name Anubis for said character just randomly.

It is legal. You are reskining nothing.

You are taking a character from its intended "setting" in Golorian and putting it in another context. There is no way to make an offical rule on this. But it is is good to know your local community well enough to know whether it is 'kosher'.

And that is what I think anyone should keep in mind when thinking about the issues involved in close to but not reskin issues.

Sovereign Court

ProximaC wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
You can re-skin Character Traits, to my understanding, but that's about it.
Does that include Regional Traits? I have a character I'd like Acrobatics training on, but he's not Andoran faction, and I'd rather not have to have him be from Tian Xia just so I can take Rice Runner.

You can't reflavor away the requirement of being from Andoran.

There are two others traits what will give you training in Acrobatics besides those you mention. Soaring Sprinter from Quests and Campains, and Reckless from Ultimate Campaign. Neither has any requirement.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

RtrnofdMax wrote:
ProximaC wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
You can re-skin Character Traits, to my understanding, but that's about it.
Does that include Regional Traits? I have a character I'd like Acrobatics training on, but he's not Andoran faction, and I'd rather not have to have him be from Tian Xia just so I can take Rice Runner.

You can't reflavor away the requirement of being from Andoran.

There are two others traits what will give you training in Acrobatics besides those you mention. Soaring Sprinter from Quests and Campains, and Reckless from Ultimate Campaign. Neither has any requirement.

Reflavor was to remove the fluff-only requirement of Rice Runner of having been a slave from Tien.

And both of those other traits do, indeed, have a requirement, as does Rice Runner. The Andoran trait does not have the same requirement, since it is included in a document that is part of the Core assumption.

Rice Runner requires whichever Tien-area book (Dragon Empires Primer?) it is from, and the other two both require the book you listed it as from in order to have it available. That is also assuming that they are legal for the campaign as listed in the Additional Resources document...


hogarth wrote:
Adam Mogyorodi wrote:
You can't call a horse or a pony a lion, for previously stated reasons.
I would amend this to say "You can't call a horse or a pony a lion out loud". What you call your horse and/or pony in your own mind is up to you; there aren't any PFS Thought Police to worry about. :-)

My Pony's name is Lion thank you very much! Much to the confusion of everyone around him...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ProximaC wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
You can re-skin Character Traits, to my understanding, but that's about it.
Does that include Regional Traits? I have a character I'd like Acrobatics training on, but he's not Andoran faction, and I'd rather not have to have him be from Tian Xia just so I can take Rice Runner.

Yes it includes regional traits. You can only have ONE region as your origin.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

I learned to cartwheel in the rice fields of Irisen!

5/5 Venture-Agent, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Azothath

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I learned to cartwheel in the rice fields of Irisen!

yes - we've seen your Inquisitor Uncle Ben...

5/5 Venture-Agent, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Azothath

karossii wrote:

So, I am curious. How legal is reflavoring in PFS?{edited}

describing the effects of their spells in some custom manner.

this is not allowed as it is directly tied into spellcraft checks to identify a spell.

In a home game I'd consult Magic of Faerun. Spell Thematics and Attune Gem were great feats. I think Spell Thematics should have stayed at +0 as the feat was cost enough.

Quote:
have a animal and call it something else? (my pony the "tiger")

no. Doing that is just confusing. Call a pig a pig *oink*.

Just buy the correct animal out of the Animal Archive (if it is in scope, see additional resources) and get it right from the start.

Quote:
masterwork or magical improvised weapon...

umm... the masterwork part would be tied to performance with a skill like Craft(cooking) and not as a weapon. $55 vs $300+.

Quote:
standard weapon (hammer or mace) and call it a mundane object (frying pan, rolling pin, etc.) and still be an improvised weapon

again you are going beyond flavor text, so no. This is also confusing as you are mixing real weapons with improvised ones then trying to apply normal weapon rules... a +1 keen flaming frying pan?... given the no custom items nature of PFS OrgPlay... no.

Now in a home game this could be cool.

Liberty's Edge

I believe it is possible to re-flavor your spells as long as it doesn't change the mechanics by picking the Trait(Magic)-Magical Flair from Quests and Campaigns. This trait says your spells manifest strangely and increases the DC to identify them with Spellcraft.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Azothath

Samish Lakefinder wrote:
I believe it is possible to re-flavor your spells as long as it doesn't change the mechanics by picking the Trait(Magic)-Magical Flair from Quests and Campaigns. This trait says your spells manifest strangely and increases the DC to identify them with Spellcraft.

yes - good catch

Magical Flair (Trait) Quests&Cmpgns
Choose a school of magic. The Spellcraft DC to identify spells you cast from that school of magic increases by 2. Onlookers who fail a Spellcraft check to identify your spell by 2 or less incorrectly identify the spell as another randomly selected spell of the same school and level.

sadly it works for just one school.

I want to say that flavor is great. If it affects game mechanics then it's gone too far or is not allowed.
I still advocate that clerics should invoke the name of their deity when casting spells and that is not required by the game. When it's your turn as a player you have the spotlight and should use it to be awesome! This is a role playing game with some acting and social skills. While that is all fluff it's what separates us from a video game.

for home games -

Spell Thematics (Feat) Magic of Faerun
Benefit {edited}
Choose a theme for your spellcasting, such as "ice" or "fire" or "screaming skulls." All spells you cast have this theme in the manifestation of their effects. This does not actually change the spell mechanics in any way. You cannot use this feat to make your spell manifestations invisible, and it never causes your spells to deal more damage because of the visual/auditory change. (You may still cast spells without this thematic manifestation if you so choose.)
For example, if your theme is "fire," then your magic missile spell might appear as bolts of fire (the bolts still are a force effect and cause normal damage, not fire damage). If your theme is "screaming skulls," your fireball might manifest as a small screaming skull that impacts the target and explodes into a fiery ball that momentarily resembles a 20-foot-radius burning skull (it causes damage exactly like a standard fireball and doesn't cause any sonic damage despite the screaming of the skull).
Add +5 to the DC of any Spellcraft check made to identify a spell cast with Spell Thematics.

there's a similar one in Player's Guide to Faerun. +4DC and pick one spell as thematic and cast at +1 caster level. This supersedes the one above in 3.5 but it is a home game so you get to pick.

The Exchange 5/5

Stephen Ross wrote:
karossii wrote:

So, I am curious. How legal is reflavoring in PFS?{edited}

describing the effects of their spells in some custom manner.

this is not allowed as it is directly tied into spellcraft checks to identify a spell.

In a home game I'd consult Magic of Faerun. Spell Thematics and Attune Gem were great feats. I think Spell Thematics should have stayed at +0 as the feat was cost enough.

(snipping other good stuff)...

Wait... the visual discription of the spell is only tied to the spellcraft check for the PLAYER. If a CHARACTER (PC or NPC) makes a spellcraft check, he knows what the spell is no matter how it's described.

If someone discribes a "glowing ball of light" that "springs from the casters finger tip" and impacts a PC... and does a d4+1 damage, the Player will say something like "Your magic missile looks like a fireball?" - the character (Spellcraft check of 17) will say "ouch! a magic missile!"

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am a little bit confused as to what people are trying to crack down on in this thread, because the two examples given (the skull magic missiles and sunflower fireball) are a-ok by me in PFS even without having to splatbook dive for a feat to justify it.

The fact that spell effects vary slightly between spellcasters is the entire reason why there are spellcraft checks to identify a spell. A person with no spellcarft skill cannot necessarily distinguish between the little purpule skulls or little hands that fly out and slap people or boring old vanilla magic missiles or whatever. I think that this gives enough RAW support to letting players RP their own spellcasting if they so desire without someone coming along and saying that they have to buy a book and take a feat to describe things. If this is not what people are advocating enforcing then please explain what you do mean and reassure me.

I understand that there is a culture of legalism in PFS that would be absurd in a real campaign and there are legitimate reasons to not allow players to freely flavor their characters but it is getting kind of ridiculous at this point and I just want to point that out.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Azothath

nosig wrote:
Stephen Ross wrote:
karossii wrote:

So, I am curious. How legal is reflavoring in PFS?{edited}

describing the effects of their spells in some custom manner.

this is not allowed as it is directly tied into spellcraft checks to identify a spell.

(snipping other good stuff)...

Wait... the visual discription of the spell is only tied to the spellcraft check for the PLAYER. If a CHARACTER (PC or NPC) makes a spellcraft check, he knows what the spell is no matter how it's described.

If someone discribes a "glowing ball of light" that "springs from the casters finger tip" and impacts a PC... and does a d4+1 damage, the Player will say something like "Your magic missile looks like a fireball?" - the character (Spellcraft check of 17) will say "ouch! a magic missile!"

one is intimately linked to the other and as a GM or another PC you are making a description for the PC, who is also a player. Another words if you trick a player who doesn't ask to make a spellcraft roll because of the description, you have duped him out of his spellcraft roll. That's power. Saying it was his choice due to your colorful description does not justify the actual result. At worst this theme is really about tricking players into thinking something is not what it appears to be and you need a trait or a feat to do that in game. The more subtle question is when does flavor text become real (impact game mechanics or decisions in game).

I didn't want to appear to be ogerish on the topic, but somethings aren't allowed and some are. I try to offer alternatives.

The flip side is the metagaming where a fireball goes off and everyone goes - that's a fireball. They don't have spellcraft and nobody made a check.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Azothath

One of the great examples of this kind of trickery is Shadow Evocation spell.

It's a shame it doesn't do more damage (as you are using a 5th for a 4th level spell at best) and that creatures generally get two saves rather than one. These render the spell impractical or underpowered.


Saint Caleth wrote:
I am a little bit confused as to what people are trying to crack down on in this thread, because the two examples given (the skull magic missiles and sunflower fireball) are a-ok by me in PFS even without having to splatbook dive for a feat to justify it.

The skull shaped MM is still an MM. The sunflower FB that grows 'in the spot I designate' is not a FB: it is an indirect spell.

3/5

Curaigh wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
I am a little bit confused as to what people are trying to crack down on in this thread, because the two examples given (the skull magic missiles and sunflower fireball) are a-ok by me in PFS even without having to splatbook dive for a feat to justify it.
The skull shaped MM is still an MM. The sunflower FB that grows 'in the spot I designate' is not a FB: it is an indirect spell.

Yea, you're right about the fireball, when I read that I automatically imagined it with the caster tossing a little seed out.

I still wouldn't call it out and be super legalistic if someone did it at the table though.


Saint Caleth wrote:
Curaigh wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:
I am a little bit confused as to what people are trying to crack down on in this thread, because the two examples given (the skull magic missiles and sunflower fireball) are a-ok by me in PFS even without having to splatbook dive for a feat to justify it.
The skull shaped MM is still an MM. The sunflower FB that grows 'in the spot I designate' is not a FB: it is an indirect spell.

Yea, you're right about the fireball, when I read that I automatically imagined it with the caster tossing a little seed out.

I still wouldn't call it out and be super legalistic if someone did it at the table though.

Exactly as I was going to suggest.

Reflavouring of spells is tricky, but shouldn't be an issue if the base framework of the spell is still in place. I've had and played with characters who would do this regularly, a wizard who used anvil shaped magic missiles, another wizard, who' sticking cloud spell was 'released' from his hooka, a bard who literally composed and sung his performance pieces on the spot, using the previous exploits of the party.
As long as it adds to the fun and immersion of the game, I'd be for it, and look forward to it.

Flavour with traits and descriptions is also a good thing, as long as they don't change the core of what you took. Be it using Sea-Souled and being from a lake city, Seasoned Climber when from a tall forest, Riverfolk and living on a island off Absalom.
You could even be a green-skinned Half Elf, though that's more drawing from a possible exception I their descriptive text: "their skin color is normally dictated by their human side." And the fact that there are green skinned forest elves are possible.
Still, for animal companions, while you could style up a unique looking big cat, it's still a big cat and not a dog, a horse or a pig.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Azothath

Saint Caleth wrote:
... I understand that there is a culture of legalism in PFS that would be absurd in a real campaign and there are legitimate reasons to not allow players to freely flavor their characters but it is getting kind of ridiculous at this point and I just want to point that out.

well I think you have hit the conservatism in Org Play and the topic wander of threaded posting. In fact this is off topic... lol Most people only read 1 previous post anyways... redickulus!

BTW - I find home games have MORE negotiations in them so there is more rule lawyering than in OrgPlay. Here it's just more focused as a lot of the "good stuff" is out of scope.

Pretty much in OrgPlay you have to pay for everything. People prefer to be conservative as it's safe and players go from one table to another so consistency is a bigger issue. I've seen where GMs wanted to say no to perfectly reasonable things (see the Spring Loaded Wrist Sheath thread) and where the chat got rather absurd.

note how people went right to re-skinning in this thread. I think that tells you they thought it was more than flavor text and/or they thought it was re-skinning. As we are dealing with the GMs gray area it can quickly go to something illegal... the "sticky posted" slope.

I disagree about your justification for spellcraft.

I think the original poster was testing the bounds on what is acceptable. Others got to it and posted reasonable answers by the time I got here. So I gave general advice.

Practically I'd say why worry about it, leave the spells alone and move on. If you pick a theme and modify the description slightly it won't make a difference (it can't by the rules) so you've done a lot of tinkering for no practical impact. GMs are also gonna look at it crosseyed to see if it makes an impact and some might say no thanks.
If you accept that and still do it for stylistic reasons then great! You've taken a hit for stylizing your character but remember it is just a facet of stylizing a memorable character. Overall it's what your character does in situations that will make him memorable.

3/5

Stephen Ross wrote:
BTW - I find home games have MORE negotiations in them so there is more rule lawyering than in OrgPlay. Here it's just more focused as a lot of the "good stuff" is out of scope.

What I mean does not really have that much to do with rules lawyering. What I mean by culture of legalism is that in PFS the default position on interesitng and offbeat things is "NO". This is in contrast with a real campaign were the default position on a player trying something strange should be "talk to me and we can try to make it work". That is what I mean by legalism. The inability to bend the rules when most of skilled DMing is knowing when to adjust and house rule RAW when appropriate (and there are plenty of appropriate times considering how many fiddly little bits the rules have).

Rules lawyering is a completely different issue and in both real campaings and organized play campaigns the answer should be "talk to me after the session".


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

At least for weapons there is the "Glamered" weapon property from Ultimate Equipment. Sadly the weapon shows its true form in combat, but otherwise you can have your +2 flaming saucepan.


Saint Caleth wrote:


Yea, you're right about the fireball, when I read that I automatically imagined it with the caster tossing a little seed out.

I still wouldn't call it out and be super legalistic if someone did it at the table though.

Tossing a seed I can understand and encourage. Because using fireball to look for an invisible opponent is a time-honored tradition. :) As 'described' the fireball could enter Bengar's warehouse before the PCs do. 99% of the time it will not matter, but not calling it out tells the PCs this is that 99%. More importantly not calling it out makes it harder to correct the next time when it's that 01%. In PFS this is likely a different GM calling it out, who then gets labeled for being hard, or legalistic.

I encourage flavoring, especially among new gamers. Tossing a sunflower seed? Brilliant! When I roll the dice for the villain's attack I try to avoid the words 'hit' and 'miss' preferring slash/slice/schlickt/squelsh or swish/whiff/flugh because that is 'flavoring' :)

I have to figure out what my tengu wizard's MM looks like now... feather darts? a murder of angry crows? :)

3/5

Curaigh wrote:
Saint Caleth wrote:


Yea, you're right about the fireball, when I read that I automatically imagined it with the caster tossing a little seed out.

I still wouldn't call it out and be super legalistic if someone did it at the table though.

Tossing a seed I can understand and encourage. Because using fireball to look for an invisible opponent is a time-honored tradition. :) As 'described' the fireball could enter Bengar's warehouse before the PCs do. 99% of the time it will not matter, but not calling it out tells the PCs this is that 99%. More importantly not calling it out makes it harder to correct the next time when it's that 01%. In PFS this is likely a different GM calling it out, who then gets labeled for being hard, or legalistic.

I encourage flavoring, especially among new gamers. Tossing a sunflower seed? Brilliant! When I roll the dice for the villain's attack I try to avoid the words 'hit' and 'miss' preferring slash/slice/schlickt/squelsh or swish/whiff/flugh because that is 'flavoring' :)

I have to figure out what my tengu wizard's MM looks like now... feather darts? a murder of angry crows? :)

Ok, then we are basically on the same page.

Whatever your tengu comes up with it will never top the slappy-hand magic missiles (which actually came up once in a campaign I played).

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A friend of mine has a 2-H-W fighter with a Greatsword (adamantine) named "Disable Device" and another (cold iron) named "Diplomacy".

It makes for some interesting games when he says something like "you think we should try Diplomacy?" or we ask if anyone has Disable Device...


Saint Caleth wrote:


Whatever your tengu comes up with it will never top the slappy-hand magic missiles (which actually came up once in a campaign I played).

Funny, I've had some one use a more crass version.

Also played with a wizard who named his wizard 'Figby', his fireball was named 'Figby's Ferocious Flaming Finger', where his scorn and mystical crude gesture would ignite the air around the target, and yes a flaming copy of his 'gesture' would fly off to strike the opponent first . Much of the rest of his spell book was personal used to be the same.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Azothath

Saint Caleth wrote:
Stephen Ross wrote:
well I think you have hit the conservatism in Org Play... BTW - I find home games have MORE negotiations in them so there is more rule lawyering than in OrgPlay. Here it's just more focused as a lot of the "good stuff" is out of scope.
<what culture of legalism means to me>

so conservatism didn't describe what you are talking about more accurately in context? hmmm...

I understand that the bounds of PFS Org Play can create some frustration for creative players. I'm there with you on that.
The trick is that PFS Org Play is a subset of the total that's published. It's also done in a lowest common denominator way for table to table consistency. It also only goes to 12th level (or so). Things also change as new supplements and rules come out.

If a new rule for Spell Thematics comes out (rewritten as something else to avoid copyright issues) and it gets in scope I'm sure that things will roll that way as now GMs will have an accepted rule for it (flavor vs actual DCs).

(edit)
I think staying within just the "flavor" part is the challenge. It's very easy to stray into a rule affecting area but see my previous post.


nosig wrote:

A friend of mine has a 2-H-W fighter with a Greatsword (adamantine) named "Disable Device" and another (cold iron) named "Diplomacy".

It makes for some interesting games when he says something like "you think we should try Diplomacy?" or we ask if anyone has Disable Device...

Harkens back to the old 'fighter's picks and tools'

Dark Archive

Reflavoring is legal and easily done through Prestidigitation.
But eating sentient species requires an atonement

Project Manager

Removed a post with some content mocking the Japanese. Please revisit the messageboard rules.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Stephen Ross wrote:

One of the great examples of this kind of trickery is Shadow Evocation spell.

It's a shame it doesn't do more damage (as you are using a 5th for a 4th level spell at best) and that creatures generally get two saves rather than one. These render the spell impractical or underpowered.

The spell was originally created for use by AD+D illusionists who otherwise had no access to evocation spells. If you have evocation as a forbidden school, it's still worthwhile, especially if you work on pushing up your save DC's.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Reflavoring... is it legal? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.