Re-skinning is always used to min-max. It is intended to minimize the costs of playing a character described in a certain way while maximizing the benefits.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ahhhh. I can agree with this. I fully understand why you would want to separate things like Resolve from an Eastern themed character. On some level I do get into the flavor of what's published, but if it's strictly for flavor reasons, I support reskinning 100%. I just don't like it when it's used to min/max or power-game at my table.
No, I mean that the PUBLISHED flavor is completely divorced from the PUBLISHED mechanics. Sorry I didn't make that clear earlier.I feel that the flavor I choose should be reflected in the mechanics I choose and that the publisher's suggestions should have no restrictive influence on those choices.
I should say, I do enjoy the printed flavor. I think Paizo is very good at making suggestions about flavor. I just feel no obligation to them.
I think the power level is a separate issue altogether. If someone is playing outside your tables optimization level, then that is its own problem.
Re-skinning is always used to min-max. It is intended to minimize the costs of playing a character described in a certain way while maximizing the benefits.
[sarcasm]
So true! If I wanted someone who was a dishonest, or a knavish person, a scoundrel, or a tramp or vagabond or a playfully mischievous person. Then I have to play the ROGUE class, as these are the definitions of the word ROGUE. ALSO if I play a ROGUE I MUST be this kind of character. Playing an honest rogue is min-maxing. Or playing a BARD as a dishonest, or a knavish person, or a tramp or vagabond or a playfully mischievous person, is super wrong and min-maxing.
Re-skinning is always used to min-max. It is intended to minimize the costs of playing a character described in a certain way while maximizing the benefits.
If there is no attempted gain in power it is not really min-maxing. I could have use a guide archetype ranger for my current character instead of a slayer, and come out better. I actually lost power by going with a slayer, so "always" is definitely not the correct term.
To respond to BigDTBone's comment, for me at least it isn't a matter of feeling obligated to Paizo or whichever company's flavor, but of internal consistency in my/our table's game. If Bob the elf/orc guy's wolf uses the dinosaur's stats, do all the wolves in the game use it? Why or why not?
I've found that many players are very happy to have something along the lines of what DocShock's example player has; they are far less happy when the game starts moving away from what they expect as a baseline norm. This leads to posts like we see on the boards of the GM "cheating", when they are reinventing or reskinning existing creatures.
No, it doesn't always make everyone unhappy. But for some players it can be jarring and takes away from what they expect from their game. Any sort of reskinning on either side of the screen probably should be ironed out well ahead of time, with warnings that not everything you run across will be exactly what you think, and where the lines are between "Yeah, you can call a samurai a knight or Sue if it makes you happy" and "No, Bob, you cannot have a freakin' T-Rex reskinned as a house cat."
Re-skinning is always used to min-max. It is intended to minimize the costs of playing a character described in a certain way while maximizing the benefits.[sarcasm]
So true! If I wanted someone who was a dishonest, or a knavish person, a scoundrel, or a tramp or vagabond or a playfully mischievous person. Then I have to play the ROGUE class, as these are the definitions of the word ROGUE. ALSO if I play a ROGUE I MUST be this kind of character. Playing an honest rogue is min-maxing. Or playing a BARD as a dishonest, or a knavish person, or a tramp or vagabond or a playfully mischievous person, is super wrong and min-maxing.
Indeed. Everyone knows that trying to be creative with your character concepts is evil, wrong, and completely counter to True Roleplaying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see where you are coming from now, and I think part of the difference to my reaction (and perhaps in the players mind) is that when "Elf, Wolf" get decided the exact mechanical implementation of that isn't in the decision process. If you (disambiguous, AKA your player) put that together based on what the books say are "Elf" and "Wolf" and then think, "This really isn't as strong as I would like," or "This doesn't work how I would like," or "This doesn't fit the flavor I had in mind for this particular guy just right," or ALL OF THE ABOVE, then you look around for other stuff that might work.You (specific) get annoyed that someone would re-work based on the first objection above. Now, imagine, if instead of reworking you (disambiguous, AKA your player) skipped the step where you put the character together based on what the publisher suggests you use for "Elf" and "Wolf" and chose what you wanted to represent with your character.
This completely eliminates the part that annoys you. You (actually you again) can be happy that the player has a character who thematically fits in the game you are playing, and your player can be happy that they can play the character he wants to play. Everyone wins, and no one gets rubbed wrong.
Yes, this I'll agree with. And like I said in my first post (although my example was apparently not helpful at all), it's more about what you do with a reskin than the fact that you're reskinning. If we had had a discussion about the perceived shortcomings of his character, we could have come to a conclusion about what he wanted his character to be and how to achieve it. I'm an open minded guy, we have a rabbit in our group, remember? But it was really more like "I made a bunch of changes based on optimization stuff I found on the messageboards". At that point it's not about a character concept, it's about brute force optimization. That's what I don't like.
In my group, we're not so extreme as to completely remove the published flavor. Most of us like it when a wolf is a wolf and an elf is an elf, and we build on top of that. But we're flexible enough with the published content that a "Cavalier" that can't wear metal, rides a rhino, and casts 9th level divine spells certainly isn't going to offend anyone.
If Bob the elf/orc guy's wolf uses the dinosaur's stats, do all the wolves in the game use it?
Probably not, I haven't met them all.
Why or why not?
Because not all wolves are exactly the same? They aren't manufactured in a plant, and they dont come in a can.
"No, Bob, you cannot have a freakin' T-Rex reskinned as a house cat."
The mechanics are the mechanics. They have their own internal consistency. Explain to me why you have a colossal house cat and then I'll let you use that stat block to represent it.
I guarantee the hard part of that exchange is explaining why you have a colossal house cat, NOT getting me to let you use the stat block.
Because not all wolves are exactly the same? They aren't manufactured in a plant, and they dont come in a can.
Exactly this. One of the things that always bugs me about sci-fi and fantasy is the tendency to stick entire species into very tiny, narrowly defined boxes. Like "all dwarves are tough and gruff" and "all elves are scrawny but elegant."
Re-skinning is always used to min-max. It is intended to minimize the costs of playing a character described in a certain way while maximizing the benefits.[sarcasm]
So true! If I wanted someone who was a dishonest, or a knavish person, a scoundrel, or a tramp or vagabond or a playfully mischievous person. Then I have to play the ROGUE class, as these are the definitions of the word ROGUE. ALSO if I play a ROGUE I MUST be this kind of character. Playing an honest rogue is min-maxing. Or playing a BARD as a dishonest, or a knavish person, or a tramp or vagabond or a playfully mischievous person, is super wrong and min-maxing.
I never said min-maxing is wrong or bad. I'm just pointing out that complaining about using res-skinining to minmax isn't consistent. If an optimal choice with the right flavor choice existed, you would use it. Consequently, reskinning is an attempt to finesse the disadvantage of your choices.
As an example, two druids might have animal companions. One player wants a tiger, the other wants a wolf. If Player B wants a wolf but asks to re-skin the tiger as a wolf, there are attempting to minmax so that their character has the same advantages of Player A's tiger druid.
If Bob the elf/orc guy's wolf uses the dinosaur's stats, do all the wolves in the game use it?Probably not, I haven't met them all.
What happens when you make a knowledge check though? Do we decide that since 'wolf' is just a skin, your knowledge nature check reveals a whole bunch of different possibilities, basically making it useless?
Or in the case of the orc-in-elf skin, if a character wants to know, perhaps before infiltrating the Secret Elven Wood, whether or not elves have darkvision, is the answer no, except those elves who are built on the half orc, aasimar, tiefling, and a whole bunch of other set of rules. That seems fairly unworkable.
Fluff terms, if you will, are connected to mechanical concepts and ignoring them completely makes very real changes to how that world and its contents interact, that doesn't mean it can't be done, and I am very much in flavor of judicious re-skinning, but it does matter and it does change the nature of the world. While changing the world is fine, not every change is equally fine and having the flavor of a world be coupled with mechanics is important.
I don't call that min-maxing, but that word has never had a consistent definition.
Re-skinning is always used to min-max. It is intended to minimize the costs of playing a character described in a certain way while maximizing the benefits.[sarcasm]
So true! If I wanted someone who was a dishonest, or a knavish person, a scoundrel, or a tramp or vagabond or a playfully mischievous person. Then I have to play the ROGUE class, as these are the definitions of the word ROGUE. ALSO if I play a ROGUE I MUST be this kind of character. Playing an honest rogue is min-maxing. Or playing a BARD as a dishonest, or a knavish person, or a tramp or vagabond or a playfully mischievous person, is super wrong and min-maxing.
Class names are game-defined terms; equating the other definitions of the chosen word with its usage as the class name is not accurate. Archetypes (including alternate classes) are similar, but narrower in scope.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re-skinning is always used to min-max. It is intended to minimize the costs of playing a character described in a certain way while maximizing the benefits.
If I built a wizard with higher strength than normal, and flavored all of his somatic spell components as different kinds of flexing, have I min-maxed?
Or in the case of the orc-in-elf skin, if a character wants to know, perhaps before infiltrating the Secret Elven Wood, whether or not elves have darkvision, is the answer no, except those elves who are built on the half orc, aasimar, tiefling, and a whole bunch of other set of rules. That seems fairly unworkable.
It's not like re-skinning is the only way an elf could ever get darkvision. There are spells, class abilities, bloodlines/racial heritage options, etc.
I can hardly believe there are GMs who are burned out on reflavoring/reskinning.
If Bob the elf/orc guy's wolf uses the dinosaur's stats, do all the wolves in the game use it?Probably not, I haven't met them all.
What happens when you make a knowledge check though? Do we decide that since 'wolf' is just a skin, your knowledge nature check reveals a whole bunch of different possibilities, basically making it useless?
Or in the case of the orc-in-elf skin, if a character wants to know, perhaps before infiltrating the Secret Elven Wood, whether or not elves have darkvision, is the answer no, except those elves who are built on the half orc, aasimar, tiefling, and a whole bunch of other set of rules. That seems fairly unworkable.
Fluff terms, if you will, are connected to mechanical concepts and ignoring them completely makes very real changes to how that world and its contents interact, that doesn't mean it can't be done, and I am very much in flavor of judicious re-skinning, but it does matter and it does change the nature of the world. While changing the world is fine, not every change is equally fine and having the flavor of a world be coupled with mechanics is important.
(1) Roll your knowledge check, I'll tell you what you know about *this* wolf.
(2) Elves are widely known to see well in low-light. Did you have a question about a particular elf? I would never answer a knowledge question with a specific game term like "darkvision" anyway.
(3) I agree, it makes the world have much much more variety and is more in line with the world around me. Aka, it makes immersion better and easier.
(1) Roll your knowledge check, I'll tell you what you know about *this* wolf.
(2) Elves are widely known to see well in low-light. Did you have a question about a particular elf? I would never answer a knowledge question with a specific game term like "darkvision" anyway.
(3) I agree, it makes the world have much much more variety and is more in line with the world around me. Aka, it makes immersion better and easier.
The problem is, in both cases, that what you "know" about X is that it merely seems to be X, but is really Y.
When I'm a ranger and have Favoured Enemy: Humanoid / Elf, I can accept that a half-orc is disguised as an elf, or illusioned to be disguised as an elf, or polymorphed INTO an elf (and therefore functionally an elf.) However, if the elf IS a half-orc except that it looks like an elf for all purposes, or conversely that the half-orc IS an elf except that it looks like a half-orc...
...then how can I be sure when I should apply my FE bonuses? Do I need to "cast Detect Elves" (use my knowledge check to identify) on every single humanoid, just to check to see if an apparent elf is (not) an elf, or an apparent non-elf is (not) an elf?
(1) Roll your knowledge check, I'll tell you what you know about *this* wolf.
(2) Elves are widely known to see well in low-light. Did you have a question about a particular elf? I would never answer a knowledge question with a specific game term like "darkvision" anyway.
(3) I agree, it makes the world have much much more variety and is more in line with the world around me. Aka, it makes immersion better and easier.
The problem is, in both cases, that what you "know" about X is that it merely seems to be X, but is really Y.
When I'm a ranger and have Favoured Enemy: Humanoid / Elf, I can accept that a half-orc is disguised as an elf, or illusioned to be disguised as an elf, or polymorphed INTO an elf (and therefore functionally an elf.) However, if the elf IS a half-orc except that it looks like an elf for all purposes, or conversely that the half-orc IS an elf except that it looks like a half-orc...
...then how can I be sure when I should apply my FE bonuses? Do I need to "cast Detect Elves" (use my knowledge check to identify) on every single humanoid, just to check to see if an apparent elf is (not) an elf, or an apparent non-elf is (not) an elf?
Indeed, the absolute barest minimum of mechanic work is required by the GM, in that when you build the character of race x that you make sure to give that character the [race x] subtype.
Why not?
However, if I wanted to play a disgruntled, tough, loner halfling I couldn't capture that as well if I played in your game.
Off the top of my head, the +2 to CHA is directly opposed to the gruff/loner type. The -2 to STR is also directly opposed to the tough type.
So those are reasons why the classic "halfling" model doesn't fit well, now the reasons why the dwarf type does.
+2 CON is very representative of being tough, as does stability and and hardy. The slow and steady ability is very invocative of someone who has spent time taking care of themselves (always bearing the full load, etc.)
mechanichally the +2 charisma would raise the DC for someone to use diplomacy or intimidate on you, and you would get a +1 to your intimidate rolls...
beyond that, that is a point, however, you could still play everything you said, very easily, as "disgruntled, tough, loner" are mostly going to be roleplay and not rollplay.
i feel like the divide on the druid half-orc/elf thing with a pet allosaur/wolf is that the case of making a samurai a knight or even just a hardened mercenary with a horse, is that the elf/orc is warping the flavor to favor the mechanics, while the samurai/knight is warping the mechanics to favor the flavor.
the changes are mostly the same but their drive is different. one is changing the flavor to match the overall flavor of the system. the other is changing the flavor to match the desired mechnaics.
basically, one caters to the GM more and the other caters to the player more.
I can hardly believe there are GMs who are burned out on reflavoring/reskinning.
Some people don't like having their authority questioned.
If I built a wizard with higher strength than normal, and flavored all of his somatic spell components as different kinds of flexing, have I min-maxed?Re-skinning is always used to min-max. It is intended to minimize the costs of playing a character described in a certain way while maximizing the benefits.
The higher strength than normal isn't an example of re-skinning. You are minmaxing if your goal is, "Make a wizard who is really focused on strength and a strong appearance."
Very often minmaxing is used to mean, "powergaming in a few specialized areas with the aim of maximizing impact on play," but that's only one subset. "Making a decent fighter-spellcaster" is also a form of minmaxing, as it "Making a generally useful and strong character" and "fulfilling the role of party healer."
hmm, I also think that one opens up new options for play, the other takes an option and reskins it as another already existing option. being mechanically better, but the mechanics don't lend themselves to what they're skinned over.
Basically, a Wolf would better do flavor for the wolf than the allosaur or what ever. however, the cavalier would not be better flavorwise for many characters mechanically.
If I built a wizard with higher strength than normal, and flavored all of his somatic spell components as different kinds of flexing, have I min-maxed?Re-skinning is always used to min-max. It is intended to minimize the costs of playing a character described in a certain way while maximizing the benefits.
The higher strength than normal isn't an example of re-skinning. You are minmaxing if your goal is, "Make a wizard who is really focused on strength and a strong appearance."
Very often minmaxing is used to mean, "powergaming in a few specialized areas with the aim of maximizing impact on play," but that's only one subset. "Making a decent fighter-spellcaster" is also a form of minmaxing, as it "Making a generally useful and strong character" and "fulfilling the role of party healer."
His reflavoring was the somatic components being muscle flexing.
If I built a wizard with higher strength than normal, and flavored all of his somatic spell components as different kinds of flexing, have I min-maxed?Re-skinning is always used to min-max. It is intended to minimize the costs of playing a character described in a certain way while maximizing the benefits.
The higher strength than normal isn't an example of re-skinning. You are minmaxing if your goal is, "Make a wizard who is really focused on strength and a strong appearance."
Very often minmaxing is used to mean, "powergaming in a few specialized areas with the aim of maximizing impact on play," but that's only one subset. "Making a decent fighter-spellcaster" is also a form of minmaxing, as it "Making a generally useful and strong character" and "fulfilling the role of party healer."
He's not a fighter-spellcaster. He merely casts all of his spells by flexing at the opposition.
He's not a fighter-spellcaster. He merely casts all of his spells by flexing at the opposition.If I built a wizard with higher strength than normal, and flavored all of his somatic spell components as different kinds of flexing, have I min-maxed?Re-skinning is always used to min-max. It is intended to minimize the costs of playing a character described in a certain way while maximizing the benefits.
The higher strength than normal isn't an example of re-skinning. You are minmaxing if your goal is, "Make a wizard who is really focused on strength and a strong appearance."
Very often minmaxing is used to mean, "powergaming in a few specialized areas with the aim of maximizing impact on play," but that's only one subset. "Making a decent fighter-spellcaster" is also a form of minmaxing, as it "Making a generally useful and strong character" and "fulfilling the role of party healer."
I hope he's a charm/compulsion specialist.
I hope he's a charm/compulsion specialist.He's not a fighter-spellcaster. He merely casts all of his spells by flexing at the opposition.If I built a wizard with higher strength than normal, and flavored all of his somatic spell components as different kinds of flexing, have I min-maxed?Re-skinning is always used to min-max. It is intended to minimize the costs of playing a character described in a certain way while maximizing the benefits.
The higher strength than normal isn't an example of re-skinning. You are minmaxing if your goal is, "Make a wizard who is really focused on strength and a strong appearance."
Very often minmaxing is used to mean, "powergaming in a few specialized areas with the aim of maximizing impact on play," but that's only one subset. "Making a decent fighter-spellcaster" is also a form of minmaxing, as it "Making a generally useful and strong character" and "fulfilling the role of party healer."
Divination, actually. His abs can identify the enchantment on any item.
"Can I reskin my unarmed attacks into greatswords?"
I can see that coming up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Can I reskin my unarmed attacks into greatswords?"
I can see that coming up.
yes, but realize that disarming will become all too literal. [/joke]
I'll quote myself from this very page in responce to your rant.Short version of lost post :-(
The elf/orc "reskin" is very different from the samurai/knight reskin, because "elf" and "orc" are natural kind terms whereas "samurai" and "knight" are social terms. (A fact that is also represented in the rules by allowing things like +2 vs elves, but never allowing anything like bonuses against specific classes).
When you allow something belonging to one natural kind to have vastly different properties than the rest of that kind, it doesnt really belong to that natural kind... aka your "elf" isnt an elf.
It raises some questions like: why can THIS elf see in the dark? etc.
It also creates a bunch of rulesquestions like does the halforc/elf count as an elf against rangers with racial enemies, etc. If it does, you have now made a mechanics change, and not just a reskin. If it doesn't then why the H not? The ranger is trained in fighting elves, isnt this guy an elf? All the rules issues are fcause solvable, but this is a strain on the GM, and one that normal reskins doesnt require.Reskinning a samurai to being a knight brings NO mechanical issues with it whatsoever.
Indeed, the absolute barest minimum of mechanic work is required by the GM, in that when you build the character of race x that you make sure to give that character the [race x] subtype.
Well, the Iconic Wizard has a reskinned Club, that is noted as a cane.
there is an adventure where this NPC noblewoman has a small Yippy dog that statistically is just a cat without the claw attack, which to me is a perfect re-skin:-D
Well, the Iconic Wizard has a reskinned Club, that is noted as a cane.there is an adventure where this NPC noblewoman has a small Yippy dog that statistically is just a cat without the claw attack, which to me is a perfect re-skin:-D
OH NOES! How will we tell cats and dogs apart ever again?!!!!!11111eleveneleven
OH NOES! How will we tell cats and dogs apart ever again?!!!!!11111elevenelevenWell, the Iconic Wizard has a reskinned Club, that is noted as a cane.there is an adventure where this NPC noblewoman has a small Yippy dog that statistically is just a cat without the claw attack, which to me is a perfect re-skin:-D
the problem seems to be you didn't open up new options with the druid reskin, you just reskinned things as other existing options. reskinning is obviously for mechanical benefit and not for the characters flavor, or in essence, they decided they needed to have mechanics X, Y, and Z but though that playing those was lame and so asked if he could have the best mechanical stuff but play something he felt was cool.
where in your examples you decide flavor first and then match mechanics to your flavor, this appears to be in the reverse of this. finding mechanics that are great, then flavor you want to play, and making them work even if it doesn't make much sense.
though in your games maybe you should allow PCs a floating +2 to any stat and a -2 to any stat (they must take both) to better show racial divergence.
OH NOES! How will we tell cats and dogs apart ever again?!!!!!11111elevenelevenWell, the Iconic Wizard has a reskinned Club, that is noted as a cane.there is an adventure where this NPC noblewoman has a small Yippy dog that statistically is just a cat without the claw attack, which to me is a perfect re-skin:-Dthe problem seems to be you didn't open up new options with the druid reskin, you just reskinned things as other existing options. reskinning is obviously for mechanical benefit and not for the characters flavor, or in essence, they decided they needed to have mechanics X, Y, and Z but though that playing those was lame and so asked if he could have the best mechanical stuff but play something he felt was cool.
where in your examples you decide flavor first and then match mechanics to your flavor, this appears to be in the reverse of this. finding mechanics that are great, then flavor you want to play, and making them work even if it doesn't make much sense.
though in your games maybe you should allow PCs a floating +2 to any stat and a -2 to any stat (they must take both) to better show racial divergence.
What I'm really getting at is if you don't lock yourself into the idea of an elf as printed then when you choose strong mechanics it doesn't carry that baggage.
I also get the impression that that player would have been happy playing a half-orc with a dinosaur, so I feel that most of those changes were made to capitulate to the GM's desired flavor.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see: Player comes to DM, "I want my concept to fit your campaign. Let's work together to find how we can do it, with maybe a bit of reflavoring."
Some others see: THE FLOODGATES HAVE OPENED!! CATS SLEEPING WITH DOGS, BLOOD IN THE STREETS, PIGS WITH ELF MOUNTS, AND TOTAL CHAOS!!!!
At least, this is the impression I get.
If the concept can be made using elements already in the campaign world and the resulting character is perfectly viable and able to contribute on a consistent basis, then, no, I'm not reskinning other elements just to make the character stronger. In other words, if the reskinning is solely to make an already viable concept stronger then, no. If the concept can be cobbled together from existing elements, but they don't work well together and aren't viable, then we'll talk.
The reskinning wasn't done to make a character stronger. The player would have been perfectly happy playing a half-orc with a dinosaur. The reskinning was done because the GM didn't want half-Orcs and dinosaurs in his party.
OH NOES! How will we tell cats and dogs apart ever again?!!!!!11111elevenelevenWell, the Iconic Wizard has a reskinned Club, that is noted as a cane.there is an adventure where this NPC noblewoman has a small Yippy dog that statistically is just a cat without the claw attack, which to me is a perfect re-skin:-Dthe problem seems to be you didn't open up new options with the druid reskin, you just reskinned things as other existing options. reskinning is obviously for mechanical benefit and not for the characters flavor, or in essence, they decided they needed to have mechanics X, Y, and Z but though that playing those was lame and so asked if he could have the best mechanical stuff but play something he felt was cool.
where in your examples you decide flavor first and then match mechanics to your flavor, this appears to be in the reverse of this. finding mechanics that are great, then flavor you want to play, and making them work even if it doesn't make much sense.
though in your games maybe you should allow PCs a floating +2 to any stat and a -2 to any stat (they must take both) to better show racial divergence.
What I'm really getting at is if you don't lock yourself into the idea of an elf as printed then when you choose strong mechanics it doesn't carry that baggage.
I also get the impression that that player would have been happy playing a half-orc with a dinosaur, so I feel that most of those changes were made to capitulate to the GM's desired flavor.
in the post i read, the poster said in his words that "dinosaurs weren't cool" or some such, he wanted the mechanically better option but not to have a dinosaur. mostly my gripe is the allosaur (or whatever) as a wolf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another guy said he wanted to be a druid. He wanted to be an elf in the game, but he wanted to use the half-orc mechanics because he wanted free falchion proficiency and no CON penalty. Also, he wanted to reskin Fate's Favored to be Nature's Favored because Fate's Favored didn't fit his character concept, but he really wanted to have it because mechanically it's a really strong trait. Also, he wanted to have a wolf companion because wolves are really cool, but he wanted to reskin an allosaurus as a wolf because the allosaurus is so much stronger than the wolf, but having a dinosaur is cheesy (his words). This was, in my opinion, a bad series of reskins. The reskins were just there to let this guy play a min/maxed character without looking like he had just min/maxed like crazy. When used for such purposes, I find reskinning to be obnoxious.
Was the fact that they weren't going to be allowed known beforehand?
Who cares?
The guy wanted to play a strong character. He was happy to do it as published with the flavor published. So the change wasn't made for him to have a stronger character. The change was made so the strong character would fit into the GM's world. The reskin was done for the benefit of the GM's fun, not the player's.
Suggesting that the player was trying to pull one over is way out of line.
Another guy said he wanted to be a druid. He wanted to be an elf in the game, but he wanted to use the half-orc mechanics because he wanted free falchion proficiency and no CON penalty. Also, he wanted to reskin Fate's Favored to be Nature's Favored because Fate's Favored didn't fit his character concept, but he really wanted to have it because mechanically it's a really strong trait. Also, he wanted to have a wolf companion because wolves are really cool, but he wanted to reskin an allosaurus as a wolf because the allosaurus is so much stronger than the wolf, but having a dinosaur is cheesy (his words). This was, in my opinion, a bad series of reskins. The reskins were just there to let this guy play a min/maxed character without looking like he had just min/maxed like crazy. When used for such purposes, I find reskinning to be obnoxious.He also told us that that guy wasn't into the roleplay so I have a hard time accepting his flavor preference was driving factor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was the fact that they weren't going to be allowed known beforehand?Who cares?
The guy wanted to play a strong character. He was happy to do it as published with the flavor published. So the change wasn't made for him to have a stronger character. The change was made so the strong character would fit into the GM's world. The reskin was done for the benefit of the GM's fun, not the player's.
Suggesting that the player was trying to pull one over is way out of line.
as i just posted, this is completely false.