Want to Play a Samurai, But Your DM Said No? Try Calling it a Knight Instead!


Advice

251 to 300 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
DocShock wrote:


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.

it was more "I don't want to be a half-orc" than flavor choice...


BigDTBone wrote:


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.

Nope! Like I said in the original post, he wanted to be an elf with a wolf. A dinosaur animal companion was too cheesy for him (his words). But, being a power gamer, he couldn't bear the thought of an animal companion that wasn't in the top 5 choices on that list from the geek industrial complex animal companion ratings, so he asked for a reskin strictly to boost power.

I'll try to say this one last time, and then I'll stop posting here. Reflavoring something is a tool. You can do great things with it or terrible things with it. I'm 100% in favor of the kind of reskins that Ravingdork has posted as examples. I think those are beautifully flavored characters with a lot of personality, and that use reskins to give them more personality. At the same time, I think some people use reflavoring to achieve obnoxious goals. If you don't think the example I gave was an obnoxious use of reflavoring, that's fine, we don't need to discuss whether that example is objectively obnoxious. The only point I've been trying to make this entire time is that rekinning isn't inherently good or evil, so I feel we should stop arguing over whether it's an inherently good or evil thing. Sometimes it is a good thing, sometimes it might be a bad thing.


RDM42 wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
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.

Riiiiiiight.

What I get out of a lot of these discussion is that gm's have evil mustaches they love to twirl while laughing manically, and that players sing the following song:

http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/camelot/

You can take away whatever you want. I've stated at least twice in this thread that I GM almost exclusively.


Is the elf with the wolf a viable character choice than can be played and contribute to the game fairly well without needing to do special reskins to buff it up with options normally not open to that particular combo?

Grand Lodge

You've got this one bad example.

No good ones?

I doubt that.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

You've got this one bad example.

No good ones?

I doubt that.

we specifically claim that reskining to fit flavor you already have access to normally, is not the same as reskinning to make flavor fit an option not present, and should be discouraged.

Grand Lodge

Yeah, reskinning something that's already available, is bad practice.

I agree with that.

I just don't think anyone should throw the baby out with the bath water, when it comes to reskinning.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:


I just don't think anyone should throw the baby out with the bath water, when it comes to reskinning.

which no one is arguing.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

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.

I think that might be a mischaracterization of many of the posters, or at least what I think they are trying to say which is more "There is a line, and some people cross it."

It'd be like saying that everyone who likes reflavoring is "Wheee!!! Do anything you want and the sky is the limit!!!"

It's just exaggerating for effect, and not indicative of what is being said.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

For the Elf/Orc thing:

He could have just gone Half-Elf, and taken the Ancestral Arms alternate racial trait. If he wanted darkvision as well, he could just take the Drow-Blooded alternate racial trait as well.

If he wanted a more powerful Wolf, there is the Dire Wolf.

Right. There are ways to reflavor and change the character already provided with alternate racial traits and other less drastic means than the player was suggesting. I'd be far more open to those sorts of considerations and compromises than those suggested by DocShock's example player.

Reskinning by itself is a tool, like a hammer or anything else. If you use it right, sweet. When someone starts using it incorrectly is when we see disagreements.

Grand Lodge

I may have misread a few posts.

I apologize.


knightnday wrote:
I think that might be a mischaracterization of many of the posters, or at least what I think they are trying to say which is more "There is a line, and some people cross it."

It seems like the main issue under discussion is where exactly that line is.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
knightnday wrote:
I think that might be a mischaracterization of many of the posters, or at least what I think they are trying to say which is more "There is a line, and some people cross it."
It seems like the main issue under discussion is where exactly that line is.

Sure seems that way! And a lot of misunderstandings (and shouting matches) occur because someone else's "reskinning" isn't my "reskinning" but we're all tossing the same word around.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Chengar Qordath wrote:
knightnday wrote:
I think that might be a mischaracterization of many of the posters, or at least what I think they are trying to say which is more "There is a line, and some people cross it."
It seems like the main issue under discussion is where exactly that line is.

yes but many people seem to think they're arguing against people that have the line pushed way farther back towards the no reskinning allowed area.


BigDTBone wrote:
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.

I'm looking at this from a player's perspective, though. If "race X" can simply be [Race Y], then I (playing a character with mechanics that target [Race X]) cannot have even reasonable knowledge of whether my mechanics will work on any given "race X," or unexpectedly work on "race !X" that are [Race X].

You get your half-orc that looks like a cute elf, and the equivalent exchange is that I lose the ability to make informed tactical decisions concerning my character.


BigDTBone wrote:
That's fine, and as far as our interaction goes I am happy to leave it with this parting thought; that gruff dwarf can still get the bonus to saves in my game by choosing the mechanics that provide it. However, if I wanted to play a disgruntled, tough, loner halfling I couldn't capture that as well if I played in your game. And I promise you that my level of immersive rollplay wouldn't be affected by that mechanical choice at character creation. I would also posit that none of your other players would suspect anything unless you told them. (And I certainly wouldn't, I don't let other players look at my c-sheets when I play because it encourages metagaming.)

A halfling who uses the mechanics of a dwarf sounds like an example of the sort of thing that shouldn't be encouraged. Dwarves, among many other differences, are a larger size category than halflings. Isn't that like saying, "I'm going to be an elf, but I want to use the stats and weapons of a large creature, like an ogre, and I don't want any of the other players to notice I'm doing this"?


Sandslice wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.

I'm looking at this from a player's perspective, though. If "race X" can simply be [Race Y], then I (playing a character with mechanics that target [Race X]) cannot have even reasonable knowledge of whether my mechanics will work on any given "race X," or unexpectedly work on "race !X" that are [Race X].

You get your half-orc that looks like a cute elf, and the equivalent exchange is that I lose the ability to make informed tactical decisions concerning my character.

Ok, look at it like this;

Pretend the "race" section of the CRB didn't have headers like "Elf" and "Dwarf" but instead said stuff like "0-HD Creature Template 1." It may even say something like, "this would be a good choice for a stereotypical Elf."

Now, after you chose the creature template that best matches your specific character, you assign it the subtype of the race you are. You are that race, you look like that race, other races aren't "really" you, you arent "really" something else.

That's the level of divorce between published flavor and published mechanics I am advocating for.


Matthew Downie wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
That's fine, and as far as our interaction goes I am happy to leave it with this parting thought; that gruff dwarf can still get the bonus to saves in my game by choosing the mechanics that provide it. However, if I wanted to play a disgruntled, tough, loner halfling I couldn't capture that as well if I played in your game. And I promise you that my level of immersive rollplay wouldn't be affected by that mechanical choice at character creation. I would also posit that none of your other players would suspect anything unless you told them. (And I certainly wouldn't, I don't let other players look at my c-sheets when I play because it encourages metagaming.)
A halfling who uses the mechanics of a dwarf sounds like an example of the sort of thing that shouldn't be encouraged. Dwarves, among many other differences, are a larger size category than halflings. Isn't that like saying, "I'm going to be an elf, but I want to use the stats and weapons of a large creature, like an ogre, and I don't want any of the other players to notice I'm doing this"?

I'm a human but my stats would place me as a "large" creature. Am I cheating at real life? Am I really an ogre?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the option is allowed, like a large cat for a druid, then picking the large cat, but having it be a wolf, isn't really reflavoring for power. The power was allowed, so getting that power isn't breaking anything. Now having the large cat stats be a wolf doesn't break anything. Why is the name "wolf" tied to a certain stat block? Why is it "bad" to reflavor this? The guy wants to be an elf with a wolf. But wants the allosaurus rus stat block. What's wrong with this since an allosaurus was allowed?

Sovereign Court

BigDTBone wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
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.

That is the exact opposite of what was explained.

Now - it could be that you don't believe him - and that's fine - we're only getting his side. But you need to at least premise your statement. As it is - you're just wrong.


BigDTBone wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
That's fine, and as far as our interaction goes I am happy to leave it with this parting thought; that gruff dwarf can still get the bonus to saves in my game by choosing the mechanics that provide it. However, if I wanted to play a disgruntled, tough, loner halfling I couldn't capture that as well if I played in your game. And I promise you that my level of immersive rollplay wouldn't be affected by that mechanical choice at character creation. I would also posit that none of your other players would suspect anything unless you told them. (And I certainly wouldn't, I don't let other players look at my c-sheets when I play because it encourages metagaming.)
A halfling who uses the mechanics of a dwarf sounds like an example of the sort of thing that shouldn't be encouraged. Dwarves, among many other differences, are a larger size category than halflings. Isn't that like saying, "I'm going to be an elf, but I want to use the stats and weapons of a large creature, like an ogre, and I don't want any of the other players to notice I'm doing this"?
I'm a human but my stats would place me as a "large" creature. Am I cheating at real life? Am I really an ogre?

Are you between 8 and 16 feet tall? Are you capable of wielding a twelve-foot-long sword?

I think my main objection to the dwarvish halfling was the suggestion that no other player would ever notice. If you're using all the stats of a dwarf, you have darkvision, the ability to wear full plate without slowing down, you can't ride a medium animal, you use larger weapons and armor, you get proficiency in dwarven weapons...

And if you're not doing all those things, you're basically making a new homebrew race. I'm the sort of GM who might allow that, but I'd understand one who wouldn't.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Sandslice wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.

I'm looking at this from a player's perspective, though. If "race X" can simply be [Race Y], then I (playing a character with mechanics that target [Race X]) cannot have even reasonable knowledge of whether my mechanics will work on any given "race X," or unexpectedly work on "race !X" that are [Race X].

You get your half-orc that looks like a cute elf, and the equivalent exchange is that I lose the ability to make informed tactical decisions concerning my character.

Ok, look at it like this;

Pretend the "race" section of the CRB didn't have headers like "Elf" and "Dwarf" but instead said stuff like "0-HD Creature Template 1." It may even say something like, "this would be a good choice for a stereotypical Elf."

Now, after you chose the creature template that best matches your specific character, you assign it the subtype of the race you are. You are that race, you look like that race, other races aren't "really" you, you arent "really" something else.

That's the level of divorce between published flavor and published mechanics I am advocating for.

do you still qualify for the orc only feats and are effected by spells like an orc? or does blood boil cause you damage?


Matthew Downie wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
That's fine, and as far as our interaction goes I am happy to leave it with this parting thought; that gruff dwarf can still get the bonus to saves in my game by choosing the mechanics that provide it. However, if I wanted to play a disgruntled, tough, loner halfling I couldn't capture that as well if I played in your game. And I promise you that my level of immersive rollplay wouldn't be affected by that mechanical choice at character creation. I would also posit that none of your other players would suspect anything unless you told them. (And I certainly wouldn't, I don't let other players look at my c-sheets when I play because it encourages metagaming.)
A halfling who uses the mechanics of a dwarf sounds like an example of the sort of thing that shouldn't be encouraged. Dwarves, among many other differences, are a larger size category than halflings. Isn't that like saying, "I'm going to be an elf, but I want to use the stats and weapons of a large creature, like an ogre, and I don't want any of the other players to notice I'm doing this"?
I'm a human but my stats would place me as a "large" creature. Am I cheating at real life? Am I really an ogre?

Are you between 8 and 16 feet tall? Are you capable of wielding a twelve-foot-long sword?

I think my main objection to the dwarvish halfling was the suggestion that no other player would ever notice. If you're using all the stats of a dwarf, you have darkvision, the ability to wear full plate without slowing down, you can't ride a medium animal, you use larger weapons and armor, you get proficiency in dwarven weapons...

And if you're not doing all those things, you're basically making a new homebrew race. I'm the sort of GM who might allow that, but I'd understand one who wouldn't.

Darkvision has been covered in this thread more than once.

"Yes, I'm used to bearing heavy loads, they don't slow me down."
"You may not have noticed, but I'm pretty stocky, that cute little bugger may carry you, but I'm gonna need a bigger steed."
Why are you worried about my dice?
Along with the subtype, the smallest changes to mechanics are expected. You would get racial weapons for your race.


Bandw2 wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Sandslice wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.

I'm looking at this from a player's perspective, though. If "race X" can simply be [Race Y], then I (playing a character with mechanics that target [Race X]) cannot have even reasonable knowledge of whether my mechanics will work on any given "race X," or unexpectedly work on "race !X" that are [Race X].

You get your half-orc that looks like a cute elf, and the equivalent exchange is that I lose the ability to make informed tactical decisions concerning my character.

Ok, look at it like this;

Pretend the "race" section of the CRB didn't have headers like "Elf" and "Dwarf" but instead said stuff like "0-HD Creature Template 1." It may even say something like, "this would be a good choice for a stereotypical Elf."

Now, after you chose the creature template that best matches your specific character, you assign it the subtype of the race you are. You are that race, you look like that race, other races aren't "really" you, you arent "really" something else.

That's the level of divorce between published flavor and published mechanics I am advocating for.

do you still qualify for the orc only feats and are effected by spells like an orc? or does blood boil cause you damage?

No. No. Why wouldn't it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So basically, reflavoring to you involves taking the mechanical parts you like and throwing out the mechanical parts you don't. OK.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:


Ok, look at it like this;

Pretend the "race" section of the CRB didn't have headers like "Elf" and "Dwarf" but instead said stuff like "0-HD Creature Template 1." It may even say something like, "this would be a good choice for a stereotypical Elf."

Now, after you chose the creature template that best matches your specific character, you assign it the subtype of the race you are. You are that race, you look like that race, other races aren't "really" you, you arent "really" something else.

That's the level of divorce between published flavor and published mechanics I am advocating for.

And the cost to that is that race becomes essentially meaningless; people will take the optimal race subtypes for racial feats / traits for their mechanics, while offsetting any weaknesses in the Racial Template by taking one that doesn't have those weaknesses (or, to simplify the min-maxing involved, just take the Human template.)

Sovereign Court

BigDTBone - I have no problem with the normal range of reskinning. But with your last post you have gone solidly over the line from 'reskinning' to 'houserules'. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with houserules, but it's more than mere reskinning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
So basically, reflavoring to you involves taking the mechanical parts you like and throwing out the mechanical parts you don't. OK.

?

I don't understand.

I am saying that an elf in the game is an elf. So no matter what base you use to make the character it will have the [elf] subtype and will have racial weapons for an elf.

I don't see where you get that I "like" or "don't like" parts. I'm also not seeing what you think I'm "throwing out." Yes stuff that is directly specific to the race (ie, stuff that calls the race out by name) will be part of the character.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
BigDTBone - I have no problem with the normal range of reskinning. But with your last post you have gone solidly over the line from 'reskinning' to 'houserules'. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with houserules, but it's more than mere reskinning.

Reskinning is already houserules. What is it about ensuring that elves have the [elf] subtype that you object to?


Sandslice wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


Ok, look at it like this;

Pretend the "race" section of the CRB didn't have headers like "Elf" and "Dwarf" but instead said stuff like "0-HD Creature Template 1." It may even say something like, "this would be a good choice for a stereotypical Elf."

Now, after you chose the creature template that best matches your specific character, you assign it the subtype of the race you are. You are that race, you look like that race, other races aren't "really" you, you arent "really" something else.

That's the level of divorce between published flavor and published mechanics I am advocating for.

And the cost to that is that race becomes essentially meaningless; people will take the optimal race subtypes for racial feats / traits for their mechanics, while offsetting any weaknesses in the Racial Template by taking one that doesn't have those weaknesses (or, to simplify the min-maxing involved, just take the Human template.)

The races are (theoretically) balanced against one another. There is no power gained by choosing one over another. If you think that the races aren't balanced then that is an issue you have with pathfinder design not with reskinning.

Sovereign Court

BigDTBone wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
BigDTBone - I have no problem with the normal range of reskinning. But with your last post you have gone solidly over the line from 'reskinning' to 'houserules'. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with houserules, but it's more than mere reskinning.
Reskinning is already houserules. What is it about ensuring that elves have the [elf] subtype that you object to?

Because it's changing the mechanics.

Reskinning is changing only fluff. Houserules involve changing mechanics.

Nothing is wrong with either one - I'm just a stictler for people defining what they're talking about - otherwise people end up talking past each other. (Like some of this thread.)


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
BigDTBone - I have no problem with the normal range of reskinning. But with your last post you have gone solidly over the line from 'reskinning' to 'houserules'. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with houserules, but it's more than mere reskinning.
Reskinning is already houserules. What is it about ensuring that elves have the [elf] subtype that you object to?

Because it's changing the mechanics.

Reskinning is changing only fluff. Houserules involve changing mechanics.

Nothing is wrong with either one - I'm just a stictler for people defining what they're talking about - otherwise people end up talking past each other. (Like some of this thread.)

I've not tried to hide that, at least twice now I've awknowledged that having this level of flexibility does require the GM to make the absolute minimum of common sense mechanical tweaks. The extent of which is LITERALLY "races get their own subtype," and "races get their own racial weapons."

So, for the third time I'll awknowledge that, and again I'll ask, "So what?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

having an elf keep elf racial weapons, while getting all the traits of a different race is now making the elf better than the other race. Like if you based it off human, so you get the skills, feat, and +2, but then adding on Elf only abilities and elf feats, and elf weapon training, and you have a better human. if you're going to say an elf is based off a half-orc(being character race option 1) then all the things that work on half-orcs would be tied to (character race option 1) otherwise you're breaking the package. This is why it's houserules instead of just reskinning. reskinning would be more like all half-orcs are now mountain-elves, and half-orcs no longer existed.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
His reflavoring was the somatic components being muscle flexing.

How is the reskinning? For all we know, that's what all somatic components look like.


Chess Pwn wrote:
having an elf keep elf racial weapons, while getting all the traits of a different race is now making the elf better than the other race. Like if you based it off human, so you get the skills, feat, and +2, but then adding on Elf only abilities and elf feats, and elf weapon training, and you have a better human. if you're going to say an elf is based off a half-orc(being character race option 1) then all the things that work on half-orcs would be tied to (character race option 1) otherwise you're breaking the package. This is why it's houserules instead of just reskinning. reskinning would be more like all half-orcs are now mountain-elves, and half-orcs no longer existed.

As a GM, I find that level of power variance (what comes down to something between a trait and a feat's worth of power) to get completely overshadowed by the build. We aren't talking about huge optimization differences here. I mean, we are talking about a handful of exotic weapons if you already have martial weapon proficiency. The character using it is going to be so far behind the casters in the group that it isn't even note worthy.

As for "house rules not reskinning" I'll say again that reskinning is already a house rule. There isn't a special line between mechanics and flavor that breaks from houserules to reskinning. Houserules encompass reskinning.

If you want to designate some other word to mean "houserules only effecting mechanics," then go for it.


BigDTBone wrote:
Sandslice wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


Ok, look at it like this;

Pretend the "race" section of the CRB didn't have headers like "Elf" and "Dwarf" but instead said stuff like "0-HD Creature Template 1." It may even say something like, "this would be a good choice for a stereotypical Elf."

Now, after you chose the creature template that best matches your specific character, you assign it the subtype of the race you are. You are that race, you look like that race, other races aren't "really" you, you arent "really" something else.

That's the level of divorce between published flavor and published mechanics I am advocating for.

And the cost to that is that race becomes essentially meaningless; people will take the optimal race subtypes for racial feats / traits for their mechanics, while offsetting any weaknesses in the Racial Template by taking one that doesn't have those weaknesses (or, to simplify the min-maxing involved, just take the Human template.)
The races are (theoretically) balanced against one another. There is no power gained by choosing one over another. If you think that the races aren't balanced then that is an issue you have with pathfinder design not with reskinning.

It's not balance, but min-maxing. Sorcerers don't go dwarf without using Empyreal wild-bloodline, because the Cha malus is suboptimal for sorcerers while the Wis bonus is ideal. In your idea, a dwarf can choose a different racial template (say, that of a gnome) and replace the Cha malus with a Cha bonus.

Now consider that ARG has rules for creating racial templates. Should this sort of "reskinning" extend to allowing players to create their own set of racial features within an RP limit, and apply them to whatever race they want?


See but calling the "samurai class" a "knight" is reskinning that isn't really houserules. I can play a rogue by being a wizard class or a bard class or slayer class etc. thus the "rogue class" doesn't actually mean anything than tying all the abilities under a package name. Same with the samurai, he can be a western guy that has a lance and is part of a knightly order or whatnot. It's saying that not all classes mush be like the class description given for it's class.


Sandslice wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Sandslice wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


Ok, look at it like this;

Pretend the "race" section of the CRB didn't have headers like "Elf" and "Dwarf" but instead said stuff like "0-HD Creature Template 1." It may even say something like, "this would be a good choice for a stereotypical Elf."

Now, after you chose the creature template that best matches your specific character, you assign it the subtype of the race you are. You are that race, you look like that race, other races aren't "really" you, you arent "really" something else.

That's the level of divorce between published flavor and published mechanics I am advocating for.

And the cost to that is that race becomes essentially meaningless; people will take the optimal race subtypes for racial feats / traits for their mechanics, while offsetting any weaknesses in the Racial Template by taking one that doesn't have those weaknesses (or, to simplify the min-maxing involved, just take the Human template.)
The races are (theoretically) balanced against one another. There is no power gained by choosing one over another. If you think that the races aren't balanced then that is an issue you have with pathfinder design not with reskinning.

It's not balance, but min-maxing. Sorcerers don't go dwarf without using Empyreal wild-bloodline, because the Cha malus is suboptimal for sorcerers while the Wis bonus is ideal. In your idea, a dwarf can choose a different racial template (say, that of a gnome) and replace the Cha malus with a Cha bonus.

Now consider that ARG has rules for creating racial templates. Should this sort of "reskinning" extend to allowing players to create their own set of racial features within an RP limit, and apply them to whatever race they want?

I'm fine with dwarf sorcerers. I'm fine with players building their own races from the ARG.

Sovereign Court

BigDTBone wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
having an elf keep elf racial weapons, while getting all the traits of a different race is now making the elf better than the other race. Like if you based it off human, so you get the skills, feat, and +2, but then adding on Elf only abilities and elf feats, and elf weapon training, and you have a better human. if you're going to say an elf is based off a half-orc(being character race option 1) then all the things that work on half-orcs would be tied to (character race option 1) otherwise you're breaking the package. This is why it's houserules instead of just reskinning. reskinning would be more like all half-orcs are now mountain-elves, and half-orcs no longer existed.
As a GM, I find that level of power variance (what comes down to something between a trait and a feat's worth of power) to get completely overshadowed by the build. We aren't talking about huge optimization differences here. I mean, we are talking about a handful of exotic weapons if you already have martial weapon proficiency. The character using it is going to be so far behind the casters in the group that it isn't even note worthy.

I gotcha. You're in the 'martials are so behind casters that martial balance doesn't matter' camp.

Except that - even if I accepted that logic (I don't) - this can be done for casters too - like the aforementioned druid. (Druids are already probably the 2nd or 3rd most powerful class in the game.)


Chess Pwn wrote:
See but calling the "samurai class" a "knight" is reskinning that isn't really houserules. I can play a rogue by being a wizard class or a bard class or slayer class etc. thus the "rogue class" doesn't actually mean anything than tying all the abilities under a package name. Same with the samurai, he can be a western guy that has a lance and is part of a knightly order or whatnot. It's saying that not all classes mush be like the class description given for it's class.

It's still houserules. It may not carry a mechanical impact but it is definately houserules.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

no, reskinning isn't a houserule, because the house doesn't need to make a rule for it.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
having an elf keep elf racial weapons, while getting all the traits of a different race is now making the elf better than the other race. Like if you based it off human, so you get the skills, feat, and +2, but then adding on Elf only abilities and elf feats, and elf weapon training, and you have a better human. if you're going to say an elf is based off a half-orc(being character race option 1) then all the things that work on half-orcs would be tied to (character race option 1) otherwise you're breaking the package. This is why it's houserules instead of just reskinning. reskinning would be more like all half-orcs are now mountain-elves, and half-orcs no longer existed.
As a GM, I find that level of power variance (what comes down to something between a trait and a feat's worth of power) to get completely overshadowed by the build. We aren't talking about huge optimization differences here. I mean, we are talking about a handful of exotic weapons if you already have martial weapon proficiency. The character using it is going to be so far behind the casters in the group that it isn't even note worthy.

I gotcha. You're in the 'martials are so behind casters that martial balance doesn't matter' camp.

Except that - even if I accepted that logic (I don't) - this can be done for casters too - like the aforementioned druid. (Druids are already probably the 2nd or 3rd most powerful class in the game.)

Don't pidgeon hole me, you don't know me.

Explain to me the world-shattering munchkinism that comes to light only when you have an half-orc druid who is proficient with an Elven curve blade.

EDIT: Actually, that doesn't even apply to Druids because druids don't get MWP.


Bandw2 wrote:
no, reskinning isn't a houserule, because the house doesn't need to make a rule for it.

It is a change to the published material and therefore, a houserule.


It's the half-orc druid who is a halfling so he has Risky Striker and can turn into whatever size needed to get the bonus damage.

It's the Half-orc halfling that is now small with a str bonus or would it be a medium halfling? If you're medium halfling then you'd not need to take the human feat, Racial Heritage, to be a medium underfoot adept.

Sovereign Court

BigDTBone wrote:


Don't pidgeon hole me, you don't know me.

Explain to me the world-shattering munchkinism that comes to light only when you have an half-orc druid who is proficient with an Elven curve blade.

I'm sorry - but the 'you don't know me' line? You had literally just said that it didn't matter because they're still "going to be so far behind the casters in the group..." in your explanation of why such boosts didn't matter. All I said was that the same minor but significant min/maxing can also be achieved by casters - making the argument moot.

And I'm not saying that such things would destroy the game. It wouldn't. And you're free to allow such things. (And you're wrong actually - elf druids don't gain proficiecy with the curve blade as druids don't get martial proficiency.) But in a different case - while things are minor boosts - powergaming (which I enjoy actually) is all about maximizing your minor boosts and stacking them together for maximum effect.

Edit: BigD caught the druid elf blade thing


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
no, reskinning isn't a houserule, because the house doesn't need to make a rule for it.
It is a change to the published material and therefore, a houserule.

we already know complete RAW doesn't work all the time, so I prefer RAI to rule over RAW, and it certainly isn't intended for material to be bootstrapped down, as they constantly give guidelines instead of hard rules.

so when something doesn't even effect any other part of the game, it isn't a houserule, nor is it even really a change to published material. mechanical changes, are however.


Chess Pwn wrote:

It's the half-orc druid who is a halfling so he has Risky Striker and can turn into whatever size needed to get the bonus damage.

It's the Half-orc halfling that is now small with a str bonus or would it be a medium halfling? If you're medium halfling then you'd not need to take the human feat, Racial Heritage, to be a medium underfoot adept.

As I have also already mentioned earlier in this thread, the mechanics should mimic the desired flavor.

If you can explain to me why you are a small-sized half orc then I'll go for it, but the hard part of that equation is the explanation NOT the mechanical reflavor.

Sovereign Court

BigDTBone wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
no, reskinning isn't a houserule, because the house doesn't need to make a rule for it.
It is a change to the published material and therefore, a houserule.

Yes - from a broad point of view all reskinning is a (minor) houserule. But that doesn't make all houserules reskinning. (Like the classic example of how all poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.)


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


Don't pidgeon hole me, you don't know me.

Explain to me the world-shattering munchkinism that comes to light only when you have an half-orc druid who is proficient with an Elven curve blade.

I'm sorry - but the 'you don't know me' line? You had literally just said that it didn't matter because they're still "going to be so far behind the casters in the group..." in your explanation of why such boosts didn't matter. All I said was that the same minor but significant min/maxing can also be achieved by casters - making the argument moot.

And I'm not saying that such things would destroy the game. It wouldn't. And you're free to allow such things. (And you're wrong actually - elf druids don't gain proficiecy with the curve blade as druids don't get martial proficiency.) But in a different case - while things are minor boosts - powergaming (which I enjoy actually) is all about maximizing your minor boosts and stacking them together for maximum effect.

Edit: BigD caught the druid elf blade thing

You are the one who said that Druids could benefit from racial weapon change, that's why I brought it up.

As for the other thing, you didn't just make a reply but relegated me into a "camp." You don't know me well enough to assign me to a "camp."


Bandw2 wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
no, reskinning isn't a houserule, because the house doesn't need to make a rule for it.
It is a change to the published material and therefore, a houserule.

we already know complete RAW doesn't work all the time, so I prefer RAI to rule over RAW, and it certainly isn't intended for material to be bootstrapped down, as they constantly give guidelines instead of hard rules.

so when something doesn't even effect any other part of the game, it isn't a houserule, nor is it even really a change to published material. mechanical changes, are however.

That's a fine opinion you have.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
no, reskinning isn't a houserule, because the house doesn't need to make a rule for it.
It is a change to the published material and therefore, a houserule.
Yes - from a broad point of view all reskinning is a (minor) houserule. But that doesn't make all houserules reskinning. (Like the classic example of how all poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.)

I didn't say all houserules are reskinning, I did say all reskinning is houseruling.

251 to 300 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Want to Play a Samurai, But Your DM Said No? Try Calling it a Knight Instead! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.