That's a fine opinion you have.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.
it's not an opinion, if something doesn't effect any other part of the game, then it isn't a house rule, because the house doesn't need to make a rule for it to work. a Samurai being a knight, effects nothing, a half-orc being an elf effects a lot of things. very simply he gets a +1 mod in whatever stat he desires.
|
I didn't say all houserules are reskinning, I did say all reskinning is houseruling.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.)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.
You did earlier imply that the changing of mechanics was just a form of reskinning. I think that everyone else here is defining reskinning as 'no mechanical changes' - thereby making any mechanical changes not just reskinning.
No offense etc intended. I'm just trying to keep everyone's definitions straight so that we don't get our wires crossed.
If I understand you correctly BigDTBone, me playing a "Monkish" character concept that eshews fighting, though receiving training at his monastery, and seeks enlightenment and intellectual persuits, but using the fighter class to play this character, that doing so would be houseruling?
I didn't say all houserules are reskinning, I did say all reskinning is houseruling.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.)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.You did earlier imply that the changing of mechanics was just a form of reskinning. I think that everyone else here is defining reskinning as 'no mechanical changes' - thereby making any mechanical changes not just reskinning.
No offense etc intended. I'm just trying to keep everyone's definitions straight so that we don't get our wires crossed.
If I gave that impression then I apologize. That wasn't my intent, and I don't support that definition.
Just to be clear, to me
Reskinning - using setting/campaign/character specific flavor instead of the publisher's suggested flavor.
Houserule - any variation from printed material.
|
|
You are the one who said that Druids could benefit from racial weapon change, that's why I brought it up.
That wasn't actually me - but they can. They benefit from the half-orc auto-proficiency with the falchion. If you don't plan to use a shield, it's +1.5 damage vs scimitar.
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."
I didn't intend to - sorry if it felt that way - I was intending to just sum up the point (a common point of view) which I was responding to, and I'm reasonably certain that I didn't strawman you on it.
If I understand you correctly BigDTBone, me playing a "Monkish" character concept that eshews fighting, though receiving training at his monastery, and seeks enlightenment and intellectual persuits, but using the fighter class to play this character, that doing so would be houseruling?
If you call him a monk, then yes.
You are the one who said that Druids could benefit from racial weapon change, that's why I brought it up.That wasn't actually me - but they can. They benefit from the half-orc auto-proficiency with the falchion. If you don't plan to use a shield, it's +1.5 damage vs scimitar.
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."I didn't intend to - sorry if it felt that way - I was intending to just sum up the point (a common point of view) which I was responding to, and I'm reasonably certain that I didn't strawman you on it.
No worries. Sorry for mixing you up, there are like 4 people competing to tell me I'm wrong and all of them are comming from different places in the conversation. Plus I'm using my phone to post. :-/
If I understand you correctly BigDTBone, me playing a "Monkish" character concept that eshews fighting, though receiving training at his monastery, and seeks enlightenment and intellectual persuits, but using the fighter class to play this character, that doing so would be houseruling?If you call him a monk, then yes.
So If he introduces himself in game, and calls himself a monk, since he's from a monastery and all, that is when it would be a houserule? Am I understanding you so far?
If I understand you correctly BigDTBone, me playing a "Monkish" character concept that eshews fighting, though receiving training at his monastery, and seeks enlightenment and intellectual persuits, but using the fighter class to play this character, that doing so would be houseruling?If you call him a monk, then yes.
Curious.
Do all thugs have the rogue(Thug) class and archetype.
Do all oracles possess levels in the oracle class.
Do all devout pilgrims of a religion have levels in Cleric(Devout Pilgrim).
Are all hunters 6th level divine casters drawing off the druid and ranger list. Naturally I exclude hunters looking to bag game for the purpose of aquiring trophies from this. They would have levels in Ranger(Trophy Hunter).
Being a monk doesn't mean you *have* to have levels in the Monk class. I am fairly certain the rules don't say that anywhere.
Amusingly, I basically agreed with what you were saying before (changing the mechanics of the race/class etc is different from refluffing). Not all monks are Monks, however. Even by RAW.
Side note, the above reminds me of an oots comic.
So If he introduces himself in game, and calls himself a monk, since he's from a monastery and all, that is when it would be a houserule? Am I understanding you so far?If I understand you correctly BigDTBone, me playing a "Monkish" character concept that eshews fighting, though receiving training at his monastery, and seeks enlightenment and intellectual persuits, but using the fighter class to play this character, that doing so would be houseruling?If you call him a monk, then yes.
Yeah, if the GM allows it then that would be a houserule. Note that I find it to be a no-brainer rule, but by game RAW a "monk" is specifically described. Varying from that definition is a houserule, however an extremely common one.
I find it interesting that people are shocked that I would even concider that a houserule but those same people are accusing me of running a munchkin factory at my house because I would dare to do the same thing with races.
What book is the Devout Pilgrim in? I don't recognize that one...
On actually checking it up, I realised that devout pilgram is the D20pfsrd name for varisian pilgrim.
Eh, that can be replaced with Crusaders needing the class/archetype Cleric(Crusader).
So If he introduces himself in game, and calls himself a monk, since he's from a monastery and all, that is when it would be a houserule? Am I understanding you so far?If I understand you correctly BigDTBone, me playing a "Monkish" character concept that eshews fighting, though receiving training at his monastery, and seeks enlightenment and intellectual persuits, but using the fighter class to play this character, that doing so would be houseruling?If you call him a monk, then yes.Yeah, if the GM allows it then that would be a houserule. Note that I find it to be a no-brainer rule, but by game RAW a "monk" is specifically described. Varying from that definition is a houserule, however an extremely common one.
I find it interesting that people are shocked that I would even concider that a houserule but those same people are accusing me of running a munchkin factory at my house because I would dare to do the same thing with races.
So does that mean all the examples Snowblind gave are also true. That all Thugs are rogue(thugs), and that a wizard is nothing but a wizard, that he couldn't also consider himself a rogue, or a knight. Are these also houserules?
So does that mean all the examples Snowblind gave are also true. That all Thugs are rogue(thugs), and that a wizard is nothing but a wizard, that he couldn't also consider himself a rogue, or a knight. Are these also houserules?So If he introduces himself in game, and calls himself a monk, since he's from a monastery and all, that is when it would be a houserule? Am I understanding you so far?If I understand you correctly BigDTBone, me playing a "Monkish" character concept that eshews fighting, though receiving training at his monastery, and seeks enlightenment and intellectual persuits, but using the fighter class to play this character, that doing so would be houseruling?If you call him a monk, then yes.Yeah, if the GM allows it then that would be a houserule. Note that I find it to be a no-brainer rule, but by game RAW a "monk" is specifically described. Varying from that definition is a houserule, however an extremely common one.
I find it interesting that people are shocked that I would even concider that a houserule but those same people are accusing me of running a munchkin factory at my house because I would dare to do the same thing with races.
If the game tells you what a term means and you use it differently then that is a houserule. I don't know how I could possibly make it more clear. That doesn't mean they are bad, or wrong, or even uncommon. But if it varies from the printed definition then it is a houserule.
I think where people are getting riled up or confused is that BigDTBone, if I am reading correctly, strays from FAW (Fluff as Written). He believes the fluff and mechanics are separate.
For many others, they stay close to the fluff (be it theirs or that put out by Paizo or another source). That puts BigDTBone on one side of the reskinning arc and the other camp on various points to the other side.
Hold up
In the CRB paladins are described as knights, crusaders, and lawbringers.
Does that mean a paladin that is a crusader must multiclass into Cleric(Crusader).
What about a paladin that was built before archetypes were around. Are they disqualified from being Crusaders now.
Does the paladin's god descend from the heavens and proclaim to the paladin "There has been a little commotion up high by The One That Controls All and our most holy Geeyemeyness has proclaimed that you may no longer continue your quest to rid the land of evil because our holy documentation on you has no mention of you taking class levels in Cleric(Crusader). No, you may not know what the heaven that means. Maybe you should just enjoy the fact that knight has no printed class by the rules of the universe and pray that He does not see fit to alter them further. Make sure you don't do anything that would qualify as a crusade though. That would be a most grievous, unforgivable violation of the laws of nature and presumably your paladin code."
This really sounds like an oots comic now.
Hold up
In the CRB paladins are described as knights, crusaders, and lawbringers.
Does that mean a paladin that is a crusader must multiclass into Cleric(Crusader).
What about a paladin that was built before archetypes were around. Are they disqualified from being Crusaders now.
Does the paladin's god descend from the heavens and proclaim to the paladin "There has been a little commotion up high by The One That Controls All and our most holy Geeyemeyness has proclaimed that you may no longer continue your quest to rid the land of evil because our holy documentation on you has no mention of you taking class levels in Cleric(Crusader). No, you may not know what the heaven that means. Maybe you should just enjoy the fact that knight has no printed class by the rules of the universe and pray that He does not see fit to alter them further. Make sure you don't do anything that would qualify as a crusade though. That would be a most grievous, unforgivable violation of the laws of nature and presumably your paladin code."
This really sounds like an oots comic now.
You can't be a paladin without first being a cleric(Crusader) because paladin's are crusaders.
I think where people are getting riled up or confused is that BigDTBone, if I am reading correctly, strays from FAW (Fluff as Written). He believes the fluff and mechanics are separate.
For many others, they stay close to the fluff (be it theirs or that put out by Paizo or another source). That puts BigDTBone on one side of the reskinning arc and the other camp on various points to the other side.
I would only clarify (because it was a confused point earlier in this thread) that I believe published flavor to be only a suggested use of published mechanics.
In my home game flavor and mechanics are VERY closely related. Indeed, I find that in my games flavor and mechanics are MORE closely related than if I didn't allow reskinning.
So, I'm not sure what you mean by that puts me on "one side of the arc." I think you are saying that I don't care if flavor and mechanics match; to which I would vehemently disagree.
Hold up
In the CRB paladins are described as knights, crusaders, and lawbringers.
Does that mean a paladin that is a crusader must multiclass into Cleric(Crusader).
What about a paladin that was built before archetypes were around. Are they disqualified from being Crusaders now.
Does the paladin's god descend from the heavens and proclaim to the paladin "There has been a little commotion up high by The One That Controls All and our most holy Geeyemeyness has proclaimed that you may no longer continue your quest to rid the land of evil because our holy documentation on you has no mention of you taking class levels in Cleric(Crusader). No, you may not know what the heaven that means. Maybe you should just enjoy the fact that knight has no printed class by the rules of the universe and pray that He does not see fit to alter them further. Make sure you don't do anything that would qualify as a crusade though. That would be a most grievous, unforgivable violation of the laws of nature and presumably your paladin code."
This really sounds like an oots comic now.
It isn't my responcibility to reconcile confused game terms. It isn't my responcibility to explain how to play the game without houserules. It certainly isn't my responcibility to be your personal mental gymnast.
All I'm saying is if you change the printed terms, or use them differently than they are defined then you are houseruling.
If you wish to contest the premise at a conceptual level then I will be happy to respond, but I'm done responding to requests to verify specific examples.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think where people are getting riled up or confused is that BigDTBone, if I am reading correctly, strays from FAW (Fluff as Written). He believes the fluff and mechanics are separate.
For many others, they stay close to the fluff (be it theirs or that put out by Paizo or another source). That puts BigDTBone on one side of the reskinning arc and the other camp on various points to the other side.
I would only clarify (because it was a confused point earlier in this thread) that I believe published flavor to be only a suggested use of published mechanics.
In my home game flavor and mechanics are VERY closely related. Indeed, I find that in my games flavor and mechanics are MORE closely related than if I didn't allow reskinning.
So, I'm not sure what you mean by that puts me on "one side of the arc." I think you are saying that I don't care if flavor and mechanics match; to which I would vehemently disagree.
Ah, no, that wasn't what I was meaning. I meant on a scale of say 1 to 10 with 10 being "This is an elf according to Paizo" and 1 being "#%@$ Paizo's definition of an elf", you would be closer to 1 than a number of games.
Which is fine! There is no One True Way and all that stuff; I was trying to clarify positions because, aside from some of the sarcastic stuff that I am trying to ignore, people seem all over the place on what is meant by reskinning/reflavoring and how far they'd go. From your posts, you seem more willing than many to go further than, say reskinning a tiny house cat as a small yippy dog minus the claw attack.
I think where people are getting riled up or confused is that BigDTBone, if I am reading correctly, strays from FAW (Fluff as Written). He believes the fluff and mechanics are separate.
For many others, they stay close to the fluff (be it theirs or that put out by Paizo or another source). That puts BigDTBone on one side of the reskinning arc and the other camp on various points to the other side.
I would only clarify (because it was a confused point earlier in this thread) that I believe published flavor to be only a suggested use of published mechanics.
In my home game flavor and mechanics are VERY closely related. Indeed, I find that in my games flavor and mechanics are MORE closely related than if I didn't allow reskinning.
So, I'm not sure what you mean by that puts me on "one side of the arc." I think you are saying that I don't care if flavor and mechanics match; to which I would vehemently disagree.
Ah, no, that wasn't what I was meaning. I meant on a scale of say 1 to 10 with 10 being "This is an elf according to Paizo" and 1 being "#%@$ Paizo's definition of an elf", you would be closer to 1 than a number of games.
Which is fine! There is no One True Way and all that stuff; I was trying to clarify positions because, aside from some of the sarcastic stuff that I am trying to ignore, people seem all over the place on what is meant by reskinning/reflavoring and how far they'd go. From your posts, you seem more willing than many to go further than, say reskinning a tiny house cat as a small yippy dog minus the claw attack.
Ah, then yes, I would agree with your full post.
So the point I think he's getting at, that I agree with, is that the name of the class has "nothing" to do with the character in the game. That if I play a WIZARD class, that my character could view himself as a rogue, not a ROGUE that has sneak attack and rogue tricks, but as a rogue as any rogue in the real world. That my WIZARD could be a thief, a warrior, knight, scholar, entertainer, illusionist, etc. That the FIGHTER in my example could very well call himself a monk, even though he has no levels in MONK. He's in no way referring to the MONK class when he says he's a monk, I believe he doesn't know the existence of the MONK class, he just knows of people that have ki pools and the other abilities of the MONK class. Thus "reskinning" our FIGHTER and introducing him as a monk or "reskinning" our SAMURAI as a knight just means that his character has the mechanics of the SAMURAI class, but is anything he wants to be in the game. Now there are some restrictions, my FIGHTER could be a non-lawful monk, and thus probably not fit in so well with all the MONKS which must be lawful that are also at his monastery. So this is what we mean by reskinning, no mechanical changes, just changing the fluff or stereotype that is for a class.
So the point I think he's getting at, that I agree with, is that the name of the class has "nothing" to do with the character in the game. That if I play a WIZARD class, that my character could view himself as a rogue, not a ROGUE that has sneak attack and rogue tricks, but as a rogue as any rogue in the real world. That my WIZARD could be a thief, a warrior, knight, scholar, entertainer, illusionist, etc. That the FIGHTER in my example could very well call himself a monk, even though he has no levels in MONK. He's in no way referring to the MONK class when he says he's a monk, I believe he doesn't know the existence of the MONK class, he just knows of people that have ki pools and the other abilities of the MONK class. Thus "reskinning" our FIGHTER and introducing him as a monk or "reskinning" our SAMURAI as a knight just means that his character has the mechanics of the SAMURAI class, but is anything he wants to be in the game. Now there are some restrictions, my FIGHTER could be a non-lawful monk, and thus probably not fit in so well with all the MONKS which must be lawful that are also at his monastery. So this is what we mean by reskinning, no mechanical changes, just changing the fluff or stereotype that is for a class.
I agree with and support all of that. I also concider it houseruling.
|
|
*Edit: My apologies, I couldn't help but post after seeing your example of Wizard-refluffed-as-Fighter but no Fighter-refluffed-as-Wizard.
Of note - he didn't actually say "Wizard-refluffed-as-Fighter" - he said as a warrior & a knight. I'm guessing he means warrior/knight as the role/class in a feudal system - not a wizard pretending that his spells are weapons.
So the point I think he's getting at, that I agree with, is that the name of the class has "nothing" to do with the character in the game. That if I play a WIZARD class, that my character could view himself as a rogue, not a ROGUE that has sneak attack and rogue tricks, but as a rogue as any rogue in the real world. That my WIZARD could be a thief, a warrior, knight, scholar, entertainer, illusionist, etc. That the FIGHTER in my example could very well call himself a monk, even though he has no levels in MONK. He's in no way referring to the MONK class when he says he's a monk, I believe he doesn't know the existence of the MONK class, he just knows of people that have ki pools and the other abilities of the MONK class. Thus "reskinning" our FIGHTER and introducing him as a monk or "reskinning" our SAMURAI as a knight just means that his character has the mechanics of the SAMURAI class, but is anything he wants to be in the game. Now there are some restrictions, my FIGHTER could be a non-lawful monk, and thus probably not fit in so well with all the MONKS which must be lawful that are also at his monastery. So this is what we mean by reskinning, no mechanical changes, just changing the fluff or stereotype that is for a class.
Incidentally, the above example could be an example as to why your character is adventuring. He was a bit too undisciplined for training in manipulating ki, and let because he felt the monks were stifling his potential.
Nonetheless, he thinks of himself as a monk, and fights primarily with wuxia-styled martial arts (unarmed strikes) that ki-using monks employ. Maybe his armor training class feature is nothing but him using a few of the lessons the monks taught him to lighten his body, rather than any sort of actual military experience.
My game is politically closer to mandarin China and doesn't have feudal style knighthoods. Orders are present and having bleed over from samurai and cavaliers would have to focus on their Order. Oddly, samurai would be ideal for the militaristic hobgoblin empire. If the challenge feature had something I could swap for both classes would benefit.
So the point I think he's getting at, that I agree with, is that the name of the class has "nothing" to do with the character in the game. That if I play a WIZARD class, that my character could view himself as a rogue, not a ROGUE that has sneak attack and rogue tricks, but as a rogue as any rogue in the real world. That my WIZARD could be a thief, a warrior, knight, scholar, entertainer, illusionist, etc. That the FIGHTER in my example could very well call himself a monk, even though he has no levels in MONK. He's in no way referring to the MONK class when he says he's a monk, I believe he doesn't know the existence of the MONK class, he just knows of people that have ki pools and the other abilities of the MONK class. Thus "reskinning" our FIGHTER and introducing him as a monk or "reskinning" our SAMURAI as a knight just means that his character has the mechanics of the SAMURAI class, but is anything he wants to be in the game. Now there are some restrictions, my FIGHTER could be a non-lawful monk, and thus probably not fit in so well with all the MONKS which must be lawful that are also at his monastery. So this is what we mean by reskinning, no mechanical changes, just changing the fluff or stereotype that is for a class.I agree with and support all of that. I also concider it houseruling.
My point is that for many, they don't consider it houseruling. That the people of the game don't know classes, and don't refer to themselves as "I'm a fighter class". Since no mechanics were changed nothing has been ruled to be different, aka no houserule. Thus we feel it lame that a GM wont allow the samurai in his game still, since he had no problems with the class but the stereotype of a samurai and how that wont fit in his game.
I'm saying this in hopes that misunderstandings based on what we personally feel words mean can be avoided.
So the point I think he's getting at, that I agree with, is that the name of the class has "nothing" to do with the character in the game. That if I play a WIZARD class, that my character could view himself as a rogue, not a ROGUE that has sneak attack and rogue tricks, but as a rogue as any rogue in the real world. That my WIZARD could be a thief, a warrior, knight, scholar, entertainer, illusionist, etc. That the FIGHTER in my example could very well call himself a monk, even though he has no levels in MONK. He's in no way referring to the MONK class when he says he's a monk, I believe he doesn't know the existence of the MONK class, he just knows of people that have ki pools and the other abilities of the MONK class. Thus "reskinning" our FIGHTER and introducing him as a monk or "reskinning" our SAMURAI as a knight just means that his character has the mechanics of the SAMURAI class, but is anything he wants to be in the game. Now there are some restrictions, my FIGHTER could be a non-lawful monk, and thus probably not fit in so well with all the MONKS which must be lawful that are also at his monastery. So this is what we mean by reskinning, no mechanical changes, just changing the fluff or stereotype that is for a class.Incidentally, the above example could be an example as to why your character is adventuring. He was a bit too undisciplined for training in manipulating ki, and let because he felt the monks were stifling his potential.
Nonetheless, he thinks of himself as a monk, and fights primarily with wuxia-styled martial arts (unarmed strikes) that ki-using monks employ. Maybe his armor training class feature is nothing but him using a few of the lessons the monks taught him to lighten his body, rather than any sort of actual military experience.
ooooooooooooooooor, he is a monk by christian definitions and not eastern ones...
So the point I think he's getting at, that I agree with, is that the name of the class has "nothing" to do with the character in the game. That if I play a WIZARD class, that my character could view himself as a rogue, not a ROGUE that has sneak attack and rogue tricks, but as a rogue as any rogue in the real world. That my WIZARD could be a thief, a warrior, knight, scholar, entertainer, illusionist, etc. That the FIGHTER in my example could very well call himself a monk, even though he has no levels in MONK. He's in no way referring to the MONK class when he says he's a monk, I believe he doesn't know the existence of the MONK class, he just knows of people that have ki pools and the other abilities of the MONK class. Thus "reskinning" our FIGHTER and introducing him as a monk or "reskinning" our SAMURAI as a knight just means that his character has the mechanics of the SAMURAI class, but is anything he wants to be in the game. Now there are some restrictions, my FIGHTER could be a non-lawful monk, and thus probably not fit in so well with all the MONKS which must be lawful that are also at his monastery. So this is what we mean by reskinning, no mechanical changes, just changing the fluff or stereotype that is for a class.I agree with and support all of that. I also concider it houseruling.My point is that for many, they don't consider it houseruling. That the people of the game don't know classes, and don't refer to themselves as "I'm a fighter class". Since no mechanics were changed nothing has been ruled to be different, aka no houserule. Thus we feel it lame that a GM wont allow the samurai in his game still, since he had no problems with the class but the stereotype of a samurai and how that wont fit in his game.
I'm saying this in hopes that misunderstandings based on what we personally feel words mean can be avoided.
this - bloodragers aren't called bloodragers, there isn't a clinical definition of what a bloodrager is, nor do all barbarians (low-tech foreigners) have the ability to rage...
several arcanists call themselves wizards and several oracles call themselves clerics or priests, hell he might just be that crazy guy up the hill by the coast.
currently, I am playing a Mercenary who has 1 level of oracle, 3 levels of fighter, and 1 ranger level. they have racial heritage kobold and scaled disciple and plan on getting dragon disciple next level. why? she was experimented on my a Dragon and is a half-dragon. Half of my characters mechanics aren't flavor correct, yet I didn't ask my GM at all if I could do this or not. the ranger level is for favored enemy dragon, because my character knows a lot about them.
currently in the party is a character I have yet to figure out the class of, nor race, he keeps completely covered and uses a Cello to do some crazy s$*#, so I think he's either a caster or a third party class. level 5 and did something with the cello that caused someone to die, as far as i'm aware he musiced him to death.
So the point I think he's getting at, that I agree with, is that the name of the class has "nothing" to do with the character in the game. That if I play a WIZARD class, that my character could view himself as a rogue, not a ROGUE that has sneak attack and rogue tricks, but as a rogue as any rogue in the real world. That my WIZARD could be a thief, a warrior, knight, scholar, entertainer, illusionist, etc. That the FIGHTER in my example could very well call himself a monk, even though he has no levels in MONK. He's in no way referring to the MONK class when he says he's a monk, I believe he doesn't know the existence of the MONK class, he just knows of people that have ki pools and the other abilities of the MONK class. Thus "reskinning" our FIGHTER and introducing him as a monk or "reskinning" our SAMURAI as a knight just means that his character has the mechanics of the SAMURAI class, but is anything he wants to be in the game. Now there are some restrictions, my FIGHTER could be a non-lawful monk, and thus probably not fit in so well with all the MONKS which must be lawful that are also at his monastery. So this is what we mean by reskinning, no mechanical changes, just changing the fluff or stereotype that is for a class.I agree with and support all of that. I also concider it houseruling.My point is that for many, they don't consider it houseruling. That the people of the game don't know classes, and don't refer to themselves as "I'm a fighter class". Since no mechanics were changed nothing has been ruled to be different, aka no houserule. Thus we feel it lame that a GM wont allow the samurai in his game still, since he had no problems with the class but the stereotype of a samurai and how that wont fit in his game.
I'm saying this in hopes that misunderstandings based on what we personally feel words mean can be avoided.
I understand your meaning, my point is that the line between what you decribe and an elf who keeps fighting when they should've fallen down is very much thinner than is being allowed for in this thread.
Apologies if we've already tried this approach; I've not made my way through every post yet.
As I see it, the GM has to do two (monumentally difficult, in many cases) things: maintain narrative consistency and comfortably adjudicate the rules. This means that the GM has to decide on what flavor is allowed (to address the former) and what mechanics are allowed (to address the latter). Just so we can all elucidate our positions, I'm going to propound a few scenarios; we'll see which ones are palatable.
A) The GM wants to run a game in "Medieval Europe" (i.e., dragons and magic are allowed, but people of color? THAT'S CRAZY). Anyway. The following exchange ensues:
Player: *rolls up and says* My character is a knight.
GM: Hmm, I'm not familiar with that class.
Player: Oh, he/she is a fighter mechanically, but he/she will be introduced as and function societally as a knight.
GM: Party on.
B) Same GM, same game.
Player: My character is a knight.
GM: Hmm, I'm not familiar with that class.
Player: Oh, he/she is a samurai mechanically, but he/she will be introduced as and function societally as a knight.
GM: Sure!
C) The GM runs a more cosmopolitan game; lots of different flavors are supported, but the GM is new and wants to restrict the available mechanics to the CRB.
Player: My character is a samurai.
GM: Oh, I'm not allowing Ultimate Combat.
Player: No, he/she is a fighter mechanically, but he/she will be introduced as and function societally as a samurai.
GM: THIS IS ACCEPTABLE.
D) The GM is comfortable adjudicating all kinds of different mechanics, but wants to run a low-tech, perhaps even stone age, game.
Player: My character is a gunslinger.
GM: Guns don't really fit my campaign.
Player: Well, really, I just like the gunslinger mechanics. What if we thought if them as blowguns/dart shooters/manticore quills/whatever and just reflavored things accordingly?
GM: Sounds cool.
E) The GM is comfortable adjudicating all kinds of different mechanics, but wants to run a low-tech, perhaps even stone age, game.
Player: My character is a gunslinger.
GM: Guns don't really fit the campaign.
Player: Oh, I'm not using the gunslinger class. I'm actually going to be a bolt ace and reflavor my crossbows as guns; I just like the gun flavor.
GM: ...
It seems like everyone agrees that A) and C) are acceptable. I don't think anyone would say that the player in E) is being reasonable. It seems that most people in this thread find B) and D) acceptable, but some don't. I would ask those people what makes A) and C) acceptable but not B) and D).
I'd pretty much accept all of them, but D feels weird due to the price of guns and so i'd probably see if i can make him take more a more appropriate class so he isn't dropping down serious bank on a blowgun.
Player: Oh, he/she is a fighter mechanically, but he/she will be introduced as and function societally as a knight.
GM: Party on.B) Player: Oh, he/she is a samurai mechanically, but he/she will be introduced as and function societally as a knight.
GM: Sure!C) Player: No, he/she is a fighter mechanically, but he/she will be introduced as and function societally as a samurai.
GM: THIS IS ACCEPTABLE.D) GM: Guns don't really fit my campaign.
Player: Well, really, I just like the gunslinger mechanics. What if we thought if them as blowguns/dart shooters/manticore quills/whatever and just reflavored things accordingly?
GM: Sounds cool.E)
GM: Guns don't really fit the campaign.
Player: Oh, I'm not using the gunslinger class. I'm actually going to be a bolt ace and reflavor my crossbows as guns; I just like the gun flavor.
GM: ...
Depends on when in medieval Europe. While this will seem to contradict things I've said earlier, the thrust is this:
Archetypes are a narrow focus, and I see them as a way to create regional variation. Ireland will have more and better druid options than Finland, while Finland will have better sorcerer (Finns) and shaman (Saami) options. That sort of thing.To keep the responses short:
A) Not a problem.
B) I'd say no to that, since I consider alt-classes to be archetypes (and thus subject to the above.) However, the "samurai" class would be available to the Japanese; an archetype of it, with a focus on horse-archery, would be allowed to Huns, Magyars (Hungarians,) and Mongols.
So if you justify how you have that sort of training (eg, by being a Hungarian or Mongol-trained Cossack etc,) then it would become acceptable.
C) Not a problem, if it's appropriate to the period.
D) I'd let you have Bolt Ace if crossbows exist (they're earlier than you think.) Otherwise, we'd either need to create an archetype like Bolt Ace for blown or thrown weapons, or give up and have you roll a ranger.
E) I have a d20 the size of a tennis ball, and 2d6 to match. Don't make me literally roll to hit and damage. :P
B) I'd say no to that, since I consider alt-classes to be archetypes (and thus subject to the above.) However, the "samurai" class would be available to the Japanese; an archetype of it, with a focus on horse-archery, would be allowed to Huns, Magyars (Hungarians,) and Mongols.
what if i wanted to play a Polish Hussar, or something else not specifically catered to with an archetype, specifically the reason most people choose samurai over cavalier is because of the resolve and forgo the teamwork aspect, and will usually ignore the horse archery benefits. being tough, isn't something really native to a specific area.
what if i wanted to play a Polish Hussar, or something else not specifically catered to with an archetype, specifically the reason most people choose samurai over cavalier is because of the resolve and forgo the teamwork aspect, and will usually ignore the horse archery benefits. being tough, isn't something really native to a specific area.
B) I'd say no to that, since I consider alt-classes to be archetypes (and thus subject to the above.) However, the "samurai" class would be available to the Japanese; an archetype of it, with a focus on horse-archery, would be allowed to Huns, Magyars (Hungarians,) and Mongols.
I'd say hussars are the base Cavalier class taken to its highest level. They're noted for highly disciplined formations and a heavy focus on mounted combat, while having the flexibility to go combined-arms with several different friendly formations. Replacing tactician would be one of the farthest things from my mind when writing the Winged Hussars into a campaign.
Yes, even for the gendarme archetype that further improves their mounted combat at the cost of tactician.
what if i wanted to play a Polish Hussar, or something else not specifically catered to with an archetype, specifically the reason most people choose samurai over cavalier is because of the resolve and forgo the teamwork aspect, and will usually ignore the horse archery benefits. being tough, isn't something really native to a specific area.
B) I'd say no to that, since I consider alt-classes to be archetypes (and thus subject to the above.) However, the "samurai" class would be available to the Japanese; an archetype of it, with a focus on horse-archery, would be allowed to Huns, Magyars (Hungarians,) and Mongols.
I'd say hussars are the base Cavalier class taken to its highest level. They're noted for highly disciplined formations and a heavy focus on mounted combat, while having the flexibility to go combined-arms with several different friendly formations. Replacing tactician would be one of the farthest things from my mind when writing the Winged Hussars into a campaign.
Yes, even for the gendarme archetype that further improves their mounted combat at the cost of tactician.
the hussars are also generally known for their bad-assery, the lance combat is already OP without a cavalier and I want to use the resolve ability to show this.
they're also notedly a cavalry formation and not a knightly order, so Ronin lends to them well.
Samurais have 1 single ability dealing with ranged combat and thus i don't see them as necessary for ranged mounted combat options.
EDIT: BREAKING NEWS, RONIN order is actually called RONIN/KNIGHT ERRANT, #PAIZOAPPROVED
the hussars are also generally known for their bad-assery, the lance combat is already OP without a cavalier and I want to use the resolve ability to show this.
Hussars took heavy-armour lance combat to the n+1th level in an age where guns were becoming more common - that plus the wings made them badass. They didn't have badass resilience - not like Benkei, or perhaps the Viking of Stamford Bridge (or, if you've read the Song of Roland, Archbishop Turpin and his last stand.)
So I don't agree that the resolve ability reflects the hussars. It doesn't reflect them within itself; and it trades away abilities that do reflect them far better.
they're also notedly a cavalry formation and not a knightly order, so Ronin lends to them well.
Except that they weren't knights-errant. The hussars were the elite cavalry division of the Polish army, loyal to the Polish monarchy.
the hussars are also generally known for their bad-assery, the lance combat is already OP without a cavalier and I want to use the resolve ability to show this.Hussars took heavy-armour lance combat to the n+1th level in an age where guns were becoming more common - that plus the wings made them badass. They didn't have badass resilience - not like Benkei, or perhaps the Viking of Stamford Bridge (or, if you've read the Song of Roland, Archbishop Turpin and his last stand.)
So I don't agree that the resolve ability reflects the hussars. It doesn't reflect them within itself; and it trades away abilities that do reflect them far better.
they're also notedly a cavalry formation and not a knightly order, so Ronin lends to them well.Except that they weren't knights-errant. The hussars were the elite cavalry division of the Polish army, loyal to the Polish monarchy.
+4 to attack on charges and double threat range seem pretty situational to me and can be downplayed for something that fits the specific character. also the Hussars were known for taking on armies several times their size so determined and resolute parts of resolve make perfect sense for them.
also the breaking news part was in relation to the thread at large. also, hussars were a general light cavalry term, i linked to the polish one because it was the one i brought up. hussars were originally hungarian, and i was reminded of them due to you mentioning Magyars. They served mostly as mercenaries through out Europe, a famous example is the British had some hussars in their Colonial Revolt crush attempt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's quite interesting to read the class descriptions for characters (which in many cases I don't think I ever read before - I already know what a wizard is) working on the assumption that the GM is treating it as part of the rules and that no other flavor is acceptable.
Multi-classing must be really difficult in such a game.
Barbarians: "For some, there is only rage... these warmongers know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare". No preparing for battle, and make sure you kill enemies who surrender.
Bard: "Through cleverness, talent, and magic, these cunning few unravel the wiles of the world, becoming adept in the arts of persuasion, manipulation, and inspiration." So, no dumping Int as a Bard. Putting skill points into Diplomacy is compulsory.
Cleric: "Called to serve powers beyond most mortal understanding, all priests preach wonders and provide for the spiritual needs of their people. Clerics are more than mere priests, though... The ways of the cleric are varied, yet all who tread these paths walk with the mightiest of allies and bear the arms of the gods themselves."
So you must be a priest, and you must bear the arms of the gods. Bear that in mind when shopping for equipment.
Druid: "servants of philosophical balance"
Fighter: "fighters are unparalleled champions" Optimizing is compulsory.
Monk: "monks (so called since they adhere to ancient philosophies and strict martial disciplines)" So, nothing to do with monasteries, but you do have to know about ancient philosophies.
Paladin: "these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil" Swords are compulsory!
Ranger: "For those who relish the thrill of the hunt, there are only predators and prey." Sounds pretty incompatible with Good alignment.
Rogue: "Thieves and gamblers, fast talkers and diplomats, bandits and bounty hunters, and explorers and investigators all might be considered rogues, as well as countless other professions that rely
upon wits, prowess, or luck... In the end, any who desire to shape their fates and live life on their own terms might come to be called rogues." So if that describes your character, you should be a Rogue.
Sorcerer: "for them magic is more than a boon or a field of study; it is life itself"
Wizard: "These shrewd magic-users seek, collect, and covet esoteric knowledge" Coveting is compulsory!
+4 to attack on charges and double threat range seem pretty situational to me and can be downplayed for something that fits the specific character. also the Hussars were known for taking on armies several times their size so determined and resolute parts of resolve make perfect sense for them.
Situational, yes, but no more or less situational than a fluffy skill like Craft or Profession. Situational, yes, but it is a major defining aspect of the fighting style that they train in.
Also, resolve is a game mechanic that simulates superhuman resilience, turning critical wounds into mild annoyances and ignoring the laws of physics when a giant or ankylosaur slaps you with a vaguely cudgel-looking thing. I'm not sure it fits here.
also the breaking news part was in relation to the thread at large. also, hussars were a general light cavalry term, i linked to the polish one because it was the one i brought up. hussars were originally hungarian, and i was reminded of them due to you mentioning Magyars. They served mostly as mercenaries through out Europe, a famous example is the British had some hussars in their Colonial Revolt crush attempt.
Indeed; those hussars were German, and of the light cavalry sort that hussars tended to be. The Polish hussars were unusual in that they were elite heavy cavalry - at least until guns became reliable enough to finally force them to go lighter also.
I really don't get some people. Since Templars where generally not that good with bows, you are not allowed to be an archer paladin? That is exactly the same as telling that medieval people didn't know how to cure poisons or disease so the Heal skill is banned. Somehow however you are still allowed to sling fireball at 300 feet.
I really don't get some people. Since Templars where generally not that good with bows, you are not allowed to be an archer paladin? That is exactly the same as telling that medieval people didn't know how to cure poisons or disease so the Heal skill is banned. Somehow however you are still allowed to sling fireball at 300 feet.
Not all paladins are Templars. If 2e's Complete Paladin's Handbook didn't exist, I'd hesitate to say that ANY Templars were paladins... but apparently LAWFUL!!! good, though about as LN as you can get while still being LG, is just enough to still be a paladin --- so at least some Templars might be paladins.
And people were generally not good with bows unless they were specifically trained with the weapon. Knights may have had some skill, but just for sport hunting; they'd often leave the food-hunting to the huntmasters. This isn't particularly compatible with the Templar vow of poverty, though.
-But again, not all paladins are Templars. You can be an archer paladin, or a Holy Gun, or whatever else is appropriate in the campaign; but you'll pro'ly find that your ammo costs won't play nicely with the Templar ethos.
+4 to attack on charges and double threat range seem pretty situational to me and can be downplayed for something that fits the specific character. also the Hussars were known for taking on armies several times their size so determined and resolute parts of resolve make perfect sense for them.Situational, yes, but no more or less situational than a fluffy skill like Craft or Profession. Situational, yes, but it is a major defining aspect of the fighting style that they train in.
Also, resolve is a game mechanic that simulates superhuman resilience, turning critical wounds into mild annoyances and ignoring the laws of physics when a giant or ankylosaur slaps you with a vaguely cudgel-looking thing. I'm not sure it fits here.
also the breaking news part was in relation to the thread at large. also, hussars were a general light cavalry term, i linked to the polish one because it was the one i brought up. hussars were originally hungarian, and i was reminded of them due to you mentioning Magyars. They served mostly as mercenaries through out Europe, a famous example is the British had some hussars in their Colonial Revolt crush attempt.Indeed; those hussars were German, and of the light cavalry sort that hussars tended to be. The Polish hussars were unusual in that they were elite heavy cavalry - at least until guns became reliable enough to finally force them to go lighter also.
Determined: As a standard action, the samurai can spend one use of his resolve to remove the fatigued, shaken, or sickened condition. If the samurai is at least 8th level, he can alternatively remove the exhausted, frightened, nauseated, or staggered condition. If the condition has a duration longer than 1 hour or is permanent, this ability removes the condition for 1 hour, at which time the condition returns.
Resolute: Whenever the samurai is required to make a Fortitude or Will save, he can spend one use of his resolve as an immediate action to roll twice and take the better result. He must decide to use this ability before he rolls the saving throw.
I'm not seeing it, seems to do as much with character as with ignoring wounds. I can use this to ignore fear effects, to fight even though I've been hustling all day, and shake off that mage's dominate person.
and by situation I mean that most of my cavalry lancing is going to come from feats, not those very tiny class features.
anyway, back on topic, who would and wouldn't allow someone to reskin a greatsword as you dual wielding shortswords? and why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. If you want to dual-wield shortswords, just do it. I'm pretty sure there are going to be a number of mechanics that don't make sense when you use two small weapons to represent one big one. What if you're swallowed and want to cut your way out? What if another member of the party has his only weapon destroyed, and wants to borrow one of the two swords? Suppose the group finds a +5 shortsword and a +3 greatsword in a treasure horde, and one of the other members of the party uses a greatsword. How do I sort out the logic of what the players can do with them? Too much of a headache.