If a player chose a Samurai, grabbed a katana, and refluffed it as a Knight with a Flamberge(refluffed katana), how would you rule if the PC found a +5 Katana(not Flamberge) in a treasure hoard? Would you let the PC use the weapon / feat?
If the player wanted a Knight with a flamberge using Samurai mechanics, I'd probably discuss it and allow them to add the flamberge to the game as a new weapon with its own exotic proficiency requirement. Having established we're in a part of the game world with knights and flamberges, the flamberge would then be more likely to appear in treasure hordes than a katana.
Alternatively, he could write 'katana' on his character sheet. He can imagine it as a flamberge all he wants, but in game terms he's proficient with the katana.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
anyway, back on topic, who would and wouldn't allow someone to reskin a greatsword as you dual wielding shortswords? and why?I would allow a player to use a greatsword as dual wielding shortswords, but not just as a reskin. As Matthew Downie says, there is too much rule-fluff overlap between item, weapons, and combat style for a simple reskin to solve the problem. There would need to be some houserules.
On a similar note, I find that the Samurai->Knight reskin is only acceptable because there are no rules (currently) that touch base with the Eastern fluff.
Suppose Paizo introduced a feat called "Eastern Weapon Expertise" that worked similar to Orc Weapon Expertise but only applied to Eastern Weapons, such as the Katana. If a player chose a Samurai, grabbed a katana, and refluffed it as a Knight with a Flamberge(refluffed katana), how would you rule if the PC found a +5 Katana(not Flamberge) in a treasure hoard? Would you let the PC use the weapon / feat?
Why wouldn't the GM refluff the +5 katana as a +5 flamberge? That's what I'd do if the player really liked the flamberge flavor.
Im btw still interested if anyone can give a nice argument as to why the GM should not allow reskins alla the one the OP suggests?
Taking the mechanics of a class and using them to play a thematically different (but mechanically exactly alike) character.
well as another example, a herbalist might be an alchemist. they want to have the mechanics of alchemy but flavor wise they're mashing twigs and leaves together, and maybe a few flowers.
Or maybe someone is playing a rogue, but has more emphasis on combat ability in mind, so they play a fighter with several ranks of stealth and a higher than average intelligence.
@BigDTBone how do the monks in your game know the difference between a 1st level Monk (Martial Artist) and a 1st level Fighter (Unarmed Fighter), so they can stop a fighter from ever joining their monastery and becoming a monk (while still not being a Monk)?
@BigDTBone how do the monks in your game know the difference between a 1st level Monk (Martial Artist) and a 1st level Fighter (Unarmed Fighter), so they can stop a fighter from ever joining their monastery and becoming a monk (while still not being a Monk)?
I'm not sure why you are asking me this. What did I say that gave you the impression this is an issue that needs to be navigated in my game?
@BigDTBone how do the monks in your game know the difference between a 1st level Monk (Martial Artist) and a 1st level Fighter (Unarmed Fighter), so they can stop a fighter from ever joining their monastery and becoming a monk (while still not being a Monk)?I'm not sure why you are asking me this. What did I say that gave you the impression this is an issue that needs to be navigated in my game?
You've stated it's houseruling to have a monk who isn't a Monk but instead a Fighter.
You've stated it's houseruling to have a monk who isn't a Monk but instead a Fighter.@BigDTBone how do the monks in your game know the difference between a 1st level Monk (Martial Artist) and a 1st level Fighter (Unarmed Fighter), so they can stop a fighter from ever joining their monastery and becoming a monk (while still not being a Monk)?I'm not sure why you are asking me this. What did I say that gave you the impression this is an issue that needs to be navigated in my game?
And?
And?You've stated it's houseruling to have a monk who isn't a Monk but instead a Fighter.@BigDTBone how do the monks in your game know the difference between a 1st level Monk (Martial Artist) and a 1st level Fighter (Unarmed Fighter), so they can stop a fighter from ever joining their monastery and becoming a monk (while still not being a Monk)?I'm not sure why you are asking me this. What did I say that gave you the impression this is an issue that needs to be navigated in my game?
I'm trying to figureout how it could possibly work, since monk (rather than Monk) is an in-game lifestyle rather than a set of talents....
And?You've stated it's houseruling to have a monk who isn't a Monk but instead a Fighter.@BigDTBone how do the monks in your game know the difference between a 1st level Monk (Martial Artist) and a 1st level Fighter (Unarmed Fighter), so they can stop a fighter from ever joining their monastery and becoming a monk (while still not being a Monk)?I'm not sure why you are asking me this. What did I say that gave you the impression this is an issue that needs to be navigated in my game?
and you've confused a lot of people on your position.
for clarity, we were arguing about what is and is not house ruling during that time, and he personally is fine with it. NOT what is right and wrong, to do for reskinning.
And?You've stated it's houseruling to have a monk who isn't a Monk but instead a Fighter.@BigDTBone how do the monks in your game know the difference between a 1st level Monk (Martial Artist) and a 1st level Fighter (Unarmed Fighter), so they can stop a fighter from ever joining their monastery and becoming a monk (while still not being a Monk)?I'm not sure why you are asking me this. What did I say that gave you the impression this is an issue that needs to be navigated in my game?and you've confused a lot of people on your position.
for clarity, we were arguing about what is and is not house ruling during that time, and he personally is fine with it. NOT what is right and wrong, to do for reskinning.
The only ones who are confused are people who see "houserules," but read "badwrongfun." Why do people think identifying something as a houserule means that I think you shouldn't do it? Particularly when I spent the entire rest of the thread argueing in favor of it.
I'm trying to figureout how it could possibly work, since monk (rather than Monk) is an in-game lifestyle rather than a set of talents....And?You've stated it's houseruling to have a monk who isn't a Monk but instead a Fighter.@BigDTBone how do the monks in your game know the difference between a 1st level Monk (Martial Artist) and a 1st level Fighter (Unarmed Fighter), so they can stop a fighter from ever joining their monastery and becoming a monk (while still not being a Monk)?I'm not sure why you are asking me this. What did I say that gave you the impression this is an issue that needs to be navigated in my game?
It clearly doesn't work, which is why you need a houserule.
I don't understand why you thought it was a problem in my game.
The only ones who are confused are people who see "houserules," but read "badwrongfun." Why do people think identifying something as a houserule means that I think you shouldn't do it? Particularly when I spent the entire rest of the thread argueing in favor of it.And?You've stated it's houseruling to have a monk who isn't a Monk but instead a Fighter.@BigDTBone how do the monks in your game know the difference between a 1st level Monk (Martial Artist) and a 1st level Fighter (Unarmed Fighter), so they can stop a fighter from ever joining their monastery and becoming a monk (while still not being a Monk)?I'm not sure why you are asking me this. What did I say that gave you the impression this is an issue that needs to be navigated in my game?and you've confused a lot of people on your position.
for clarity, we were arguing about what is and is not house ruling during that time, and he personally is fine with it. NOT what is right and wrong, to do for reskinning.
when you defend against something, generally people think you support the general opposing side. people don't read into what people type too carefully sometimes.
basically, by saying it's a houserule the average person reads that as, it shouldn't be allowed, even when they think you allow houserules.
It clearly doesn't work, which is why you need a houserule.
I don't understand why you thought it was a problem in my game.
But the only reason it doesn't work is because your adding in a rule. There is no rule stating that you cannot be a monk without being a Monk. Living in a monastery, being all religious, introspective, and being a monk in everyway, would make your character a monk wouldn't it?
Also, I don't think it was necessarily a problem in your game. It's more curiosity on my part, trying to understand your interpretation so I can be less ignorant.
honestly the number of published characters in APs and what not show that paizo doesn't think it;s a house rule.
honestly the number of published characters in APs and what not show that paizo doesn't think it;s a house rule.
Even in the first Adventure Path they have a Monk who isn't a monk.
It clearly doesn't work, which is why you need a houserule.
I don't understand why you thought it was a problem in my game.
But the only reason it doesn't work is because your adding in a rule. There is no rule stating that you cannot be a monk without being a Monk. Living in a monastery, being all religious, introspective, and being a monk in everyway, would make your character a monk wouldn't it?
Also, I don't think it was necessarily a problem in your game. It's more curiosity on my part, trying to understand your interpretation so I can be less ignorant.
My position is very basic, the game defines exactly what a monk is. If you do something else it is a houserule.
My position is very basic, the game defines exactly what a monk is. If you do something else it is a houserule.It clearly doesn't work, which is why you need a houserule.
I don't understand why you thought it was a problem in my game.
But the only reason it doesn't work is because your adding in a rule. There is no rule stating that you cannot be a monk without being a Monk. Living in a monastery, being all religious, introspective, and being a monk in everyway, would make your character a monk wouldn't it?
Also, I don't think it was necessarily a problem in your game. It's more curiosity on my part, trying to understand your interpretation so I can be less ignorant.
So all reflavouring counts as a houserule in your view, fair enough.
My position is very basic, the game defines exactly what a monk is. If you do something else it is a houserule.It clearly doesn't work, which is why you need a houserule.
I don't understand why you thought it was a problem in my game.
But the only reason it doesn't work is because your adding in a rule. There is no rule stating that you cannot be a monk without being a Monk. Living in a monastery, being all religious, introspective, and being a monk in everyway, would make your character a monk wouldn't it?
Also, I don't think it was necessarily a problem in your game. It's more curiosity on my part, trying to understand your interpretation so I can be less ignorant.
under this logic, anything that isn't an AP is a houserule, and all APs are house rules. EVERYTHING IS A HOUSE RULE!
anyway, back on topic, who would and wouldn't allow someone to reskin a greatsword as you dual wielding shortswords? and why?
I would not like that one. Why is this greatsword that is made of normal steel so light? Why does it not do as much damage as other greatswords? etc etc
I am assuming you mean to take short swords and pretend they are greatswords.
edit:If you actually mean pretend on weapon is two smaller weapons that is even worse because you are two far removed from the weapon and two weapon fighting mechanics. The consistency is too far removed for me as a GM.
My position is very basic, the game defines exactly what a monk is. If you do something else it is a houserule.
The game definition of a Monk has nothing to do with what being a monk is in our world.
"These monks (so called since they adhere to ancient philosophies and strict martial disciplines) elevate their bodies to become weapons of war, from battle-minded ascetics to self-taught brawlers."It doesn't define what these philosophies or disciplines are. Within this definition, practically anyone can take Monk levels as long as they have Lawful alignment.
I would also argue that allowing a Monk who has no interest in ancient philosophies or martial disciplines would be a houseflavor rather than a houserule. It seems worth distinguishing between a GM decision that lightning bolts can be blue, and a GM decision that lightning bolts fired into water affect a 30 foot radius instead of a line. The latter is a houserule that affects game mechanics.
But arguing about definitions of the words doesn't usually achieve much, so I'm going to stop now.
Im btw still interested if anyone can give a nice argument as to why the GM should not allow reskins alla the one the OP suggests?
Taking the mechanics of a class and using them to play a thematically different (but mechanically exactly alike) character.
I have heard it ruins their(GM's) fun. They don't feel like eastern things belong in certain campaigns, and if a player changes the flavor he is trying to use a loophole. This has been argued even when it actually makes the character weaker.
I have also heard people should use what Paizo gives them, and only reflavor when Paizo has not created anything that matches the flavor they want. So as an example I could not use a monk, rogue, ranger or slayer as ninja because Paizo has a ninja class now.
etc etc. The list goes on.
PS: I don't support these. I am just giving you a preview of what might come.
I think to most people a houserule is a change in the actual mechanics, not the flavor. That is how I have always seen it used in other RPG boards also.
Example: Saying Rage is just someone being focused is not a houserule, but a change in flavor. The actual rage mechanics have not changed.
If rage only works against a certain race then you have a houserule in play.
My position is very basic, the game defines exactly what a monk is. If you do something else it is a houserule.
The game don't define what a monk is, neither a samurai or a ninja: it gives you some class that may represent the majority of them bu nothing more. Monk, Samurai, Ninja, Oracle and the likes are also social status, and not all of them will be of the ''good class''.
Let's say Samurai: it's basically an oriental knight, and you become a Samurai by the right of birth. What would explain that a men, officialy a samurai, decided to train like a fighter, a ranger or, even, that he as been touch by the divine and is in fact a paladin? Nothing. It's only adapting your character to fit it's backstory, and in no way it is a housrule.
My position is very basic, the game defines exactly what a monk is. If you do something else it is a houserule.What "rule" is being changed? None, thus it's not a houserule. The only houserule here is you making up rules that don't exist.
The game defines what a monk is. Changing or expanding that definition is a houserule. Just like changing or expanding the definition of any game term is a houserule.
The game defines what a monk is. Changing or expanding that definition is a houserule. Just like changing or expanding the definition of any game term is a houserule.My position is very basic, the game defines exactly what a monk is. If you do something else it is a houserule.What "rule" is being changed? None, thus it's not a houserule. The only houserule here is you making up rules that don't exist.
I think the game defines what the mechanical package "Monk" is. Not how you flavor it. I disagree that changing the flavor is a house "rule" as it has nothing to do with the mechanics.
@Bandw2 - If you really want to reflavor your greatsword as two shortswords….um….. fine, but you don't get any more attacks or any TWF schtick. Also, the more you twist flavor in this manner the more it gets really weird - in this case with Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation - because your reskinning has added an object where before there was only one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game defines what a monk is. Changing or expanding that definition is a houserule. Just like changing or expanding the definition of any game term is a houserule.My position is very basic, the game defines exactly what a monk is. If you do something else it is a houserule.What "rule" is being changed? None, thus it's not a houserule. The only houserule here is you making up rules that don't exist.I think the game defines what the mechanical package "Monk" is. Not how you flavor it. I disagree that changing the flavor is a house "rule" as it has nothing to do with the mechanics.
@Bandw2 - If you really want to reflavor your greatsword as two shortswords….um….. fine, but you don't get any more attacks or any TWF schtick. Also, the more you twist flavor in this manner the more it gets really weird - in this case with Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation - because your reskinning has added an object where before there was only one.
So it seems to have gotten lost along the way, but my position is that building a "half-orc" and calling it an "elf" in the game (including the small mechanical changes required to do so consistently) is nearly the same practice as building a "fighter" but calling it a "monk" in the game. I'll also note that I am in favor of both.
It seems that most people think that (a) is absolutely crazy and ruins games and (b) isn't even a change, that's just how the game is played.
At this point I just find it hilarious that people's internal opinions on these matters are so widely split over what boils down to a subtype tag and racial weapon proficiency.
yes, the point is 2-handing is both mechanically better and easier to deal with and requires less feats to perform, combat is already abstracted out so much that the only thing of concern i think is disarm and sunder attempts. I get to be optimized and combat moves slightly faster(less rolls), it's a win-win i would think.
The game defines what a monk is. Changing or expanding that definition is a houserule. Just like changing or expanding the definition of any game term is a houserule.My position is very basic, the game defines exactly what a monk is. If you do something else it is a houserule.What "rule" is being changed? None, thus it's not a houserule. The only houserule here is you making up rules that don't exist.I think the game defines what the mechanical package "Monk" is. Not how you flavor it. I disagree that changing the flavor is a house "rule" as it has nothing to do with the mechanics.
@Bandw2 - If you really want to reflavor your greatsword as two shortswords….um….. fine, but you don't get any more attacks or any TWF schtick. Also, the more you twist flavor in this manner the more it gets really weird - in this case with Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation - because your reskinning has added an object where before there was only one.
So it seems to have gotten lost along the way, but my position is that building a "half-orc" and calling it an "elf" in the game (including the small mechanical changes required to do so consistently) is nearly the same practice as building a "fighter" but calling it a "monk" in the game. I'll also note that I am in favor of both.
It seems that most people think that (a) is absolutely crazy and ruins games and (b) isn't even a change, that's just how the game is played.
At this point I just find it hilarious that people's internal opinions on these matters are so widely split over what boils down to a subtype tag and racial weapon proficiency.
I honestly, feel I would enjoy playing in one of your games, but I still feel the ability to pick and race and still be another race should be reconciled at least partly in the lore, such that it explains that "People" vary greatly, even among their race. otherwise it'll just feel weird.
The game defines what a monk is. Changing or expanding that definition is a houserule. Just like changing or expanding the definition of any game term is a houserule.My position is very basic, the game defines exactly what a monk is. If you do something else it is a houserule.What "rule" is being changed? None, thus it's not a houserule. The only houserule here is you making up rules that don't exist.I think the game defines what the mechanical package "Monk" is. Not how you flavor it. I disagree that changing the flavor is a house "rule" as it has nothing to do with the mechanics.
@Bandw2 - If you really want to reflavor your greatsword as two shortswords….um….. fine, but you don't get any more attacks or any TWF schtick. Also, the more you twist flavor in this manner the more it gets really weird - in this case with Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation - because your reskinning has added an object where before there was only one.
So it seems to have gotten lost along the way, but my position is that building a "half-orc" and calling it an "elf" in the game (including the small mechanical changes required to do so consistently) is nearly the same practice as building a "fighter" but calling it a "monk" in the game. I'll also note that I am in favor of both.
It seems that most people think that (a) is absolutely crazy and ruins games and (b) isn't even a change, that's just how the game is played.
At this point I just find it hilarious that people's internal opinions on these matters are so widely split over what boils down to a subtype tag and racial weapon proficiency.
Well, it's hilarious because you don't do the difference between ''nature and nurture''. The race is what nature gives you, so it can't really be changed. The class, on the other hand, is what you get from experience. Let say you were raise in a monastery, but really bad for all the meditation thing, and only good in the martial art: sould you be a brawler or a fighter instead of a monk? Yeah, sure! Or you are the son of a samurai, followed the classi training but didn't really care about the law and the fidelity, and followd more the way of the sword? Could you play a fighter who is, in society, a samurai? Yeah! In fact, it's not the class that you have, but how your character is seen in society that deciede what you are. I did play a a game where the Drud was called a ''witch'' by anyone, and the Alchemis was called a ''rogue''...
You seems to give too much importance to the class background, and to see the world as something really classified, were there is nothing that go ''partially out of the box'', but it's not the case.
One thing I love about these boards is you really get to see the wide variety of takes people have on how to Pathfinder.
For our games it's taken as a given that you can reskin all you want as long as it's not some kind of over power grab and it adds to the overall narrative of the game. For example, in our Curse of the Crimson Throne game I'm playing a dour, heavy set Samurai who is part of order of women knights from Irrisen tasked with protecting the fledgling wizards of the Academy. They call their weapons by Russian names but they are mechanically identical and entirely interchangeable with the Japanese equivalents.
Well, it's hilarious because you don't do the difference between ''nature and nurture''. The race is what nature gives you, so it can't really be changed. The class, on the other hand, is what you get from experience. Let say you were raise in a...The game defines what a monk is. Changing or expanding that definition is a houserule. Just like changing or expanding the definition of any game term is a houserule.My position is very basic, the game defines exactly what a monk is. If you do something else it is a houserule.What "rule" is being changed? None, thus it's not a houserule. The only houserule here is you making up rules that don't exist.I think the game defines what the mechanical package "Monk" is. Not how you flavor it. I disagree that changing the flavor is a house "rule" as it has nothing to do with the mechanics.
@Bandw2 - If you really want to reflavor your greatsword as two shortswords….um….. fine, but you don't get any more attacks or any TWF schtick. Also, the more you twist flavor in this manner the more it gets really weird - in this case with Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialisation - because your reskinning has added an object where before there was only one.
So it seems to have gotten lost along the way, but my position is that building a "half-orc" and calling it an "elf" in the game (including the small mechanical changes required to do so consistently) is nearly the same practice as building a "fighter" but calling it a "monk" in the game. I'll also note that I am in favor of both.
It seems that most people think that (a) is absolutely crazy and ruins games and (b) isn't even a change, that's just how the game is played.
At this point I just find it hilarious that people's internal opinions on these matters are so widely split over what boils down to a subtype tag and racial weapon proficiency.
I just find that people are far more varied than the locked choices "that nature gives you" in the game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
should I just pick a sideThe real question, ignoring the usual 'whiny / entitled' hyperbole, is how you would feel about a GM who said, "In my campaign setting samurai - members of a far eastern warrior class - are special, so are the only ones capable of taking the Samurai class, and you're not in the far east so you can't be one"?
And, secondarily, how would you feel about a GM who had lots of rules like that but thought they were so obvious that they didn't need to be mentioned?
Go find a good GM, would be my solution. I sadly have too little time to waste.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not just reflavoring. You've two wizards one with a bag of parchment scrolls, the other with a bag of "scroll" gems. Toss them both into the nearby lake. When they come out of the water dripping wet, one of them is going to be a lot less happy than the other.Whereas other wizards are masters of arcane writings, Gilgeam is a master of "gem magic."
This is an example of reflavoring. Literally nothing is different when compared to other wizards with Scribe Scroll save the way certain things are described.
Water doesn't do anything to magical scrolls. They're magical scrolls. In both cases, they'd be wet when you took them out, but still magic items.
Water doesn't do anything to magical scrolls. They're magical scrolls. In both cases, they'd be wet when you took them out, but still magic items.That's not just reflavoring. You've two wizards one with a bag of parchment scrolls, the other with a bag of "scroll" gems. Toss them both into the nearby lake. When they come out of the water dripping wet, one of them is going to be a lot less happy than the other.Whereas other wizards are masters of arcane writings, Gilgeam is a master of "gem magic."
This is an example of reflavoring. Literally nothing is different when compared to other wizards with Scribe Scroll save the way certain things are described.
Quite right.
Waterproof scrolls are a houserule:
WATERPROOF BAG
Price 5 sp; Weight 1/2 lb.
This leather sack sealed with tar or pitch keeps delicate items from being ruined by water. Items kept inside remain relatively dry, making the bag ideal for carrying maps, scrolls, spellbooks, and the like, although the bag is not impervious and can only be completely immersed for 10 rounds before enough water seeps in to ruin such items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. When the Scribe Scroll feat was explicitly referenced rather than say the Linguistics skill, one can only reasonably assume we're talking about magic items and not just random sheets of paper or parchment with some commonplace ink on them.
This is, again, assuming that ink will wear off or that the scrolls even use normal ink that washes away (as opposed to the text being carefully branded on the medium, since you're not washing off burned-in text on a piece of parchment). This is highly unlikely given that it explicitly takes a 1st level spell (not even a cantrip), the erase spell to attempt to remove the magic words from the scroll (and even the grandest of wizards fail to do so 5% of the time).
Physical Description: A scroll is a heavy sheet of fine vellum or high-quality paper. An area about 8-1/2 inches wide and 11 inches long is sufficient to hold one spell. The sheet is reinforced at the top and bottom with strips of leather slightly longer than the sheet is wide. A scroll holding more than one spell has the same width (about 8-1/2 inches) but is an extra foot or so long for each additional spell. Scrolls that hold three or more spells are usually fitted with reinforcing rods at each end rather than simple strips of leather. A scroll has AC 9, 1 hit point, hardness 0, and a break DC of 8.
To protect it from wrinkling or tearing, a scroll is rolled up from both ends to form a double cylinder. (This also helps the user unroll the scroll quickly.) The scroll is placed in a tube of ivory, jade, leather, metal, or wood. Most scroll cases are inscribed with magic symbols which often identify the owner or the spells stored on the scrolls inside. The symbols sometimes hide magic traps.
Notice that it never says anything about water or non-damaging liquids harming the scroll.
So no, if Ravingdork's glass-gem wizard or whatever had his "scrolls" fall into a pool of water, or a cleric cast create water to make a shower of water on him when he drew out his gem-scroll, he would give exactly as many ****s as a normal wizard, which is to say: not a single **** is given.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Waterproof scrolls are a houserule:
WATERPROOF BAG
Price 5 sp; Weight 1/2 lb.
This leather sack sealed with tar or pitch keeps delicate items from being ruined by water. Items kept inside remain relatively dry, making the bag ideal for carrying maps, scrolls, spellbooks, and the like, although the bag is not impervious and can only be completely immersed for 10 rounds before enough water seeps in to ruin such items.
Just because water won't hurt something doesn't mean you want it all in your junk, in much the same way water won't hurt me but I still don't care to walk in the rain much. Wizards already have to contend with finding ancient scrolls in dank, wet, moldy dungeons as kind of a trope. The last thing they need is for their own scrolls to smell like week old gym shorts.
Of course, then you have merfolk wizards. Those are totally a thing y'know. The aquatic environment section of the environments chapter discusses difficulties with magic underwater and even takes time to explain that magical fire can be used underwater with some difficulty. Something it doesn't say is that magical scrolls or even spellbooks are at risk of being harmed merely by being wet.
Such commonplace damage would be trivial to fix with the mending cantrip anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well the single time we had a GM that tried to limit character options based on his personal restrictions, we banned that GM from our table and the problem disappeared along with that person.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im btw still interested if anyone can give a nice argument as to why the GM should not allow reskins alla the one the OP suggests?
Taking the mechanics of a class and using them to play a thematically different (but mechanically exactly alike) character.
I have heard it ruins their(GM's) fun. They don't feel like eastern things belong in certain campaigns, and if a player changes the flavor he is trying to use a loophole. This has been argued even when it actually makes the character weaker.
I have also heard people should use what Paizo gives them, and only reflavor when Paizo has not created anything that matches the flavor they want. So as an example I could not use a monk, rogue, ranger or slayer as ninja because Paizo has a ninja class now.
etc etc. The list goes on.
PS: I don't support these. I am just giving you a preview of what might come.
Another case I've seen a few times is the hyper-paranoid GM who fears that any and all player requests are plans to create some sort of gamebreaking super-character. Such GMs tend to fear that any form of reskinning is an attempt to gain sneaky benefits, such as the above Scrolls vs. "Scroll Gems" discussion.
Another case I've seen a few times is the hyper-paranoid GM who fears that any and all player requests are plans to create some sort of gamebreaking super-character. Such GMs tend to fear that any form of reskinning is an attempt to gain sneaky benefits, such as the above Scrolls vs. "Scroll Gems" discussion.
It doesn't help that even without reskinning, d20 System tends to be rather conducive to power builds; so I'd suggest that some of those GMs should be forgiven for suspecting that odd reskin requests are ways to sneak power builds in, or stealth-mitigate their weaknesses.
Well the single time we had a GM that tried to limit character options based on his personal restrictions, we banned that GM from our table and the problem disappeared along with that person.
It seems the problem is alive and well.