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


Advice

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

Sandslice wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
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.

gamer-printer wrote:
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, well not anymore.

To our table, the name of a class is fluff, a class is nothing more than a package of mechanics for a particular implied role (that can be easily redefined.) We do stay within the theme of a given campaign concept, so a party of do gooders aren't going to allow anti-paladins and assassins. No one at our table bulids game breaking super-characters, well not anymore.

The GM we banned always tried to build super characters using non-game sources outside the rules to justify what he could do session by session - the same way he GM'd the game. He was a problem player and GM. Our table has gotten along better without him.

We have 2 or 3 GMs at our table that switch seats every 3-6 months with six players and GM at any time.

The banned person in question is the only instance of anyone being banned in a game in over 30 years of gaming - it was never necessary before.


Ashiel wrote:

.

Such commonplace damage would be trivial to fix with the mending cantrip anyway.

I tried to use mending to fix wet papers before. I was denied. I understand it was not magical paper, but I still felt like it should have worked.

PS: Older forms of "paper" were pretty resistant to water damage so while I can understand a spellbook or a scroll being damage. I don't see why it would have to be permanently destroyed, which is what I have seen suggested in other threads with this topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

.

Such commonplace damage would be trivial to fix with the mending cantrip anyway.

I tried to use mending to fix wet papers before. I was denied. I understand it was not magical paper, but I still felt like it should have worked.

PS: Older forms of "paper" were pretty resistant to water damage so while I can understand a spellbook or a scroll being damage. I don't see why it would have to be permanently destroyed, which is what I have seen suggested in other threads with this topic.

The way I'm reading Mending, it can always restore destroyed nonmagical items (it defines a destroyed item as 0 HP or less) since you can still use it to restore 1d4 hit points to the item (and thus make it not destroyed anymore). Items with greater than 50% of their HP also loose the broken condition (as per the broken condition).

The bit about restoring magic items is not suggesting that you can only restore magic items that have been destroyed, more than to restore their magical powers requires more than usual.

IE - If you have a book that has been destroyed (0 HP) by fire damage (e.g. - burned to ashes) and you cast mending on it, it stops being destroyed at 1+ HP and loses the broken condition if at more than 50% HP.


Ashiel wrote:


The way I'm reading Mending, it can always restore destroyed nonmagical items (it defines a destroyed item as 0 HP or less) since you can still use it to restore 1d4 hit points to the item (and thus make it not destroyed anymore). Items with greater than 50% of their HP also loose the broken condition (as per the broken condition).

The bit about restoring magic items is not suggesting that you can only restore magic items that have been destroyed, more than to restore their magical powers requires more than usual.

IE - If you have a book that has been destroyed (0 HP) by fire damage (e.g. - burned to ashes) and you cast mending on it, it stops being destroyed at 1+ HP and loses the broken condition if at more than 50% HP.

Another section lays out what you can do with Mending.

Quote:

Damaged Objects

A damaged object remains functional with the broken condition until the item's hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed.

Damaged (but not destroyed) objects can be repaired with the Craft skill and a number of spells. (eg. make whole or mending)

It looks like magic items are a specific exception. Normal items that are reduced to 0 HP aren't recoverable via Mending.


Experiment 626 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


The way I'm reading Mending, it can always restore destroyed nonmagical items (it defines a destroyed item as 0 HP or less) since you can still use it to restore 1d4 hit points to the item (and thus make it not destroyed anymore). Items with greater than 50% of their HP also loose the broken condition (as per the broken condition).

The bit about restoring magic items is not suggesting that you can only restore magic items that have been destroyed, more than to restore their magical powers requires more than usual.

IE - If you have a book that has been destroyed (0 HP) by fire damage (e.g. - burned to ashes) and you cast mending on it, it stops being destroyed at 1+ HP and loses the broken condition if at more than 50% HP.

Another section lays out what you can do with Mending.

Quote:

Damaged Objects

A damaged object remains functional with the broken condition until the item's hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed.

Damaged (but not destroyed) objects can be repaired with the Craft skill and a number of spells. (eg. make whole or mending)

It looks like magic items are a specific exception. Normal items that are reduced to 0 HP aren't recoverable via Mending.

Good to know.

As for scrolls specifically the rules say " A scroll is a heavy sheet of fine vellum or high-quality paper"

According to google Vellum is waterproof so it is not the magic the protects it from what, but the vellum itself.

Somewhat related: Parchment which is what spellbooks are made out of is water resistant

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
I can hardly believe there are GMs who are burned out on reflavoring/reskinning.

We're just burned out on people whose reskinning IS for no other reasons than mechanical gain. Or for those who really do take it too far. I've little problem with reskinning between Hawk and Eagle. Wolf and Tiger, Dagger and Club, are beyond what I'd allow.


wraithstrike wrote:


Good to know.

As for scrolls specifically the rules say " A scroll is a heavy sheet of fine vellum or high-quality paper"

According to google Vellum is waterproof so it is not the magic the protects it from what, but the vellum itself.

Somewhat related: Parchment which is what spellbooks are made out of is water resistant

I don't follow your GM's denial of the repair you attempted. I could see an argument for, "The paper's fine, but the ink is too far gone and can't be mended."

Water resistant isn't necessarily waterproof. Best fish that spellbook out before it gets too deep or is under too long! Once again, the Blessed Book wins as the spellbook option.


Experiment 626 wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Good to know.

As for scrolls specifically the rules say " A scroll is a heavy sheet of fine vellum or high-quality paper"

According to google Vellum is waterproof so it is not the magic the protects it from what, but the vellum itself.

Somewhat related: Parchment which is what spellbooks are made out of is water resistant

I don't follow your GM's denial of the repair you attempted. I could see an argument for, "The paper's fine, but the ink is too far gone and can't be mended."

Water resistant isn't necessarily waterproof. Best fish that spellbook out before it gets too deep or is under too long! Once again, the Blessed Book wins as the spellbook option.

I see now that it was actually against the rules, but he did not know that. :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
We're just burned out on people whose reskinning IS for no other reasons than mechanical gain.

Actually, not only have I not seen that happen in a game, I cannot imagine how any existing class can be reskinned and somehow gain an advantage - aren't the classes advantages and disadvantages already built into the class, no matter it's name?

From the OP, I can understand and agree how playing the class samurai and calling yourself a knight, and not having any Asian baggage, makes perfect sense. Arguably some knights had a code to live by, and samurai honor fits that concept well. Resolve isn't especially game breaking and also a reasonable condition of resilience against adversity, something knights could possess. Mounted combat and weapon expertise makes sense (though allowing a switch from katana, or allowing katana to be a reflavored western weapon is not a stretch). I cannot see how the samurai cannot easily be reflavored knight, bringing different skills to the table, yet not being advantaged over any other class.

I cannot see how reskinning an alchemist is any different to non-reskinned alchemist (or whatever class you want to stick into this question.) How do they gain mechanically - there is no change except for fluff and name?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting. That doesn't make much sense. So you're saying that mending and make whole cannot repair destroyed nonmagical items at all but can totally restore magic items that have been destroyed but are explicitly no-longer magical?

I think your point has merit by reading the text (that's what it implies) but that seems pretty bizarre. At worst this seems like house-rule fodder since it contradicts itself with internal consistency (you can explicitly mend magic items without restoring their magical powers, thus you're mending a mundane item, but you can't mend mundane items).

EDIT: By house-rule fodder, I mean a thing in the system that should probably be house ruled for sanity. Like drown-healing.


gamer-printer wrote:
I cannot imagine how any existing class can be reskinned and somehow gain an advantage

That really depends on what you imagine the player doing otherwise.

"I'm going to play a crossbow specialist, but I'll ask the GM to let me use a composite longbow for mechanics and reflavor it as a repeating crossbow." Does the GM let them use the longbow, or force them to use regular crossbow mechanics? In this situation, the PC is more powerful as a result of reskinning.

But if you imagine them as saying, "I'm going to play an archer. I wonder if the GM would let me call my longbow a crossbow?" then the mechanical decisions are already made and the reskin only affects appearance.

So my advice to anyone wanting to try this is to present it to the GM as your mechanical choices having already been made and you're merely interested in the possibility of adjusting the appearance.


But that's not reskinning, that's changing the mechanics of a piece of equipment - reskinning doesn't involve changing bits of mechanics, that's redesigning, something altogether different.

Redesigning is a fine exercise, but requires careful playtest (checks and balances) to allow. I'm often trying out new mechanics, because I design classes for my published setting - and sometimes, after playtest, our table has overruled the allowance of a given new class or mechanic.

Still my point is reskinning doesn't allow mechanical alterations, and "bad mouthing" reskinning, by conflating it with redesign is just wrong.

Community Manager

A reminder that people play the game differently, and what works for one group may not work for another. Please keep this in mind when considering what is "good" or "bad"—it doesn't apply to all groups.


You know its awkward when reskinning is against the rules in PFS and Eidolons are basically a reskinnable feature within the game as the player can customize how the eidolon looks.


I wasn't implying that making houserules is wrong, rather just saying reskinning isn't redesigning, calling one thing something else just mixes issues that don't belong together.

I am all for redesign efforts, you just have to be a lot more careful. Some good concepts can easily become over powered making design judgement errors.

Reskinning is almost effortless, you just have to have an imagination to change your perspective on what a given set of class mechanics can do in different costume and concept.

IMO, at least, reskinning and redesign are apples and oranges.

In Matthew Downie's situation the problem wasn't the reskin, it was the allowance of crossbow to fall in place of long composite bow - which is a design judgement call, not a reskin issue (or a player trying to slip a Mickey.)

401 to 415 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.