|
I do have a specific example in mind. I have just created and played my first session with an Aasimar Nature Seeker Oracle who took the Bonded Mount Revelation and Celestial Companion Aasimar feat. My plan is to take Monstrous Mount at 5th and Monstrous Mount Master at 7th. The issue that I have is that when I get to 4th I basically have to boot my trusty faithful former horse companion to the curb and get to trade up to a brand new shiny Griffon. I don't really like the roleplay of that. It kinda rubs me the wrong way. I feel the same way about Improved Familiar for that matter. *shrug*
Anyway, I had the idea of having my horse be a "Griffon". You know... just aesthetically speaking. He would still use all the stats of the horse and he would be a fledgling still and his little Griffon wings would not yet be powerful enough to establish the required lift to allow him to fly. In mechanics terms he would still be a horse but would otherwise look like a Griffon. That way when I get to 5th level I don't have to boot it to the curb when I want to upgrade. He would just have learned how to fly on his own. ...though his wings wouldn't be powerful enough to carry a rider until 7th.
I asked around my area and every single GM I ran into said that they would actually prefer that method than switching it out and that they would allow it at their table. But they did, of course, say that this would be something that I would have to expect table variation on. I was apprehensive to even bring it up but after such positive response I wondered what you fine people thought.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd allow it myself; though, fair warning, I'm a 'nice GM' and am prone to that.
As you said, if something is essentially a role-playing 'reskinning' and it does not add (or remove) any mechanical benefit, then I just don't see anything wrong with it.
My Half-Orc life oracle in my Reign of Winter campaign is a Cassisian Angel, which has a core form of looking like a flying helmet with wings. As a reskinning, I describe him as looking like 'Party God' from Adventure Time, which is a flying wolf head wearing a sideways baseball cap. Head or helmet - it's close enough and adds no mechanical benefit (it just makes it funnier when I get to role play my familiar).
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a nice GM too. However, I also like to stick to the rules. And allowing something like this, when its basically against the reskinning rules, makes me uncomfortable. Because as both a 5-star GM and V-C, people add weight (correctly or not) to whatever I say. So they could say something like, "But a Venture Captain said it was ok!" And expect any GM of lesser "rank" to essentially fall in line.
I don't like it when players come to me with issues like this, and expect me just to "toe the line" because their Venture-Officer said it was ok.
And there are mechanics to this. There are certain scenarios where having a "horse" can be a detriment. So your companion has to be a horse, because those are the stats you are using (and griffons have different stats.) Indeed, the FAQ about reskinning explicitly says what you are proposing is against the rules.
That being said, you can have all kinds of fun RP in your back story.
What if your horse was really a griffon balefully polymorphed by an evil wizard. And your deity sent your horse to you as your companion as a sort of dual quest for two bound companions to help one another out. So when you reach 4th level, you should have enough gold get a remove curse cast (150gp). Just spend the gold as a fluff part of your character and take the feat that "turns your horse back into a Griffon."
Or maybe during the course of some adventure or other, you may run into a fun experience that you feel would really fit for the story on why your horse became a griffon. I'd suggest Destiny of the Sands Part 3.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
One problem with this reskinning is that it does kind of alter the mechanics. At least it does if you are not willing to have a lot of suspension of disbelief.
For example, if we assume the mechanics are not altered, then goblins are still going to react to your griffin as if it were a horse. Your griffin is still going to take 2d6 extra damage from a certain dogslicer. Etc.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm kind of with Andrew on this one.
There are lots of ways to roleplay it such that the companion is the same creature the entire time.
Another possible way this could happen is if your horse was transformed into a griffon by a divine being as a reward to you, a faithful servant.
Yet another, you gained the benefit of a wish or limited wish. These are not normally allowed in PFS, but there are scenarios where genies are encountered, so it might be possible to leverage one of those for a RP moment. Provided you have a cooperative GM, of course.
Perhaps the best option is for you to just maintain a separate head-canon for your animal companion than what you present at the table. You can play it as a horse, and have the story in your head be that it is a griffon the entire time. Many of us have characters that do this sort of thing.
In practice, if you came to my table with this request, my response would be, "That's fine, but it will still have the exact same stats, meaning that it still has the animal type and horse subtype for any purpose related to effect, and anyone who looks at it thinks it's a horse."
|
|
And there are mechanics to this. There are certain scenarios where having a "horse" can be a detriment. So your companion has to be a horse, because those are the stats you are using (and griffons have different stats.) Indeed, the FAQ about reskinning explicitly says what you are proposing is against the rules.
I think there may be a misunderstanding here. I think he may be using the correct stats for the creature at the right levels.
From what I gathered from his post, he will use the 'horse' stats for the creature while it is a horse (which is, when it is less than 5th level, in this case). However, he wants to be able describe the creature as having small, young, nonfunctional wings at fourth level - adding no mechanical benefit and still correctly using the horse stats.
At fifth level, he'll take monstrous mount, and at that point he'll switch to the griffon stats, and descriptively it will be the same 'horse' mount, but now grown up with functional wings (and now using the griffin's stats).
Obviously he should expect table variation on this. At the most limiting, I think he could say "Well - my character thinks this griffon is still his horse", and that would be fine.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, re-skinning is against society play rules.Not quite true! It's allowed - if I'm reading the below correctly, it is essentially saying "Yes, you can re-skin - just keep it somewhat reasonable and don't change the critter's stats".
Can I re-skin or re-flavor an animal companion or item?
You may choose a specific type of animal companion from any of the base forms listed on pages 53–54 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook or a legal Additional Resource but may not use stats for one base form with the flavor of another type of animal. Thus, a small cat could be a cheetah or leopard, as suggested, as well as a lynx, bobcat, puma, or other similar animal; it could not, however, be "re-skinned" to be a giant hairless swamp rat or a differently-statted wolf. If a GM feels that a re-skinning is inappropriate or could have mechanical implications in the specific adventure being played, he may require that the creature simply be considered its generic base form for the duration of the adventure. A player may not re-skin items to be something for which there are no specific rules, and any item a character uses for which there are no stats is considered an improvised weapon (see page 144 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook).
I believe the bolded portion is the important part in this case. So, you can have your horse stats reflect whatever sort of horse you want. But they can't be horse stats applied to a "wolf", or "tiger", or "giant spider", or (in this case), "griffon".
|
The issue that I have is that when I get to 4th I basically have to boot my trusty faithful former horse companion to the curb and get to trade up to a brand new shiny Griffon.
I more than understand the sentiment, but thats going to have a LOT of mechanical effects
-what spells affect the animal
-How many tricks the animal has when you swap out
-Item slots
-Peoples reaction
|
|
I believe the bolded portion is the important part in this case. So, you can have your horse stats reflect whatever sort of horse you want. But they can't be horse stats applied to a "wolf", or "tiger", or "giant spider", or (in this case), "griffon".
I guess my take-away on the text is focused on the change of stats; obviously they cannot be changed as that modifies mechanical benefit. I do see your point, though. I may be reading it too positively.
I think the best way for him to go about it is just using vague terms. At level 4, he could introduce his horse as being 'oddly griffon-like', and just leave it at that.
Developer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At level 4, through "the direct intervention of a deity," your horse is now a Griffon. What's the issue?
This is a fun solution to the otherwise sticky re-skinning situation. I can imagine the character could have some fun roleplaying moments with it, too. Does he know which deity granted this blessing? Does the deity expect some favor from the PC or expect the PC to behave in a certain way? Is the horse sometimes confused by its new body?
None of these would have a mechanical effect, but it could be a lot of fun for the PC to insistently explain why he observes a particular taboo and has a young griffon that's desperately attempting to neigh.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Sorry to spoil to parade, but your oracle (just like my 3 of my 4 hunters ) does not full fill the requirement of monstrous mount:
You have learned how to tame and ride exotic beasts.
Prerequisite(s): Handle Animal 4 ranks; Ride 4 ranks; divine bond (mount), hunter's bond (animal companion), or mount class feature with an effective druid level of 4.
Benefit(s): You can select an exotic beast from the list of monstrous mounts to serve as your animal companion or special mount. You acquire and advance this creature in the same way as the mount or animal companion detailed in the class feature used as a prerequisite for this feat. You can also dismiss the creature as dictated by your class feature.
You must meet additional prerequisites to choose a creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher, as described in each creature's entry.
Your problem is that you don't have the divine bond (mount) class feature (paladin) , the hunter's bond (animal companion from the ranger class) or the mount class feature (various classes and archetypes.
As written not even druids or hunters can access this feat since their animal companion granting class features have slightly different names.
Sorry to be a buzzkill, a divine commander warpriest could take monstrous mount but by a strict reading even a lunar oracle could not take it.
|
|
I just had a Griffon eat my horse and inherit its bond with me, then swear an oath of service.
The scary part is that I've actually seen this method used.
In my case, it was my friend's witch upgrading her familiar. At the start of the session, he role played the scene of his witch sweetly petting her fox familiar, then summoning the void worm improved familiar, which promptly ate the fox and changed its appearance to impersonate it. This was how we started a session of PFS at a convention, where half the people at the table were strangers who didn't know us. That was a fun table.
I agree with the original poster in not liking how this works with improved familiars. You just dismiss your familiar that you've shared a long term, hopefully emotional, bond with and replace it with some other creature? I much prefer fluffing it as a magical enhancement to the old familiar. The Chosen One paladin archetype deals with this well. Their familiar upgrades automatically at level 7, and it's fluffed as the familiar revealing its true form.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
The nature oracle can take a revelation that gets them a mount. My nature oracle has an axe beak because of this (and a certain boon)!
You can get an animal companion, no problem there, but you cant technically take the feat since you don't have the Mount class feature, you have the Bonded Mount class feature.
(I know that this is terribly pedantic, but RAW, you would neet to take a level in a class that like cavalier, to take the feat).
Bonded Mount (Su): You gain the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal mount. The creature must be one that you are capable of riding and is suitable as a mount. A Medium oracle can select a camel or a horse. A Small oracle can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or a dog if she is at least 4th level. This mount functions as a druid’s animal companion, using your oracle level as your effective druid level. Bonded mounts have an Intelligence score of at least 6.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was apprehensive to even bring it up but after such positive response I wondered what you fine people thought
I think the main point is that the rules specifically ban re-skinning like you describe for numerous reasons, so you need to be prepared to have your request denied by the GM at any table you sit. It also might not be embraced by other players at the table and they technically have the rules on their side. However, many GMs (and most players) are willing to allow it if they decide, for that table, it will not be problematic. As long as you can live with that, you'll probably be fine. I can think of a few scenarios where it would be an issue, but for the most part, it shouldn't pose a problem.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are going to be in a scenario with goblins, it's a big problem. They would leave a griffin alone, but they would want to chop a horse.
It could also cause issues for effects that matter based on creature type.
It's really something that would be fine in a home game, but due to the nature of PFS, it just doesn't work well.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The nature oracle can take a revelation that gets them a mount. My nature oracle has an axe beak because of this (and a certain boon)!You can get an animal companion, no problem there, but you cant technically take the feat since you don't have the Mount class feature, you have the Bonded Mount class feature.
(I know that this is terribly pedantic, but RAW, you would neet to take a level in a class that like cavalier, to take the feat).
Bonded Mount (Su): You gain the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal mount. The creature must be one that you are capable of riding and is suitable as a mount. A Medium oracle can select a camel or a horse. A Small oracle can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or a dog if she is at least 4th level. This mount functions as a druid’s animal companion, using your oracle level as your effective druid level. Bonded mounts have an Intelligence score of at least 6.
That is incredibly pendantic, and fails the "Things should be the same or they should be different" test.
Why would the feat possibly apply only to some mount class features and not other mount class features.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
The nature oracle can take a revelation that gets them a mount. My nature oracle has an axe beak because of this (and a certain boon)!You can get an animal companion, no problem there, but you cant technically take the feat since you don't have the Mount class feature, you have the Bonded Mount class feature.
(I know that this is terribly pedantic, but RAW, you would neet to take a level in a class that like cavalier, to take the feat).
Bonded Mount (Su): You gain the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal mount. The creature must be one that you are capable of riding and is suitable as a mount. A Medium oracle can select a camel or a horse. A Small oracle can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or a dog if she is at least 4th level. This mount functions as a druid’s animal companion, using your oracle level as your effective druid level. Bonded mounts have an Intelligence score of at least 6.That is incredibly pendantic, and fails the "Things should be the same or they should be different" test.
Why would the feat possibly apply only to some mount class features and not other mount class features.
I really have no idea, why the feat was written in such a fashion, as written only a couple of classes with a good BAB (Paladin, Ranger, Cavalier ) can take this feat. Not even the Druid can take it, and those class features reference an effective druid level.
You could argue that the hunter might have a shot since the hunter levels count as ranger levels for a couple of options, but the hunter still lacks the class feature.
I don't particularly like my interpretation, but considering the whole druid and full bab issue, it does seem intentional.
If they wanted everybody to take the feat, writing "requires an animal companion with an effective druid level of X", but they didn't.
|
|
Sebastian Hirsch: You may want to check this out. This very topic was being discussed over here some time ago.
Andrew Christian: You have brought up some good points and it gives me something to think about.
Everyone: The FAQ that was linked (yes, I have read it before but thanx for the repost for those who haven't) isn't overly specific. I think it is that way on purpose, though. While I can't speak for everyone I can tell you that the GMs in my area, including myself, tend to take a fairly loose view on fluffing. But that is why I posted here. I wanted to know what others did.
There is a girl in our area who plays a Kitsune that she fluffs like a cat. The concept of her character is actually taken from her pet cat. Cats are not foxes. But the differences are minimal and everyone is happy to make her happy. Another player has a character that uses a parasol with it just being a re-skinned club.
I can see where people might think a flightless Griffon is different enough from a horse to not allow it. And certainly it could depend on the content of the adventure. But to me and those I play with (my venture lieutenant included) if it doesn't change the mechanics and it doesn't change how things are perceived in the game then it is usually acceptable. For my situation I think they are happier to see me doing this than just kicking my old Animal Companion to the curb to upgrade.
Some concern was brought up as to what spells, etc. would affect the Animal Companion. I did want to point out (as stated in my original post) that the character did take the Celestial Servant feat already so it is already not a normal horse. It is a magical beast. It is at least in the same classification as a Griffon already. That being said I think I have bought myself a bit of leeway by using:
- a revelation to gain an Animal Companion
- a boon to play an Aasimar
- a feat to make it a magical beast
- a trait to improve it (Blackthorn Rancher)
- a good RP reason to not want to have to kick one Animal Companion to the curb to get a new one
- stating that eventually I will be spending 2 more feats to improve it (Monstrous Mount and Monstrous Mount Mastery)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sebastian Hirsch: You may want to check this out.
I was also going to point that out. I have it linked on my Life Oracle's page for this same reason.
The reskinning FAQ we have now actually spurned from a thread years ago where a player reskinned her wolf as a pig. Everything mechanically was wolf, but she described her Companion instead as a pig.
When her GM kept treating it as a wolf, and having NPCs react to it as a wolf, she got upset, and the dispute transitioned to online.
It sounds like the same thing you're proposing, but instead of pig and wolf, it's griffon and horse.
Luckily there are lots of ways to RP acquiring the Griffon. Who says that the Horse needs to leave at all? It's chilling in that lush green pasture just out back from your family ranch. It's still your best bud. You romp in the fields and share carrots together on Fridays. This Griffon? It's just your 9-5 commute.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a girl in our area who plays a Kitsune that she fluffs like a cat. The concept of her character is actually taken from her pet cat. Cats are not foxes. But the differences are minimal and everyone is happy to make her happy.
Which is fine until she plays the scenario #99-99 'Valley of the Catfolk', featuring a tribe of cat-people who have a long-running feud with the fox-people who live in the mystical forest next door, with appropriate diplomacy penalties/bonuses based on a PC's race.
Or until catfolk are made PFS-legal, and she has to explain why she's playing a catfolk but with kitsune stats.
|
There is a girl in our area who plays a Kitsune that she fluffs like a cat. The concept of her character is actually taken from her pet cat. Cats are not foxes. But the differences are minimal and everyone is happy to make her happy.Which is fine until she plays the scenario #99-99 'Valley of the Catfolk', featuring a tribe of cat-people who have a long-running feud with the fox-people who live in the mystical forest next door, with appropriate diplomacy penalties/bonuses based on a PC's race.
Or until catfolk are made PFS-legal, and she has to explain why she's playing a catfolk but with kitsune stats.
A couple years ago I played around with a Kitsume oracle/"future god" named 'Coyote' but dumped him because in part because he was too close to this line (other reason, I was really good at playing 7 wis and thought this might tick off other players eventually). I would be less than impressed with the cat girl.
That said, I would find a way to include the horse. You could have a god transform him or have him in the background as your pack horse saying "well, Gustav here is a little too old but he's still my buddy."
I do something with my Summoner who travels with his skill based eidolon "wife". I would never (unless the twins/herald and scholar vanities are endangered. She would insist they were safe but would never forgive me if I banished her) expose her to the dangers of actual combat. Hope that was helpful.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing says the mount granted by Monsterous Mount is natural. I see a lot of people saying a god changed it, but why not something more... mortal? Heck, you could justify the feat as a magical ritual to change the AC into a griffon. Boom ritual done, permanent change to your Animal Companion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, so I can see some potential problems after some things here have been brought up. I am still kinda on the fence on the topic though. My indecision mostly revolves around the fact that the horse already really isn't a horse. It is a Magical Beast. Part of me wonders how visually it actually differs from a common horse. Does it seem really far out to have it described as having a more avian-like head, talons on its front feet, a tuft on the end of its tail an small vestigial wings?
On the other hand I don't want to make others uncomfortable with forcing them to share in my private fantasy. I mean to me it doesn't seem like much of a stretch, but I don't want to impose this belief on anyone else. Especially a GM.
To that end as I took the Clouded Vision curse maybe I will have just my character see the other non-equine traits. She is the only one able to see its true form until it transforms.
Until then everyone else sees a Celestial horse Magical Beast... whatever that is supposed to look like.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't we address this very topic 6 years ago in a roughly 14 page thread that resulted in an FAQ that you can reskin? Just sayin'.
You may want to read this thread. The FAQ was brought up more than once. I stated that I have already read it and that I feel that it was purposefully left vague enough for GMs to make their own judgement calls on what they think is appropriate refluffing and what crosses the line.
...then some people weighed in with their opinions on what is acceptable and what is not. On my particular topic it seems to be a fairly even split on the boards and unanimous support from my local group. Yep, I think that pretty much brings us up to speed.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Sebastian Hirsch: You may want to check this out. This very topic was being discussed over here some time ago.
Sebastian Hirsch: You may want to check this out.I was also going to point that out. I have it linked on my Life Oracle's page for this same reason.
I am aware of those postes and the FAQ about spears, I am just worried that the exclusion of druids was very much intentional.
Following the spear training example FAQ, all those various class features work like the druid ability, which is not a legal option. Of course some of the other legal class features work like the druid class feature as well.
---
Bottom line, if you come to me with a hunter or another class with a very similar class feature, I would argue against it and warn the player that table variation could rob him of his companion.
If a players comes to my tables with the feat, I am not going to take her griffin away. This is one of those areas, where I am quite unwilling to to punish a player for something vague in a player companion (that will likely never get errata or FAQ) since I have that SKR quote an the spear training FAQ.
|
|
Yeah, so I can see some potential problems after some things here have been brought up. I am still kinda on the fence on the topic though. My indecision mostly revolves around the fact that the horse already really isn't a horse. It is a Magical Beast. Part of me wonders how visually it actually differs from a common horse. Does it seem really far out to have it described as having a more avian-like head, talons on its front feet, a tuft on the end of its tail an small vestigial wings?
On the other hand I don't want to make others uncomfortable with forcing them to share in my private fantasy. I mean to me it doesn't seem like much of a stretch, but I don't want to impose this belief on anyone else. Especially a GM.
To that end as I took the Clouded Vision curse maybe I will have just my character see the other non-equine traits. She is the only one able to see its true form until it transforms.
Until then everyone else sees a Celestial horse Magical Beast... whatever that is supposed to look like.
Where did you get that your horse is a magical beast?
|
|
Didn't we address this very topic 6 years ago in a roughly 14 page thread that resulted in an FAQ that you can reskin? Just sayin'.You may want to read this thread. The FAQ was brought up more than once. I stated that I have already read it and that I feel that it was purposefully left vague enough for GMs to make their own judgement calls on what they think is appropriate refluffing and what crosses the line.
Basically, there is a lot of 'wiggle' room. Everyone pretty much agree's at this point that you can't reskin a pig into a wolf.
But I had one person claim I was 'taking liberties' with the summoner class because I was supposedly shooting for mechanical advantage when I presented my Eidolon as my character's spouse and hence getting her into social situations where having an Eidolon in the room was absurd. In his mind eidolon's were like animal companions.
I could see his point, but I thought his starting point of putting intelligent beings in the same category as animal companions was absurd. If I'm gaining a mechanical advantage it's just clever roleplay backed up with diplomacy roles. Though if a given gm is sees it differently and is polite about it (unlike this person) I'll either play a different character or work within his table variation depending on his circumstances (this has only happened once).
My first character was a "Samurai" Paladin from Minkai. When I started the character the only book out was the Adventurers Armory, which pretty much stated that a Claymore was the same statically as a Katana and a Glaive was a Naginata etc. So I made this character under that assumption. Then Ultimate Combat came out and that was no longer true. Should I give up the character or rewrite it (wait we couldn't do that then) or should I play it without a million exotic weapon profincies, treating it as 'Grandfathered' in (which is what I did, with a 2 second conversation with my VC).
Basically, you allow a lot of leeway, until you can't. That to me is the proper spirit to approach this rule.
|
|
You may want to read this thread.
Thank you for assuming that I did not read this yet again yearly re-hash of a common theme, even though I did. This is not my first, nor do I assume this will be my last, rodeo on this very topic.
The FAQ was brought up more than once. I stated that I have already read it and that I feel that it was purposefully left vague enough for GMs to make their own judgement calls on what they think is appropriate refluffing and what crosses the line.
Emphasis mine. Your feelings are immaterial. I was there when the decision was made. I know what the discussion was about, and I was involved in it. I can tell you based on that fantastic slog-fest we had the first (of many) of times this came up, that it's not meant to be vague. It's meant to be "don't reskin.
So while I normally end with "expect table variance" on this one. The more appropriate answer is, expect a GM to force a rebuild of your character at some point, referring to the FAQ or have that GM wind up reporting your character "dead".
|
|
We haven't had a good Apes with Hammers argument in a while.I had the "my animal companion understands common and so I dont need to use Handle Animal" issue come up last night and damned if I cannot find the thing that specifies you still need to use the skill even where the AC has an Int of 3 and understands a language.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a FAQ for that.We haven't had a good Apes with Hammers argument in a while.I had the "my animal companion understands common and so I dont need to use Handle Animal" issue come up last night and damned if I cannot find the thing that specifies you still need to use the skill even where the AC has an Int of 3 and understands a language.
There's a FAQ for reskinning but that didn't stop the OP.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't like fast and furious Divine Intervention, go for the long process Divine Intervention.
Horse starts out a normal horse, next level its coloration changes a bit, next level its eyes become a bit more avian, level after that it starts getting soft plumage along the neck (but only the neck).
Level 5, poof! Magically a griffon!
It's still a horse from the beginning to the end, obviously a horse the entire time, up until the time it is not a horse and is obviously a griffon.
There ARE hard rules about reskinning.
However, there are not hard rules about description.
It's a blurry line sometimes, but in general;
If Object A looks like Object B and is not readily identifiable as Object A, it is reskinning.
If Object A is readily identified as Object A and merely has some outward hints of Object B, it is description.
We've had that discussion at length too.
-If we limit description to only things hard present in cannon, only aasimar and gnomes can have blue hair. *edit* Ok, and sylphs and undine too. Maybe a few other races, but not most of the core ones*edit*
Your Chelish human? No.
"Well, they could dye their hair!"
Nope, no rules resource for hair dye, sorry.
-Your character is half Garundi, half Taldane?
Sorry, no rules for mixed heritages.
(Honestly, I'd stat them as Garundi (which really just means Osirioni as a language) and describe them as having physical traits of both.)
-Your longsword is too short, your shortsword is too long, there are no stats for a dirk nor kris.
Obviously, sticking to EXTREME HARD rules is a bit lame.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The more appropriate answer is, expect a GM to force a rebuild of your character at some point, referring to the FAQ or have that GM wind up reporting your character "dead".
Saying your griffon looks like your old horse is an RP effect. It has nothing to do with a character's build. I could make a two-weapon fighter who insists his two swords are herrings, and making me rebuild that fighter wouldn't necessarily stop me from insisting his two swords are herrings.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or you could just be crazy. YOU say your companion is a griffin, but in reality it is a horse. You are delusional...at least until the game mechanics allow you to actually have a griffon. Suddenly all those people who scoffed at you now feel silly and have to re-evaluate their own sanity :-)
You can call your swords herrings all your want, but that only exists within the confines or your own head. Everyone else sees swords. They look like swords, act like swords...they are swords
IMO, that is not reskinning