Do you allow fluff when it doesn't affect mechanics?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 305 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Suggestion for clarification on the FAQ: The reskin rules only effect what goes on the table. If for example, a dead character is reincarnated as a new pc under a different number (effectivly making a new 1st level character) or a horse is mechanically changed to a Griffin between session because the character has acquired the appropriate feats/boons/whatever they can come up with whatever fluff explainations the dang well please to explain what happened out of game.

This would not extend to the kitume saying she's a cat girl "in game" because "in game" is the key phrase here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:

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

"The Red Herring" may just become a character at some point.

The Exchange 5/5

Tabletop Giant wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:

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

"The Red Herring" may just become a character at some point.

not sure I'm tracking this part of the thread...

relax, it was a joke. "Read Herring" and "tracking"... well, it sounded funny in my head...

Grand Lodge

Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:

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.
Your Chelish human? No.
"Well, they could dye their hair!"
Nope, no rules resource for hair dye, sorry.

I just had to jump in on this one.

A waif-like woman with bluish-silver hair comes in and looks around. There seems to be a breeze following her, despite being indoors.

"Not just gnomes and aasimar can have blue hair. My hair is sometimes blue. My skin too, like this", she holds up her arm, and studies it for a moment before realizing it looks like a perfectly normal pale human skin tone. "Well, as I said, it's only sometimes blue. The blue streaks come and go with Gozreh's breezes."


Celia the Sylph wrote:
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:

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.
Your Chelish human? No.
"Well, they could dye their hair!"
Nope, no rules resource for hair dye, sorry.

I just had to jump in on this one.

A waif-like woman with bluish-silver hair comes in and looks around. There seems to be a breeze following her, despite being indoors.

"Not just gnomes and aasimar can have blue hair. My hair is sometimes blue. My skin too, like this", she holds up her arm, and studies it for a moment before realizing it looks like a perfectly normal pale human skin tone. "Well, as I said, it's only sometimes blue. The blue streaks come and go with Gozreh's breezes."

Duly noted. Editing to include sylphs and undine.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
Celia the Sylph wrote:
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:

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.
Your Chelish human? No.
"Well, they could dye their hair!"
Nope, no rules resource for hair dye, sorry.

I just had to jump in on this one.

A waif-like woman with bluish-silver hair comes in and looks around. There seems to be a breeze following her, despite being indoors.

"Not just gnomes and aasimar can have blue hair. My hair is sometimes blue. My skin too, like this", she holds up her arm, and studies it for a moment before realizing it looks like a perfectly normal pale human skin tone. "Well, as I said, it's only sometimes blue. The blue streaks come and go with Gozreh's breezes."

Duly noted. Editing to include sylphs and undine.

Well, there are some rules for dyes. There's marker dye in UE for one, temporary but still a thing. I seem to remember another type of dye coming up in one of the books but can't quite recall it at this time.

Lantern Lodge 5/5

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just surprised no one's said "Yellow Feathered Tengu" yet.

*throws a chair, leaves thread*

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MisterSlanky wrote:
Lune wrote:
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.

Lune wrote:
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".

Oh, I see. So it is ok for you to assume that I didn't read the FAQ but it isn't ok for me to assume that you didn't read the thread? And then you come here and state that my feelings on the FAQ are immaterial when you are clearly giving your own bias opinion on what it says.

I was hoping that you were just ignorant of what had already been stated upthread repeatedly and was just trying to fill you in. But I see that it is much worse than that; you actually wanted to come here, point out what was already brought up, come down on someone for bringing a topic up that has already been discussed and generally be snarky and unhelpful. I hope all of your posts aren't so rife with hypocrisy and condescension.

To be clear the actual text of that FAQ was also posted upthread. It does not state that you cannot reskin. It gives some guidelines by which you can reskin. They call it "reflavoring" but honestly there is very little difference.

As far as forcing a rebuild of the character at some point... I'm not sure why? The character is totally legit the way it is. What is it that you are suggesting would need rebuilding? I think maybe I just don't understand what you are saying.

And reporting the character as dead? That is just laughable.

Andrew Christian: Celestial Servant feat states that it becomes a Magical Beast.

Kerney: Thank you for your story about previous experiences. That's the kind of thing I was looking for here. It was inspirational and shows about my perspective on the topic as well. It seems to be the perspective of those I game with too so lucky me. :)

jon dehning wrote:
There's a FAQ for reskinning but that didn't stop the OP.

Damn straight. I can ask whatever damn question I want. You don't like it don't post.

Honestly, WTF is going on with all the rage about a repost of a topic that's been discussed. I'd think that you all would be used to that on these forums by now.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

Lune wrote:
It does not state that you cannot reskin. It gives some guidelines by which you can reskin. They call it "reflavoring" but honestly there is very little difference.

Its nearly impossible to list all the ways a reskin (yes its a reskin) as you described can pose problems in a scenario. But it falls to the table GM to adjudicate the rules. If the GM allows it, great, but that is the table variation argument. If forced to make an "official" ruling, no, you cannot have a horse that is a griffon, even if just aesthetically speaking. Trying to argue anything else is probably not going to be universally accepted.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Missouri—Cape Girardeau

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tabletop Giant wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:

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

"The Red Herring" may just become a character at some point.

But he'd be Communist.

("Clue" reference)

1/5

Bob, that is pretty much how I understood it at the start of the thread. I was asking for experience in what others have seen at their tables. I had no idea people would get so pissy and emo. I thought it would be a fun topic to discuss.

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lune wrote:
Bob, that is pretty much how I understood it at the start of the thread. I was asking for experience in what others have seen at their tables. I had no idea people would get so pissy and emo. I thought it would be a fun topic to discuss.

pissy and emo?

Pot, meet kettle. You posted looking for opinions about a topic. People responded to your opinion by not agreeing with you and providing links and evidence.

Plus, I never said I didn't like your post. You inferred I didn't based upon what? Referencing that you might be the Chosen One that gets reskinning made acceptable? Please continue to post whatever you like.


Lune wrote:
Bob, that is pretty much how I understood it at the start of the thread. I was asking for experience in what others have seen at their tables. I had no idea people would get so pissy and emo. I thought it would be a fun topic to discuss.

Don't let the harsher posts overly distract; there are plenty that think this is a fun idea and would be fine with some leeway in that regard.

Like many communities, this one works best if you focus on what is best about it.


jon dehning wrote:


People responded to your opinion by not agreeing with you and providing links and evidence.

Plenty of people posted in support of the notion as well. You do not speak for all of us.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Lune wrote:
I thought it would be a fun topic to discuss.

It absolutely wasn't fun the first time. In fact, the first time turned into a huge mess that caused the FAQ to be posted.

It then wasn't fun the next ten times it came up; what would make this time fun?

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tabletop Giant wrote:
jon dehning wrote:


People responded to your opinion by not agreeing with you and providing links and evidence.
Plenty of people posted in support of the notion as well. You do not speak for all of us.

Never said I did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
jon dehning wrote:
Tabletop Giant wrote:
jon dehning wrote:


People responded to your opinion by not agreeing with you and providing links and evidence.
Plenty of people posted in support of the notion as well. You do not speak for all of us.
Never said I did.

You did, actually.

The statement "People responded to your opinion by not agreeing with you and providing links and evidence." implies that is all that occurred, and that no one supports the idea.

It is a technique of persuasion to pretend that "everyone" agrees, e.g., "Everyone thinks you are wrong.".

MisterSlanky wrote:
It absolutely wasn't fun the first time.

I wonder - was the reason it was not fun because a couple of posters busted into the thread and dropped a bunch of hostile sounding posts? Because I think I see the problem right before me.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jayson MF Kip wrote:

I'm just surprised no one's said "Yellow Feathered Tengu" yet.

*throws a chair, leaves thread*

Riding a horse that looks like a woolly mammoth?


Jared Thaler wrote:
Jayson MF Kip wrote:

I'm just surprised no one's said "Yellow Feathered Tengu" yet.

*throws a chair, leaves thread*

Riding a horse that looks like a woolly mammoth?

Followed by Torch who has reskinned his bathtub to look like a trash can.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Tabletop Giant wrote:
I wonder - was the reason it was not fun because a couple of posters busted into the thread and dropped a bunch of hostile sounding posts? Because I think I see the problem right before me.

Well I can answer that one. No.

Go look it up if you're so inclined. But realize this. The rule is the way it is for a reason. In fact, the example provided here is the exact reason the rule was proposed. So yes, it gets old year after year.

You've had multiple people in the know state, "no", but it continues, and it continues, and it continues. Just let it go.

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tabletop Giant wrote:
jon dehning wrote:
Tabletop Giant wrote:
jon dehning wrote:


People responded to your opinion by not agreeing with you and providing links and evidence.
Plenty of people posted in support of the notion as well. You do not speak for all of us.
Never said I did.

You did, actually.

The statement "People responded to your opinion by not agreeing with you and providing links and evidence." implies that is all that occurred, and that no one supports the idea.

It is a technique of persuasion to pretend that "everyone" agrees, e.g., "Everyone thinks you are wrong.".

MisterSlanky wrote:
It absolutely wasn't fun the first time.
I wonder - was the reason it was not fun because a couple of posters busted into the thread and dropped a bunch of hostile sounding posts? Because I think I see the problem right before me.

People does not equate everyone. If I had meant everyone I would have typed everyone.

Some people disagreed with the OP's opinion. OP did not like that some people disagreed with his opinion. OP decided to get emo and pissy that some people said no, you can't do that.

Better?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Lune: if you have a Celestial horse and its a magical beast, then declaring some sort of magical transformation due to deific blessing, should be ok.

The rule is clear though. You have two creatures that have thier own stats, and are quite different, so you can't reskin one as the other.

If you want to slowly describe your horse turning into a Griffin by describing him slowly gaining more sleek avianesque features and his mane being combed in a feathered pattern, I'd have no problem with that. As long as we were clear that it's a horse until it isnt.

1/5

jon dehning wrote:
Lune wrote:
Bob, that is pretty much how I understood it at the start of the thread. I was asking for experience in what others have seen at their tables. I had no idea people would get so pissy and emo. I thought it would be a fun topic to discuss.

pissy and emo?

Pot, meet kettle. You posted looking for opinions about a topic. People responded to your opinion by not agreeing with you and providing links and evidence.

Plus, I never said I didn't like your post. You inferred I didn't based upon what? Referencing that you might be the Chosen One that gets reskinning made acceptable? Please continue to post whatever you like.

As you said, I posted looking for people's opinions on things and their personal experiences. What is there that people could have possibly disagreed with? I asked a question and asked for experiences.

What I took issue with I quoted in my last post. If you have any issue with something that I said, point it out and I will respond to that directly.

Regarding my statement about being pissy and emo, I stand by it. That does encompass MisterSlanky's hypocritical, unhelpful and snarky statements.

Regarding me saying "You don't like it don't post." I didn't mean you specifically it was meant as the perspective of any reader. In other words, "If anyone doesn't like it they don't have to post."

1/5

Tabletop Giant: Thank you for your kind words. It is nice to see others here trying to make this a nice inviting place. And you are correct. There are plenty of people here who can disagree with something with it becoming an argument.

MisterSlanky wrote:
Lune wrote:
I thought it would be a fun topic to discuss.

It absolutely wasn't fun the first time. In fact, the first time turned into a huge mess that caused the FAQ to be posted.

It then wasn't fun the next ten times it came up; what would make this time fun?

I'm glad I wasn't there for it. If you didn't think it was going to be fun then why did you come here in the first place? Did you just want to leave your snark and hypocrisy here? You offered nothing constructive to the conversation. I agree with Tabletop Giant's assessment on the topic.

1/5

jon dehning wrote:
Some people disagreed with the OP's opinion. OP did not like that some people disagreed with his opinion. OP decided to get emo and pissy that some people said no, you can't do that.

That is not accurate and you know it. Go back and read my original post. I asked for others opinion and did not give my own on how it should/does work. As stated repeatedly, I have already read the FAQ and believe that it is left purposefully vague so the decisions are left in the GM's hands about what they think crosses the line. My request was for personal experiences in the matter.

The hypocritical and emotional responses didn't start until after MisterSlanky decided to drop in. You can go ahead and review it if you'd like. It is all there.

I would like to point out that your posts also have not been very constructive or helpful. That is not very becoming of a Venture Captain. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt though. How about we both return to the topic at hand and have some friendly constructive conversation? *extends olive branch*

1/5

In an attempt to return to the original topic...

Is the real point of contention here description vs "reskinning"?

Let me ask this: Can anyone tell me what a Celestial horse looks like? No? This isn't described specifically in the rules anywhere?

Is there anything saying that a Celestial horse doesn't have avian features? Is there anything saying that they can't?

What exactly is it about this that is rubbing people the wrong way?

Paizo Employee 5/5 Organized Play Coordinator

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey all!

I like discussion. I like debate. I don't mind that topics come up again, as revisiting things can sometimes be beneficial. However, I will not tolerate personal attacks and abuse. They are not conducive to a friendly community, and continuing the discussion this way is going to get this thread locked. This is your friendly warning!

Paizo Employee 5/5 Organized Play Coordinator

In a nutshell: you cannot reskin one thing to make it seem another. Having a Horse look like a Gryphon does that. Any other player/NPC cannot look and make a knowledge check to determine what it is and how to react.

There are other ways, besides reskinning to accomplish the original goal—not ditching a valued animal companion for an upgrade. Let's focus on the OP and ways to make their idea work that don't violate the reskinning rules.

1/5

Thank you Tonya. Trying to bring it back on topic now. :)

1/5

Tonya, would you like to weigh in on the post before your first one?

Or what the differences between description like (to quote the FAQ) "a small cat could be a cheetah or leopard, as suggested, as well as a lynx, bobcat, puma, or other similar animal" and "reskinning" is?

5/5 Venture-Agent, Canada—Alberta—Edmonton aka Artoo

Lune wrote:

In an attempt to return to the original topic...

Is the real point of contention here description vs "reskinning"?

Let me ask this: Can anyone tell me what a Celestial horse looks like? No? This isn't described specifically in the rules anywhere?

Is there anything saying that a Celestial horse doesn't have avian features? Is there anything saying that they can't?

What exactly is it about this that is rubbing people the wrong way?

What part of the FAQ do you find vague? Here's what I'm seeing that seems pretty clear:

Quote:
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.

Emphasis added by me. Are you trying to claim that a gryphon and a horse are the same type of animal? Because that's quite the strech.

Also:

Quote:
A player may not re-skin items to be something for which there are no specific rules

I'm pretty sure there's no specific rules for fledgling gryphons.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tabletop Giant wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:
Jayson MF Kip wrote:

I'm just surprised no one's said "Yellow Feathered Tengu" yet.

*throws a chair, leaves thread*

Riding a horse that looks like a woolly mammoth?
Followed by Torch who has reskinned his bathtub to look like a trash can.

And a half ork barbarian who is covered in blue fur.

Someone needs to build this party.

Dark Archive 5/5 Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Lune wrote:

Or what the differences between description like (to quote the FAQ) "a small cat could be a cheetah or leopard, as suggested, as well as a lynx, bobcat, puma, or other similar animal" and "reskinning" is?

Linking outside of Paizo because I like their table setup, but the large table listing the companions is a great example of reskinning:

D20 Animal List

A crocodile and an alligator use the same stats. Cat, Small covers Cheetahs and Leopards while Cat, Big covers Lions and Tigers. There's a simple 'Bird' for Eagles, Owls, Hawks and the like. You can see the same on the Animal List under Druid on the Paizo PRD as well.

Druid Page.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Lune: there aren't many animal types that are akin to a horse that isn't already stated up. But defining a horse as a quarter horse, clydesdale, arabian, etc is fine. As for a Celestial horse. Adding features that make it obviously Celestial is fine. I suppose even adding some feathers here or there is fine. Beak? Probably not. Talons? Probably not. The description still needs to be able to define it as a Celestial horse.

The closer the description gets to gryphon, the less it will be acceptable by the reskinning rules.

But an example of acceptable reskinning might be:

Dire weasel. There aren't stats that I'm aware of for dire ferret, mink, ermine, or other weasel-like creatures. So calling your pet dire Weasel a dire mink would be acceptable.

Small Cat: bobcat, lynx, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, panther, puma, etc.

Bear: black, brown, grizzly, sun, panda, polar, kodiak, etc.

Wolf: Coyote, Timber, Tasmanian Devil, etc.

Shadow Lodge

Jared Thaler wrote:
Tabletop Giant wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:
Jayson MF Kip wrote:

I'm just surprised no one's said "Yellow Feathered Tengu" yet.

*throws a chair, leaves thread*

Riding a horse that looks like a woolly mammoth?
Followed by Torch who has reskinned his bathtub to look like a trash can.

And a half ork barbarian who is covered in blue fur.

Someone needs to build this party.

Pass the cookies.

More seriously, you get to decide about the details of your character as long as mechanics are not effected. Period.

I would wonder when a gm, objecting to a non mechanical aspect of a character and trying to put up more and more opposition in game to said players ventures into "don't be a jerk territory."

I think some posts certainly here fall into that catagory. Furthermore, based on some posts by ex pfs players on these boards, such behavior does nothing to further the quality of anyones gaming experience.

1/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

Lune: there aren't many animal types that are akin to a horse that isn't already stated up. But defining a horse as a quarter horse, clydesdale, arabian, etc is fine. As for a Celestial horse. Adding features that make it obviously Celestial is fine. I suppose even adding some feathers here or there is fine. Beak? Probably not. Talons? Probably not. The description still needs to be able to define it as a Celestial horse.

The closer the description gets to gryphon, the less it will be acceptable by the reskinning rules.

Are you sure?

There are no rules describing what a Celestial animal of any sort looks like much less a horse. Nor for a Fiendish animal that I could find. Same with Half-Celestial and Half-Fiend. The closest thing I could find was for a Aasimar. Shall we take a look at some of their Alternate Physical Traits?

Please allow me to point out a few:
3 Arms: feathered forearms
13 Digits: odd number
14 Digits: shining talons
16 Ears: catlike
17 Ears: feathered
21 Eyes: catlike
32 Hair: feathers
46 Legs: clawed feet
48 Legs: feathered shins
55 Shadow: winged
57 Skin: feathered
71 Wings: butterfly
72 Wings: feathered
73 Wings: light
74 Wings: metallic dragon
75 Wings: prismatic
84 Other: fox tail
94 Other: sweet taste (maybe like raisins?)

Ok, that last one was just for fun. But you get the idea. There are a lot of things making humanoid look more catlike, birdlike, feather, etc. There are things giving it a tail which seems less drastic than changing it to look more feline. Those last several are for wings which we know that Aasimar are capable of obtaining via a feat.

Is it really so hard to believe that a Celestial horse can possess these same features? Honestly, a "horse" that has feathered forearms, talons instead of front hooves (though still mechanically function as hooves), feathered ears, clawed feet, small (non functional) vestigial wings and a tail that looks more like a lion's than a horse's suddenly doesn't seem so far fetched to me.

As I have already said, I would be fine with doing this like a progression or something that only my character can see the true form of. But I don't see how these aesthetic only changes affect the game. On one hand I can see it rubbing a person the wrong way to ask them to embrace my fantasy. On the other... why should they care?

I would imagine that people are already going to be reacting to a Celestial horse differently than a normal horse. Is there anything else that would be affected by these aesthetic changes that I'm not picking up on?

Kerney: It is refreshing to hear that I am not alone in that thought. Thank you for your support.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The bottom line Lune, Celestial or not, it needs to be identifiable as a horse. Having cosmetic features is fine. Having completely different anatomy that would disallow someone to identify it as a horse, is not.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lune wrote:

Tonya, would you like to weigh in on the post before your first one?

Or what the differences between description like (to quote the FAQ) "a small cat could be a cheetah or leopard, as suggested, as well as a lynx, bobcat, puma, or other similar animal" and "reskinning" is?

The key element between description differences and reskinning is determining what is the base item used versus base characteristic desired and are they the same? I want an animal companion that has platinum white fur striped with black, a tail, and guards my camp. I use the small cat statistics. The description of a cat elicits certain characteristics - a long tail, pointy ears, fluffy, with a disdain for humans. Does the coloring of a cat change its nature? Would stripes versus spots versus boots versus a tipped tail change how it reacts? No. Then I am fine, as the odd coloring is a descriptive difference. If I want to describe my animal companion as a cat that barks warnings when strangers approach? Given that behavior is most often associated with dogs, I would call it as "reskinning" and have the base animal be a dog.

Or to go with an inanimate object as an example. I want a rapier for my character. As there is no inherent difference between a swept hilt rapier, an Italian cup hilt rapier, or a plain ring & quillion in terms of game mechanics, I can describe my weapon with any of the above options and do a d6 damage with a 18-20/x2 crit range. If I were to describe it as a short sword (which evolved from the rapier) I can't, as it's stats differ - d6 19-20/x2. If I want a 45" blade that I hold in two hands and use to poke people from behind others (a German estoc rapier), then I would need to look at either a longsword or a bastard sword.

Specifically regarding your case. A horse brings certain characteristics to mind, none of which involve avian type features or indicate an emergent avian quality. Looking through Pathfinder published material for celestial items or beings, you get some of the following descriptives: gold, silver, beautiful, light,divine, graceful, flawless, perfection, neat, gleaming, tranquillity, patient, lustrous, majestic, prismatic, magnificent, glimmering, regal, & glorious. Avian features are only on specific types of celestial creatures, and not a key component of celestial. So while your description of a celestial horse and my description of a celestial horse may vary based on preference of celestial-type adjectives used, the base is going to be a large, four-legged, hoofed, herbivore mammal with a flowing mane and tail. An Ax Beak would be a mount with avian characteristics.

TL;DR: Horses do not have avian qualities.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tonya Woldridge wrote:

The key element between description differences and reskinning...

Or to go with an inanimate object as an example. I want a rapier for my character. As there is no inherent difference between a swept hilt rapier, an Italian cup hilt rapier, or a plain ring & quillion in terms of game mechanics, I can describe my weapon with any of the above options and do a d6 damage with a 18-20/x2 crit range. If I were to describe it as a short sword (which evolved from the rapier) I can't, as it's stats differ - d6 19-20/x2. If I want a 45" blade that I hold in two hands and use to poke people from behind others (a German estoc rapier), then I would need to look at either a longsword or a bastard sword.

Or an Estoc

:)

1/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
The bottom line Lune, Celestial or not, it needs to be identifiable as a horse. Having cosmetic features is fine. Having completely different anatomy that would disallow someone to identify it as a horse, is not.

Ok. So, as I asked before... what does a Celestial horse look like? (We are talking about identifying what a Celestial horse looks like, not a horse afterall, right?)

Tonya Woldridge wrote:
Avian features are only on specific types of celestial creatures, and not a key component of celestial.

I'm sorry, Tonya, but that is not true. I just quoted in my last post about Aasimars. They are one of the Celestial things that has the most descriptions. There are plenty of things that are avian listed there.

Tonya Woldridge wrote:
TL;DR: Horses do not have avian qualities.

We can agree on that.

...but I was talking about a Celestial horse. Not an Animal, but a Magical Beast.

I'm sorry but without a description of what a Celestial anything looks I think it leaves a lot of creative license to the player. And I don't see anything wrong with that or that breaks any rules. And I don't think it should. If it did I think it would break the rule of cool. Why try to take creativity out of the hands of the player when it is something that doesn't affect game play or mechanics at all?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The Celestial template doesn't change the creature type. Celestial horses are still an animal. And must still be identifiable as a horse with knowledge nature. The feat changes that template relationship by changing the creature type. That is immaterial.

The Celestial horse must still be identifiable as a horse.

Why? Because that's how the game rules work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
The Celestial horse must still be identifiable as a horse.

Andrew is right about this I believe; the thing to keep in mind about even slightly reskinning something is that NPCs controlled by the GM must mechanically react to the item/creature as if it were the original.

Mechanically is emphasized there because that is the key concern that causes the umbrage you've seen. It is okay to 'RP' things for fun as being a certain way - but the attitudes that NPCs take towards your animal companion need to mechanically be based upon what the core rules say it is. Example - goblins will hate your horse no matter what you 'reskin' it as, as they really do hate horses and that cannot be avoided.

However, there's nothing wrong with describing your horse as looking oddly 'griffon-like'. It's just role-play fun at that point, and should be fine in just about any table you sit down at. If you want, your character can argue with goblins you encounter - "What? That's not a horse! THAT, my friend, is a Griffon!". Just put some ranks into bluff!

Of course, once you hit level 5 - it really is a griffon, and you are good to go. All in all I think you're fine.

The Exchange 5/5

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

I'm just surprised no one's said "Yellow Feathered Tengu" yet.

*throws a chair, leaves thread*

You rang?

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Lune wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
The bottom line Lune, Celestial or not, it needs to be identifiable as a horse. Having cosmetic features is fine. Having completely different anatomy that would disallow someone to identify it as a horse, is not.

Ok. So, as I asked before... what does a Celestial horse look like? (We are talking about identifying what a Celestial horse looks like, not a horse afterall, right?)

Tonya Woldridge wrote:
Avian features are only on specific types of celestial creatures, and not a key component of celestial.

I'm sorry, Tonya, but that is not true. I just quoted in my last post about Aasimars. They are one of the Celestial things that has the most descriptions. There are plenty of things that are avian listed there.

Tonya Woldridge wrote:
TL;DR: Horses do not have avian qualities.

We can agree on that.

...but I was talking about a Celestial horse. Not an Animal, but a Magical Beast.

I'm sorry but without a description of what a Celestial anything looks I think it leaves a lot of creative license to the player. And I don't see anything wrong with that or that breaks any rules. And I don't think it should. If it did I think it would break the rule of cool. Why try to take creativity out of the hands of the player when it is something that doesn't affect game play or mechanics at all?

Sorry Lune, but the celestial entry lists all those avian features, since there are aasimar heritages that come from celestial with avian features, they are not necessarily associated with creatures with the celestial template.

Assimar and half celestials are (usually) the descendants of certain outsiders whit the good subtype and mortals.

Creatures with the celestial templates, are "just" creatures that live on a good aligned plane - they are just regular animals that have were changed a bit by their plane (nothing more and nothings less that is listed in the template description).

Your celestial servant feat is an exception, but it just changes the creature type, not unlike a wizard choosing a cat as his familiar.
In both cases the creatures turn into a magical beast, but that doesn't mean that the physical description changes. A cat familiar pretty much just looks like a cat.

My suggestion would be to just use one of the suggested tactics that works for you:

Maybe your character "sees/imagines" his/her animal companion becoming more avian? You could describe your character dreaming about flying on a griffin.

You certainly can give your horse a couple of wing tatoos/brands, maybe stitch a couple of feathers to your saddle or something similar to foreshadow some sort of transformation.

In any case once you gain access to the monstrous mount feat, you will lose your old animal companion and gain a new one. That means, that your new animal companion starts the game according to the relevant FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

How is the replacement of a dead familiar, animal companion or paladin’s or cavalier's mount handled?

If you lose a companion during the course of a scenario, work with your GM for that scenario to properly note the loss on your Chronicle sheet. You should also note that you’ve gained your new companion. The new companion is ready for play in the next scenario after your previous companion died. Newly summoned animal companions begin play knowing a number of tricks equal to the bonus tricks granted based on your druid level. All other tricks require the use of Handle Animal to train the new animal companion as normal.

Of course your character can believe what he wants, about the change.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Eastern Eurasia-Africa

Lune wrote:
I'm sorry but without a description of what a Celestial anything looks
Tonya wrote:
Looking through Pathfinder published material for celestial items or beings, you get some of the following descriptives: gold, silver, beautiful, light, divine, graceful, flawless, perfection, neat, gleaming, tranquillity, patient, lustrous, majestic, prismatic, magnificent, glimmering, regal, & glorious.

I think your description is right there!

So you can describe your celestial horse as one with golden manes that majestically flow. Glorious and beautiful. A horse that has all the best features of any non-celestial specimen: A perfect horse.

1/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
The Celestial template doesn't change the creature type.

That is not true and I have linked it several times.

Quote:


Celestial Servant (Aasimar)

Rather than being a normal animal or beast, your companion or familiar hails from the heavenly realms.

Prerequisites: Aasimar, animal companion, familiar, or mount class feature.

Benefit: Your animal companion, familiar, or mount gains the celestial template and becomes a magical beast, though you may still treat it as an animal when using Handle Animal, wild empathy, or any other spells or class abilities that specifically affect animals.

It says right there in the feat that it becomes a magical beast. Later in your post you contradict yourself saying that the creature type does change so maybe I am confused by your wording?

You say that a Celestial horse must still be identifiable as a horse even though it isn't even an animal anymore because that is how the rules work. What rules?

Returning to the same question: can you tell me what a Celestial horse looks like? If not why are you opposed to me telling you what it looks like?

1/5

Tabletop Giant wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
The Celestial horse must still be identifiable as a horse.

Andrew is right about this I believe; the thing to keep in mind about even slightly reskinning something is that NPCs controlled by the GM must mechanically react to the item/creature as if it were the original.

Mechanically is emphasized there because that is the key concern that causes the umbrage you've seen. It is okay to 'RP' things for fun as being a certain way - but the attitudes that NPCs take towards your animal companion need to mechanically be based upon what the core rules say it is. Example - goblins will hate your horse no matter what you 'reskin' it as, as they really do hate horses and that cannot be avoided.

However, there's nothing wrong with describing your horse as looking oddly 'griffon-like'. It's just role-play fun at that point, and should be fine in just about any table you sit down at. If you want, your character can argue with goblins you encounter - "What? That's not a horse! THAT, my friend, is a Griffon!". Just put some ranks into bluff!

Of course, once you hit level 5 - it really is a griffon, and you are good to go. All in all I think you're fine.

Well Goblins may hate it but it is NOT a horse. It isn't even an animal. It is a Magical Beast. If they had some item that affected horses more than other things then it wouldn't work on this creature. Just like an Aasimar isn't a human no matter how human like they look. If you use a Human Bane weapon on an Aasimar it wouldn't work.

So saying that I can describe it as looking oddly griffon like is kinda what I'm going for here. Mostly because there seems to be nothing anywhere describing what a Celestial horse DOES look like. I'm not sure why some people think it is ok for only them to describe what a Celestial horse looks like and not ok for others.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Lune wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
The Celestial template doesn't change the creature type.
That is not true and I have linked it several times.

Go read the template. It's okay I'll wait.

Now please, come back, and with a copy/paste, please state EXACTLY where it changes the creature type. I'm guessing you can't.

Quote:


It says right there in the feat that it becomes a magical beast. Later in your post you contradict yourself saying that the creature type does change so maybe I am confused by your wording?

Yup, it does. Why does it? Because the celestial template does not. So that's what do we have to go on. In fact, the feat's wording needs to clarify that you gain the celestial template and change to a creature type of magical beast.

Quote:

You say that a Celestial horse must still be identifiable as a horse even though it isn't even an animal anymore because that is how the rules work. What rules?

Returning to the same question: can you tell me what a Celestial horse looks like? If not why are you opposed to me telling you what it looks like?

Auke responded to your exact question. Your celestial horse is a horse. Nothing but a horse. It's a horse that happens to live in the higher planes. It doesn't have an outsider template, it doesn't have magical flying powers, it doesn't have horns or feathers or scales, and it doesn't have anything else other than being a perfect specimen of a horse. Now because you're spending a feat, it also happens to be a magical beast, which has a different set of mechanical benefits. But it's still just a horse.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Lune wrote:
Well Goblins may hate it but it is NOT a horse. It isn't even an animal. It is a Magical Beast. If they had some item that affected horses more than other things then it wouldn't work on this creature. Just like an Aasimar isn't a human no matter how human like they look. If you use a Human Bane weapon on an Aasimar it wouldn't work.

Things that affect horses would still work on your animal companion. It's a horse with a template. However, since it is a magical beast, effects that affect animals would no longer work on it.

Human-bane weapons don't work on aasimar, but if you use a human-bane weapon on a half-celestial human, it still affects them. They're still human under the template.

51 to 100 of 305 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Do you allow fluff when it doesn't affect mechanics? All Messageboards