| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the tower shield is not a bad faith argument. It is a logical consequence of your decision to allow climb to be fly. If you can climb something, you can fly up it. If you can't your fly is climbing change holds no consistency. Wich further supports my view that it is a sloppy decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little confused at the tower shield scenario.
That still is only, at most, 5ft up, and the tower shield will need to be secured.
Is that really super gamebreaking when it comes to reflavoring? You can't use it to 'hover' above lava or anything, the shield would melt and you'd burst into flames and die most likely. Can't be used to cross gaps, nothing to secure the shield on.
What does this tower shield propped up to climb atop do to break things? Am I missing something?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little confused at the tower shield scenario.
That still is only, at most, 5ft up, and the tower shield will need to be secured.
Is that really super gamebreaking when it comes to reflavoring? You can't use it to 'hover' above lava or anything, the shield would melt and you'd burst into flames and die most likely. Can't be used to cross gaps, nothing to secure the shield on.
What does this tower shield propped up to climb atop do to break things? Am I missing something?
I believe the idea was that the eidolon would somehow continue holding on to the shield, bringing it into the air with them and continuing to climb it in some bizarre loony tunes segment that nobody would actually attempt or allow and was wholly irrelevant to the discussion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, there are basically no rule differences between flying directly up to climb and using the "normal" climb action. Something something gotta hold your arms in such a way that you can't hold anything if you really, absolutely need to.
Your weird tower shield thing was an insane thing to pull out of your ass and just makes you look silly. Literally nobody in the world would try to cheat the system like that, and certainly in no world would I ever make fun of my fellow players. They're my friends. Are you the kind of person that would insult your friends for suggesting a reflavoring?
If your only contribution to the debate is irrelevant hyperbole, you should not contribute at all.
Which you don't have to do if your wings are doing the climbing for you. Which makes it more like flying than climbing. Which means feats like Combat Climber don't do anything because they are superseded by this super powerful new way to climb that is and isn't actually climbing, something that's obviously not intended by the rules, but now made possible because of bad and inconsistent reflavoring.
Put another way, the wings don't make you climb good, your Strength score, Athletics proficiencies, and skill feats do. It's such a non-sequitur that bringing it up at all in a way that the book already quantifies differently that it just overcomplicates things in a system that was built on simplification. There's already existing flavor and mechanics built in, no need to fix it or tweak it or whatever nonsense this is.
I'm an honest person and a realist. If I see something that I don't like, or find silly, or view as impossible, I call it out for what it is, munchkining shenanigans of the highest order bound to happen. First it's to help climb by cheesing circumstance bonuses, then it's to grant proficiency boosts or skill feats, then climb speeds, then fly speeds, all from a superficial choice that shouldn't do anything mechanically, yet is being used (or more accurately, can be used) for mechanical benefits and shortcuts.
You want to talk asspulls? Look at the flight example you guys are making. It's like saying Fighters are the best Spellcasters because they get Legendary in weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the idea was that the eidolon would somehow continue holding on to the shield, bringing it into the air with them and continuing to climb it in some bizarre loony tunes segment that nobody would actually attempt or allow and was wholly irrelevant to the discussion.I'm a little confused at the tower shield scenario.
That still is only, at most, 5ft up, and the tower shield will need to be secured.
Is that really super gamebreaking when it comes to reflavoring? You can't use it to 'hover' above lava or anything, the shield would melt and you'd burst into flames and die most likely. Can't be used to cross gaps, nothing to secure the shield on.
What does this tower shield propped up to climb atop do to break things? Am I missing something?
You got people able to live without breathing and eating, falling through space without issue, and able to have a Pokemon playstyle with effective companions. Or eternal life. All without magic or some other explain-away element in the universe.
Looney Toons is at least an equal comparison to the things you can do in PF2 with out magic as a form of copout juice, and PF1 is tame in comparison to what mundanes can do now. So by all means, call it "silly ridiculous shenanigans no sane GM would allow," it's about the same, the only difference is the publishing.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which you don't have to do if your wings are doing the climbing for you. Which makes it more like flying than climbing. Which means feats like Combat Climber don't do anything because they are superseded by this super powerful new way to climb that is and isn't actually climbing, something that's obviously not intended by the rules, but now made possible because of bad and inconsistent reflavoring.
Put another way, the wings don't make you climb good, your Strength score, Athletics proficiencies, and skill feats do. It's such a non-sequitur that bringing it up at all in a way that the book already quantifies differently that it just overcomplicates things in a system that was built on simplification. There's already existing flavor and mechanics built in, no need to fix it or tweak it or whatever nonsense this is.
I'm an honest person and a realist. If I see something that I don't like, or find silly, or view as impossible, I call it out for what it is, munchkining shenanigans of the highest order bound to happen. First it's to help climb by cheesing circumstance bonuses, then it's to grant proficiency boosts or skill feats, then climb speeds, then fly speeds, all from a superficial choice that shouldn't do anything mechanically, yet is being used (or more accurately, can be used) for...
At some point along the way, you appear to have made some sort of giant leap that doesnt make a lot of sense on this side.
At no point has anyone suggested that having wings should make you better at climbing.
We've suggested that if you have a description neutral way of boosting your climbing - like Evolution Surge, to grant a Climb speed - that while using that climb speed you describe the interaction as using your wings to ascend or descend obstacles, when it matches both the description AND the mechanics being used.
At no point has anyone suggested even a minor alteration to how a climb speed functions, when it is useful, or the actual abilities it provides.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which you don't have to do if your wings are doing the climbing for you. Which makes it more like flying than climbing. Which means feats like Combat Climber don't do anything because they are superseded by this super powerful new way to climb that is and isn't actually climbing, something that's obviously not intended by the rules, but now made possible because of bad and inconsistent reflavoring.
Put another way, the wings don't make you climb good, your Strength score, Athletics proficiencies, and skill feats do. It's such a non-sequitur that bringing it up at all in a way that the book already quantifies differently that it just overcomplicates things in a system that was built on simplification. There's already existing flavor and mechanics built in, no need to fix it or tweak it or whatever nonsense this is.
I'm an honest person and a realist. If I see something that I don't like, or find silly, or view as impossible, I call it out for what it is, munchkining shenanigans of the highest order bound to happen. First it's to help climb by cheesing circumstance bonuses, then it's to grant proficiency boosts or skill feats, then climb speeds, then fly speeds, all from a superficial choice that shouldn't do anything mechanically, yet is being used (or more accurately, can be used) for mechanical benefits and shortcuts.
So...what if I have my character with vestigial wings, working on getting permaflight at a later level, and I flavor my climbing up a wall[using a climb speed] as working out my wings to try to fly up it, keeping my hands free to help with stabilization as I learn to use the new appendages, which will be strong enough once I get the feat that lets me have a fly speed? I still need my hands free, if something happens that requires an athletics then it caused me to stop using my wings and grab on with my hands[which I kept free to stabilize with!], meaning I still make the required check one would make using climb. I am not asking for a circumstance of any kind, I'm just choosing to describe my action in this manner.
Is that really THAT bad?
Keep in mind: I STILL need the required climb speed to do this.
I STILL need to take the permaflight feat later, I don't just magically start flying without buying into the option.
I STILL need to make all the required checks when they're asked for.
Saying "I use my wings to help me up" doesn't suddenly turn into "I start flying everywhere at level 6 because I have a climb speed." And if it does, that is easy to say "no" to.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martial, based on your posts I have to assume you're incapable of creativity and believe the printed text of the book to be the Bible.
Darksol, please at least attempt to describe how a fighter's "I can stab good" compares to a wizard's "I cast time stop" as opposed to fly-as-climb's "I move vertically" with regular climb's "wow, so do I".
The only person bringing forth munchinkry is you because you for some reason believe people who want to reflavor are just trying to cheat and will somehow Luigi ladder their way around the world. You're spending a lot of words on deeply flaccid arguments.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is such a bad faith argument. That is very clearly not what anybody was intending or advocating for. The only way the fluff could break the game is if you intentionally do so, which everybody on the side of reflavouring has explicitly said wouldn't be the point. You reflavour with the specific intent to not break the game. The fact you though that would be at all a compelling argument in your favour is shockingly laughable.It wasn't meant to be a good faith argument, it was made to show the satire behind the bad fluff being similarly used to create shenanigans obviously not intended by the rules, and they are similar in the respect that they can and eventually do lead to unintended consequences. The adhesive argument likewise follows this road because it's very poorly thought out.
The fluff road travels both ways. You want fluff, don't make it suck or make no sense, lest the mockery and shenanigans ensues.
If you have no intention of respecting the people you're discussing this with by arguing in good faith, you have no place in this conversation, and will likely gain a reputation for irrational, disrespectful discourse.
Its also a flawed satire simply because the purpose of re-flavoring is to change the fiction without changing the mechanical consequences.
Any 'shenanigans' you insist must now be possible are brought into the example only by the creation of a masturbatory strawman in which someone agrees to the natural restrictions imposed by a re-flavor (that you can't use it for anything not possible with the game element you're re-flavoring), but then turns around and insists that the altered flavor must retroactively alter the mechanic.
Now I've had that happen, but that player was, as Matt Collville would say "A Wangrod" they wanted a chain sword, so I offered them the ability to reflavor either a whip (for reach) or a longsword (for larger dice, but no reach) they chose the longsword, and then...
Satire is a thing. It's quite popular. I don't see the problem of its application here when it is what I aptly think it to be: a half-baked attempt to make something work that falls apart all over the place when taken to another applicable yet now-made incongruent context. As for reputation, meh. I'm the villain wherever I go, so it's not like things can get any worse than what they are now.
You see it as a strawman, I see it as a player testing the waters to see what they can walk all over me with. It starts with a supposedly harmless reflavor, it ends with the player breaking the game.
Another reason it falls apart is because there is already acceptable and apt flavor within this rules context that's much simpler and more empowering to the player: You are just that good at climbing, as you invested time and effort and skill training into becoming effective enough at this task.
Not only is the reflavoring pointless and unnecessary, but it's a solution in search of a problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which you don't have to do if your wings are doing the climbing for you. Which makes it more like flying than climbing. Which means feats like Combat Climber don't do anything because they are superseded by this super powerful new way to climb that is and isn't actually climbing, something that's obviously not intended by the rules, but now made possible because of bad and inconsistent reflavoring.
Put another way, the wings don't make you climb good, your Strength score, Athletics proficiencies, and skill feats do. It's such a non-sequitur that bringing it up at all in a way that the book already quantifies differently that it just overcomplicates things in a system that was built on simplification. There's already existing flavor and mechanics built in, no need to fix it or tweak it or whatever nonsense this is.
I'm an honest person and a realist. If I see something that I don't like, or find silly, or view as impossible, I call it out for what it is, munchkining shenanigans of the highest order bound to happen. First it's to help climb by cheesing circumstance bonuses, then it's to grant proficiency boosts or skill feats, then climb speeds, then fly speeds, all from a superficial choice that shouldn't do anything mechanically, yet is being used (or more accurately, can be used) for...
At some point along the way, you appear to have made some sort of giant leap that doesnt make a lot of sense on this side.
At no point has anyone suggested that having wings should make you better at climbing.
We've suggested that if you have a description neutral way of boosting your climbing - like Evolution Surge, to grant a Climb speed - that while using that climb speed you describe the interaction as using your wings to ascend or descend obstacles, when it matches both the description AND the mechanics being used.
At no point has anyone suggested even a minor alteration to how a climb speed functions, when it is useful, or the actual abilities...
It does when you compare it to another entity, like Mike the Human Fighter. He has two arms and two legs he uses to climb with like Joe the Halfling Rogue. Now, Jim the Eidolon has vestigial wings that he uses to help climb, a limb that now, physically speaking, gives him an advantage that the other two don't have that the rules don't cover.
At least, if we rule that it somehow, even if for flavor-purposes, does something to aid the climbing process. Even if mechanically, it doesn't. Which creates the non-sequitur of its involvement in the skill process to begin with. It's like having a toe ring interferes with your ability to swing your sword or look up at the sky. It makes no sense or application or relevance.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You see it as a strawman, I see it as a player testing the waters to see what they can walk all over me with. It starts with a supposedly harmless reflavor, it ends with the player breaking the game.
If you can't trust your players not to try and break your game, that's a trust issue between you and them.
Thats not even remotely a universal or even predominant or necessarily a common problem for most tables or GMs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would suggest talking to your friends, yes, since you guys apparently have recurring issues like this based on your posts...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martial, based on your posts I have to assume you're incapable of creativity and believe the printed text of the book to be the Bible.
Darksol, please at least attempt to describe how a fighter's "I can stab good" compares to a wizard's "I cast time stop" as opposed to fly-as-climb's "I move vertically" with regular climb's "wow, so do I".
The only person bringing forth munchinkry is you because you for some reason believe people who want to reflavor are just trying to cheat and will somehow Luigi ladder their way around the world. You're spending a lot of words on deeply flaccid arguments.
A poor choice on my part, but I will select a more apt example.
Let's say we got a Wizard who has 40 speed. He wants to flavor his movement as little mini-teleports because he wants to flex his fast movement as a dominion over Teleportation magic. Seems harmless on its surface, but it falls apart in numerous scenarios. Let's say he's grabbed. Now he can't teleport for some reason, even though the presence of another should not invalidate their movement, as only certain spells do this, and if it's true teleportation, anchoring to another creature should not stop it. If they still somehow can move in an identical fashion, it now follows the Flat 5 check because it's like casting a spell, which it has a Somatic component (the closest thing to movement triggering reactions). And now they can do things like ignore rough terrain, walls, etc. If it really works that way.
Or I can just say they are normal fast-moving people who play by the same rules as everyone else because the special snowflake is overcomplicating things to the point of not wanting to play with them anymore because it's now a whole different game with adjudication that shouldn't be present.
Of those two, I can tell you which one I would prefer, as the argument being made there is identical to the one being proposed.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You and krispy are not interested in playing 2e. You'd get as much enjoyment from closing your eyes and just narrating what happens so everyone can feel good and only have limitations when it suits your whim's because f@~~ the rules and the words they use that define the mechanics of the game itself.
It's home brew whether you believe me or not.
I'm the homebrewing type. In contrast, KrispyXIV and The-Magic-Sword are trying to follow both the Rules As Written and the Rules As Intended. KrispyXIV has been explaining that the rules have more narrative flexibility than the imagery in the rulebooks provide.
The playtest beast eidolon in my campaign looks like a goat, an animal rather than a beast. The summoner acts like a ranger with an animal companion. Most townsfolk will assume the eidolon is a mystic goat, due to its Medium size and its glowing head markings, but even a mystic goat feels less threatening than a beast or dragon or phantom. That is a perk from narrative.
Years ago, my daughter played a PF1 battle oracle with haunted curse in my Rise of the Runelords campaign. The oracle had some spells from her curse, such as Telekinesis, which she flavored as persuading the haunts to help her. She also added that flavor to some regular divine spells from her spell slots when the flavor fit. Reskinning can be amusing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A poor choice on my part, but I will select a more apt example.
Let's say we got a Wizard who has 40 speed. He wants to flavor his movement as little mini-teleports because he wants to flex his fast movement as a dominion over Teleportation magic. Seems harmless on its surface, but it falls apart in numerous scenarios. Let's say he's grabbed. Now he can't teleport for some reason, even though the presence of another should not invalidate their movement, as only certain spells do this, and if it's true teleportation, anchoring to another creature should not stop it. If they still somehow can move in an identical fashion, it now follows the Flat 5 check because it's like casting a spell, which it has a Somatic component (the closest thing to movement triggering reactions). And now they can do things like ignore rough terrain, walls, etc. If it really works that way.
Or I can just say they are normal fast-moving people who play by the same rules as everyone else because the special snowflake is overcomplicating things to the point of not wanting to play with them anymore because it's now a whole different game with adjudication that shouldn't be present.
Of those two, I can tell you which one I would prefer, as the argument being made there is identical to the one being proposed.
The rule of thumb, in my opinion, is that in no case can anything you reflavor ever give you an advantage over someone who hasn't. Thats an absolute limit on what you can do.
In my game, I'd probably encourage the player in question (your example) to play up this trait outside of encounters (where it doesnt matter) and just not bring it up inside of them. Let it be implied and not explicit, and everyone knows its not going to provide an advantage.
Id also reward them with a Hero Point if we came to a situation where itd be really helpful to teleport past a door or something, and they had a clever or funny explanation for their sudden "performance issues" - using it as a narrative hook for a funny moment or running joke.
If that doesn't work for you, that's fine in your game - but its disingenuous to suggest that people who can make it work are cheating or houseruling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You see it as a strawman, I see it as a player testing the waters to see what they can walk all over me with. It starts with a supposedly harmless reflavor, it ends with the player breaking the game.
If you can't trust your players not to try and break your game, that's a trust issue between you and them.
Thats not even remotely a universal or even predominant or necessarily a common problem for most tables or GMs.
To be clear, this is a hypothetical application. My players know better than to pull these kinds of shenanigans.
The case of problem tables might have gone down with the release of 2E, but to suggest they have gone away or aren't really a thing anymore is even more disingenuous than what my arguments have been perceived as
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You see it as a strawman, I see it as a player testing the waters to see what they can walk all over me with. It starts with a supposedly harmless reflavor, it ends with the player breaking the game.
If you can't trust your players not to try and break your game, that's a trust issue between you and them.
Thats not even remotely a universal or even predominant or necessarily a common problem for most tables or GMs.
To be clear, this is a hypothetical application. My players know better than to pull these kinds of shenanigans.
The case of problem tables might have gone down with the release of 2E, but to suggest they have gone away or aren't really a thing anymore is even more disingenuous than what my arguments have been perceived as
I'm wondering if you perhaps spend too much time reading r/rpghorrorstories.
This entire thing now sounds like a complete non-issue. If someone disagreed with the reflavoring, all they'd have to say is "if that works for your table, nice! I personally wouldn't allow it." and that's it. Not accuse someone of trying to cheat using fringe cases or hyperbolic scenarios that are easily shot down by a majority of GMs.
If my player said they wanted to be an aasimar with wings at level 1 but they can't fly yet, and then said they should be able to fly with wings at level 1 after the approval, they'd get a verbal slap first and a booting second.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martial, based on your posts I have to assume you're incapable of creativity and believe the printed text of the book to be the Bible.
Darksol, please at least attempt to describe how a fighter's "I can stab good" compares to a wizard's "I cast time stop" as opposed to fly-as-climb's "I move vertically" with regular climb's "wow, so do I".
The only person bringing forth munchinkry is you because you for some reason believe people who want to reflavor are just trying to cheat and will somehow Luigi ladder their way around the world. You're spending a lot of words on deeply flaccid arguments.
A poor choice on my part, but I will select a more apt example.
Let's say we got a Wizard who has 40 speed. He wants to flavor his movement as little mini-teleports because he wants to flex his fast movement as a dominion over Teleportation magic. Seems harmless on its surface, but it falls apart in numerous scenarios. Let's say he's grabbed. Now he can't teleport for some reason, even though the presence of another should not invalidate their movement, as only certain spells do this, and if it's true teleportation, anchoring to another creature should not stop it. If they still somehow can move in an identical fashion, it now follows the Flat 5 check because it's like casting a spell, which it has a Somatic component (the closest thing to movement triggering reactions). And now they can do things like ignore rough terrain, walls, etc. If it really works that way.
Or I can just say they are normal fast-moving people who play by the same rules as everyone else because the special snowflake is overcomplicating things to the point of not wanting to play with them anymore because it's now a whole different game with adjudication that shouldn't be present.
Of those two, I can tell you which one I would prefer, as the argument being made there is identical to the one being proposed.
Where you're going astray here is that since you and the player both know its a re-flavor, they can't corner you by demanding your change it mechanically.
You keep insisting "well, if i pretend you teleported, i have to follow through and make it mechanically a teleport when its convenient" but the reality is "whatever the reason in the fiction, you can't move away because that's how the rules work" is the only response that's necessary.
When you let players re-flavor, it is exclusively with the understanding that its functionally an 'animation' for something they can do by the rules of the game, that doesn't alter how it works in any way. If they can't accept that, they get no re-flavor.
In this case, they can explain away why they can't use their teleportation while they're grabbed, but they can't tell the movement rules to take a hike. That's something they explicitly agree to, and they can't violate that any more than they can force you to use any other piece of homebrew.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, the whole flying by climbing things breaks down as soon as you try anything with it.
The problem here is the player who is "trying" things with it. When you establish a shared narrative together, it is rude to push on the boundaries for your own selfish benefit.
A narrative of flight as you climb a wall works perfectly well when the group buys in. Don't be the jerk that gets greedy and ruins it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where you're going astray here is that since you and...Martial, based on your posts I have to assume you're incapable of creativity and believe the printed text of the book to be the Bible.
Darksol, please at least attempt to describe how a fighter's "I can stab good" compares to a wizard's "I cast time stop" as opposed to fly-as-climb's "I move vertically" with regular climb's "wow, so do I".
The only person bringing forth munchinkry is you because you for some reason believe people who want to reflavor are just trying to cheat and will somehow Luigi ladder their way around the world. You're spending a lot of words on deeply flaccid arguments.
A poor choice on my part, but I will select a more apt example.
Let's say we got a Wizard who has 40 speed. He wants to flavor his movement as little mini-teleports because he wants to flex his fast movement as a dominion over Teleportation magic. Seems harmless on its surface, but it falls apart in numerous scenarios. Let's say he's grabbed. Now he can't teleport for some reason, even though the presence of another should not invalidate their movement, as only certain spells do this, and if it's true teleportation, anchoring to another creature should not stop it. If they still somehow can move in an identical fashion, it now follows the Flat 5 check because it's like casting a spell, which it has a Somatic component (the closest thing to movement triggering reactions). And now they can do things like ignore rough terrain, walls, etc. If it really works that way.
Or I can just say they are normal fast-moving people who play by the same rules as everyone else because the special snowflake is overcomplicating things to the point of not wanting to play with them anymore because it's now a whole different game with adjudication that shouldn't be present.
Of those two, I can tell you which one I would prefer, as the argument being made there is identical to the one being proposed.
But that's where it falls apart. Because the narrative and the mechanics have to be (and should be) in harmony, I am forced to tell the player "That's not how it works because there is already XYZ in the game, which is a whole separate thing that you can't do/doesn't work that way."
Plus, it's much easier to track players when I don't have to account for special-snowflakism on that level. A sensible backstory that could be built off of is fine, a complete change in how mechanics get resolved via physiology or some other shenanigans (even if reskinned from another existing game mechanic), not so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Where you're goingMartial, based on your posts I have to assume you're incapable of creativity and believe the printed text of the book to be the Bible.
Darksol, please at least attempt to describe how a fighter's "I can stab good" compares to a wizard's "I cast time stop" as opposed to fly-as-climb's "I move vertically" with regular climb's "wow, so do I".
The only person bringing forth munchinkry is you because you for some reason believe people who want to reflavor are just trying to cheat and will somehow Luigi ladder their way around the world. You're spending a lot of words on deeply flaccid arguments.
A poor choice on my part, but I will select a more apt example.
Let's say we got a Wizard who has 40 speed. He wants to flavor his movement as little mini-teleports because he wants to flex his fast movement as a dominion over Teleportation magic. Seems harmless on its surface, but it falls apart in numerous scenarios. Let's say he's grabbed. Now he can't teleport for some reason, even though the presence of another should not invalidate their movement, as only certain spells do this, and if it's true teleportation, anchoring to another creature should not stop it. If they still somehow can move in an identical fashion, it now follows the Flat 5 check because it's like casting a spell, which it has a Somatic component (the closest thing to movement triggering reactions). And now they can do things like ignore rough terrain, walls, etc. If it really works that way.
Or I can just say they are normal fast-moving people who play by the same rules as everyone else because the special snowflake is overcomplicating things to the point of not wanting to play with them anymore because it's now a whole different game with adjudication that shouldn't be present.
Of those two, I can tell you which one I would prefer, as the argument being made there is identical to the one being proposed.
Why do they have to be 'in harmony' in this way? Everyone you're talking to does it to some degree and doesn't have these problems. The players accept the minor suspension of disbelief for the enjoyable imagery, and it never even comes up because you make sure your players are onboard with what re-flavoring means.
You find your own comfort level for it-- for instance I recently pulled back on re-flavoring a little because i realized it was running into the kind of reskinning and re-defining I do for my world. But its still something I allow for some things.
cant we just have specialized rules such as
immature flight - you can fly but your wings are still under development so you can only maintain flight up to 5 feat or above ground if you lose ground you must make a check or fall as if under the effects of a feather fall spell but you cannot carry allies etc...
and if you get the flight feat you can retrain ti for free later
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A poor choice on my part, but I will select a more apt example.
Let's say we got a Wizard who has 40 speed. He wants to flavor his movement as little mini-teleports because he wants to flex his fast movement as a dominion over Teleportation magic. Seems harmless on its surface, but it falls apart in numerous scenarios. Let's say he's grabbed. Now he can't teleport for some reason, even though the presence of another should not invalidate their movement, as only certain spells do this, and if it's true teleportation, anchoring to another creature should not stop it. If they still somehow can move in an identical fashion, it now follows the Flat 5 check because it's like casting a spell, which it has a Somatic component (the closest thing to movement triggering reactions). And now they can do things like ignore rough terrain, walls, etc. If it really works that way.
Or I can just say they are normal fast-moving people who play by the same rules as everyone else because the special snowflake is overcomplicating things to the point of not wanting to play with them anymore because it's now a whole different game with adjudication that shouldn't be present.
Of those two, I can tell you which one I would prefer, as the argument being made there is identical to the one being proposed.
The rule of thumb, in my opinion, is that in no case can anything you reflavor ever give you an advantage over someone who hasn't. Thats an absolute limit on what you can do.
In my game, I'd probably encourage the player in question (your example) to play up this trait outside of encounters (where it doesnt matter) and just not bring it up inside of them. Let it be implied and not explicit, and everyone knows its not going to provide an advantage.
Id also reward them with a Hero Point if we came to a situation where itd be really helpful to teleport past a door or something, and they had a clever or funny explanation for their sudden "performance issues" - using it as a narrative hook for a funny moment or running joke.
If that doesn't work for you, that's fine in your game - but its disingenuous to suggest that people who can make it work are cheating or houseruling.
So Wizards can move normally and describe it as teleporting wherever they want and they can do so without limit as long as they're not gaining an advantage for this reflavoring that another player wouldn't get. And it's allowed to be more fullblown and blatant outside of encounters where it won't matter, as long as the player just doesn't use that superior teleporting ability during gameplay.
Got it. And a completely identical setup (no advantage or mechanical difference over someone else not reflavoring, more blatant use is relegated to outside encounters) with a Fighter with the psychic ability to fly should be identically permissable.
That's a relief. I suggested exactly that in another thread recently.
My completely human Fighter with no wings or otherwise any magic has the psychic ability to make himself fly and indefinitely so and without a flight ceiling or nearby wall all the way from level 1. It just cuts out for this or that or the other rationalization when the gameplay matters. The adventure starts, and now he's as ground-based (ahem, ground-proximate) as everyone else. I mean, he's still narratively hovering, he's just also still leaving footprints and still at risk of tripping over a tripwire or setting off a pressure plate.
And someone (who certainly couldn't have been you, right?) with your avatar (coincidence, I'm sure) called that "ridiculous" and "absurd". It's a good thing we know better than that, isn't it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to make an aasimar. Give the character wings. Then when I make climb checks, I'm going to pretend I can fly while having the character sing, "I believe I can fly." Then jump off the top of what I climb up, tell the GM I can fly, and see what the GM thinks. Maybe it will work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, the whole flying by climbing things breaks down as soon as you try anything with it.The problem here is the player who is "trying" things with it. When you establish a shared narrative together, it is rude to push on the boundaries for your own selfish benefit.
A narrative of flight as you climb a wall works perfectly well when the group buys in. Don't be the jerk that gets greedy and ruins it.
For me it breaks down for any scenario outside a very specific set of climbing: straight up an obstacle. Climb speed allows climbing down, sidewise, across a ceiling, ect and it starts to severely strain the narrative. I know I'm looking at something flying upside-down across a ceiling but as it's climbing is flying how can that not be how it's doing it that way? For myself, it's a bridge too far and that is, IMO, why others are having a problem with it: it's not refluffing that's an issue but this particular replacement that pushes the limits of verisimilitude a bit too far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to make an aasimar. Give the character wings. Then when I make climb checks, I'm going to pretend I can fly while having the character sing, "I believe I can fly." Then jump off the top of what I climb up, tell the GM I can fly, and see what the GM thinks. Maybe it will work.
I can guarantee that any reasonable GM will let you fly...briefly
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Resuming the last hundred posts...
One forum user proposes a reflavor as a possible fluff solution for a perceived problem (perceived by others, by the way).
Even after it's been stated clearly and multiple times that there it doesn't involve any rule changes, the reactions are: this is a house rule, you are cheating, that's badwrongfun, let's mock you.
Instead of: I don't like it, it won't work at my table (for these reasons).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to make an aasimar. Give the character wings. Then when I make climb checks, I'm going to pretend I can fly while having the character sing, "I believe I can fly." Then jump off the top of what I climb up, tell the GM I can fly, and see what the GM thinks. Maybe it will work.I can guarantee that any reasonable GM will let you fly...briefly
Up until fly becomes fall, and fall becomes splat. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Resuming the last hundred posts...
One forum user proposes a reflavor as a possible fluff solution for a perceived problem (perceived by others, by the way).
Even after it's been stated clearly and multiple times that there it doesn't involve any rule changes, the reactions are: this is a house rule, you are cheating, that's badwrongfun, let's mock you.
Instead of: I don't like it, it won't work at my table (for these reasons).
Solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist or is equally as fabricated as the solution is really what all of that is.
I do not appreciate people making something out of nothing, because all it does is waste time and create stupid stuff like this. I don't exactly have much opportunity to play the game, so less time spent on dumb shenanigans like this, the more productive the gaming session gets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that I don't prefer about this particular type of re-skinning is that from the POV of NPCs in the game world, a summoner with a (truly) flying eidolon suggests a minimum power level of that PC. While a Summoner with a climbing eidolon suggests a lower minimum power level.
So if a gang of thugs see your eidolon flying up to the top of a wall, they may avoid attacking you, since a summoner with a flying eidolon is pretty powerful. While the same group of thugs who see your eidolon climb up a wall, may assume you are of a lower power level, and try to ambush you.
Be virtue of re-skinning climb to fly, you are misrepresenting the power level of your PC. But if everyone at your table is cool with it, then go for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that I don't prefer about this particular type of re-skinning is that from the POV of NPCs in the game world, a summoner with a (truly) flying eidolon suggests a minimum power level of that PC. While a Summoner with a climbing eidolon suggests a lower minimum power level.
So if a gang of thugs see your eidolon flying up to the top of a wall, they may avoid attacking you, since a summoner with a flying eidolon is pretty powerful. While the same group of thugs who see your eidolon climb up a wall, may assume you are of a lower power level, and try to ambush you.Be virtue of re-skinning climb to fly, you are misrepresenting the power level of your PC. But if everyone at your table is cool with it, then go for it.
I don't see how the in-character POV of an NPC is relevant to this at all. At least, I don't think it should be. That's a bit silly.
OOC the person controlling them is the GM, who should be well aware of the re-flavoring happening at the table and have approved it.
In-character the NPCs vary in intelligence and seeing something fly doesn't mean they suddenly know the meta of their power level. A gang of thugs shouldn't be able to tell how powerful you are based on your movement type, otherwise they might as well never attack a bird because that bird is flying and could very well be a level 17 bird that can kick their bums. The most reasonable reaction to the scenario of "gang of thugs up high seeing a monster fly-climbing up at them" is probably to try to slap it down before it can attack them.
Of course, every table is different so you do you, I just disagree with the notion that NPCs have such meta-knowledge.
The thing that I don't prefer about this particular type of re-skinning is that from the POV of NPCs in the game world, a summoner with a (truly) flying eidolon suggests a minimum power level of that PC. While a Summoner with a climbing eidolon suggests a lower minimum power level.
So if a gang of thugs see your eidolon flying up to the top of a wall, they may avoid attacking you, since a summoner with a flying eidolon is pretty powerful. While the same group of thugs who see your eidolon climb up a wall, may assume you are of a lower power level, and try to ambush you.Be virtue of re-skinning climb to fly, you are misrepresenting the power level of your PC. But if everyone at your table is cool with it, then go for it.
I don't see how the in-character POV of an NPC is relevant to this at all. At least, I don't think it should be. That's a bit silly.
OOC the person controlling them is the GM, who should be well aware of the re-flavoring happening at the table and have approved it.
In-character the NPCs vary in intelligence and seeing something fly doesn't mean they suddenly know the meta of their power level. A gang of thugs shouldn't be able to tell how powerful you are based on your movement type, otherwise they might as well never attack a bird because that bird is flying and could very well be a level 17 bird that can kick their bums. The most reasonable reaction to the scenario of "gang of thugs up high seeing a monster fly-climbing up at them" is probably to try to slap it down before it can attack them.
Of course, every table is different so you do you, I just disagree with the notion that NPCs have such meta-knowledge.
Let's try this. Maybe instead of a little badger, I want a puppy dog but want the same stats and attacks and stuff. GM approves because they think a little pupper being super angry and treating enemies like chew toys is adorable and hilarious.
But in this setting, Goblins hate dogs. Like, unnaturally, "stop it at all costs," kind of hate. So now, because player decided a dog companion was warranted, NPCs have to do presumably worse tactics than defeat the PCs because "Those longshank dogs are so damn loud and mean and they gotsta go splatty!"
Or my spellcasting example, maybe they are in a city that distrusts or outlaws magic to be used within city limits. A character randomly teleporting places just because is gonna catch some flak with the locals or the law as a result of the reflavor.
There are (and very easily can be) consequences with reflavoring that even mechanics don't cover, but setting or out-of-combat things certainly can.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's try this. Maybe instead of a little badger, I want a puppy dog but want the same stats and attacks and stuff. GM approves because they think a little pupper being super angry and treating enemies like chew toys is adorable and hilarious.But in this setting, Goblins hate dogs. Like, unnaturally, "stop it at all costs," kind of hate. So now, because player decided a dog companion was warranted, NPCs have to do presumably worse tactics than defeat the PCs because "Those longshank dogs are so damn loud and mean and they gotsta go splatty!"
Or my spellcasting example, maybe they are in a city that distrusts or outlaws magic to be used within city limits. A character randomly teleporting places just because is gonna catch some flak with the locals or the law as a result of the reflavor.
There are (and very easily can be) consequences with reflavoring that even mechanics don't cover, but setting or out-of-combat things certainly can.
And yet, NONE of that is somehow informing the NPCs as to your relevant power level, like a DBZ scanner of sorts.
I am a fan of reflavoring, even if it comes with NARRATIVE consequences like that. But the badger looking like a dog shouldn't somehow let the NPCs know what your level is. Now, any reflavoring that will come with narrative consequences shouldn't be approved by the GM only for them to turn around, twirling an evil mustache and going "everything here hates dogs, so you're focused until you're DEAD" or something, things like that should be communicated. Maybe I'm just a fan of communication in a team-based activity.
Funny enough, our druid has a badger reskinned to look like a bulette, just because she likes landsharks. Mechanically has all the badger stats, functions just like a badger, just looks different. Works fine, we love our land shark friend.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's try this. Maybe instead of a little badger, I want a puppy dog but want the same stats and attacks and stuff. GM approves because they think a little pupper being super angry and treating enemies like chew toys is adorable and hilarious.But in this setting, Goblins hate dogs. Like, unnaturally, "stop it at all costs," kind of hate. So now, because player decided a dog companion was warranted, NPCs have to do presumably worse tactics than defeat the PCs because "Those longshank dogs are so damn loud and mean and they gotsta go splatty!"
Or my spellcasting example, maybe they are in a city that distrusts or outlaws magic to be used within city limits. A character randomly teleporting places just because is gonna catch some flak with the locals or the law as a result of the reflavor.
There are (and very easily can be) consequences with reflavoring that even mechanics don't cover, but setting or out-of-combat things certainly can.
And yet, NONE of that is somehow informing the NPCs as to your relevant power level, like a DBZ scanner of sorts.
I am a fan of reflavoring, even if it comes with NARRATIVE consequences like that. But the badger looking like a dog shouldn't somehow let the NPCs know what your level is. Now, any reflavoring that will come with narrative consequences shouldn't be approved by the GM only for them to turn around, twirling an evil mustache and going "everything here hates dogs, so you're focused until you're DEAD" or something, things like that should be communicated. Maybe I'm just a fan of communication in a team-based activity.
Funny enough, our druid has a badger reskinned to look like a bulette, just because she likes landsharks. Mechanically has all the badger stats, functions just like a badger, just looks different. Works fine, we love our land shark friend.
I disagree. Choices made with character builds have consequences. You want to play a halfling or gnome? No problem. A Bullette encounter means they're gonna go for you first as they are preferred targets for the Bullette. It's not targeting or badwrongfun, it's playing the NPCs to their narrative conclusion. Goblins might not strike dogs if there are other bigger threats, but until they're known, they won't like the dog and act against it accordingly first. It's a consequence of player build choice. It works both ways, too. Dumb animals means they won't do things like flanking or feinting except by nature or circumstance, but a group of trained brigands probably will do so if it's a viable tactic. Conversely, animals might just keep gnawing on a body instead of take it alive for a ransom. It's all a result of narrative consequence. It's not targeting or singling out just to punish a player's build like you make it out to be.
Also, the fact that the Bullette are also uncommon creatures known for being overly powerful, fierce, and have valuable hides, making them significantly stronger than typical badgers, means it might give you more unearned prestige if you possess one as a companion (even if the stats don't reflect it). Whether the GM plays up on it is up to them, but setting-wise, it is a vast improvement.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. Choices made with character builds have consequences. You want to play a halfling or gnome? No problem. A Bullette encounter means they're gonna go for you first as they are preferred targets for the Bullette. It's not targeting or badwrongfun, it's playing the NPCs to their narrative conclusion. Goblins might not strike dogs if there are other bigger threats, but until they're known, they won't like the dog and act against it accordingly first. It's a consequence of player build choice. It works both ways, too. Dumb animals means they won't do things like flanking or feinting except by nature or circumstance, but a group of trained brigands probably will do so if it's a viable tactic. Conversely, animals might just keep gnawing on a body instead of take it alive for a ransom. It's all a result of narrative consequence. It's not targeting or singling out just to punish a player's build like you make it out to be.
Also, the fact that the Bullette are also uncommon creatures known for being overly powerful, fierce, and have valuable hides, making them significantly stronger than typical badgers, means it might give you more unearned prestige if you possess one as a companion (even if the stats don't reflect it). Whether the GM plays up on it is up to them, but setting-wise, it is a vast improvement.
If I choose to play a noble character with the background Noble, then NPCs that dislike members of nobility may react different to me, likely with a starting attitude that differs. Narrative consequence of a mechanical choice at character creation.
But if I choose a different background...saaay...Scholar, but still have my backstory where I come from a noble family, should I not be allowed to make that mechanic-free narrative decision because the GM might decide to give me boons or disadvantages based on it?
Picking a dog animal companion will have consequences in the narrative based on my mechanical choice. Goblins focus it, maybe some NPCs dont like dogs(the monsters!), or whatever else. Narrative consequence of a mechanical choice.
But if I pick...idk...bird, and just ask it to look like a flying dog while functioning mechanically like the bird AC, am I not allowed to do that because, again, it's a just a cosmetic on top with different narrative consequences?
That's arbitrary and silly to me. Sure, in the setting where everyone apparently thinks Bulette's are amazing and suddenly every NPC is well aware of your relative level because of it, it may be a buff, but you don't have to play like the NPCs get this magical power level scanner that detects your power based on what your wearing, what animal you wanted to befriend, or whatever other cosmetic choice you made.
I respect that you run your games differently, that is perfectly fine and I cannot tell you that you're playing them wrong. I can only disagree with how oddly strict you come across when it comes to reflavoring/reskinng. The player with the reskinned bulette being part of the circus has yet to gain this weirdly OP prestige, but that is likely just a difference of how the GM runs the narrative, something that varies between tables and is never truly a wrong choice to make.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. Choices made with character builds have consequences. You want to play a halfling or gnome? No problem. A Bullette encounter means they're gonna go for you first as they are preferred targets for the Bullette. It's not targeting or badwrongfun, it's playing the NPCs to their narrative conclusion. Goblins might not strike dogs if there are other bigger threats, but until they're known, they won't like the dog and act against it accordingly first. It's a consequence of player build choice. It works both ways, too. Dumb animals means they won't do things like flanking or feinting except by nature or circumstance, but a group of trained brigands probably will do so if it's a viable tactic. Conversely, animals might just keep gnawing on a body instead of take it alive for a ransom. It's all a result of narrative consequence. It's not targeting or singling out just to punish a player's build like you make it out to be.
Also, the fact that the Bullette are also uncommon creatures known for being overly powerful, fierce, and have valuable hides, making them significantly stronger than typical badgers, means it might give you more unearned prestige if you possess one as a companion (even if the stats don't reflect it). Whether the GM plays up on it is up to them, but setting-wise, it is a vast improvement.
If I choose to play a noble character with the background Noble, then NPCs that dislike members of nobility may react different to me, likely with a starting attitude that differs. Narrative consequence of a mechanical choice at character creation.
But if I choose a different background...saaay...Scholar, but still have my backstory where I come from a noble family, should I not be allowed to make that mechanic-free narrative decision because the GM might decide to give me boons or disadvantages based on it?
Picking a dog animal companion will have consequences in the narrative based on my mechanical choice. Goblins focus it, maybe some NPCs dont...
Perhaps, but that example is a bit more different than the proposed "fly a wall" option, which has more of a physical application to the character than a narrative one. My Wizard was a slave to Drow, but I took the Tinker background because he was granted a boon of freedom after helping expose a coup in the noble infrastructure, and used his knowledge from his "apprenticeship" to make a living by making things. The expanded background here is purely narrative.
With physical applications like wings or tails, perhaps other options become available that otherwise wouldn't be. As an example back in PF1, there was a way for non-tailed characters to acquire tail attacks. So, some players wanted to play those builds because they thought it would be fun and interesting and add a new level of customization never expanded upon before. However, it was ruled by a Paizo dev that, even if they could select the feats, certain narrative things like physiology (such as not having an actual tail) does not let you gain free things like tail attacks to utilize.
So, let's say there are feats that grant benefits via physiology that characters who don't typically have that physiology want. If I decided that it would be fun/cool if I gave Kim the Kobold a set of wings and Ken the Kobold no wings, to force diversity between players/characters, that's a mechanical advantage in that case. It can be a problem for future proofing as well, if so.
... again, it's a just a cosmetic on top with different narrative consequences?
That's arbitrary and silly to me. Sure, in the setting where everyone apparently thinks Bulette's are amazing and suddenly every NPC is well aware of your relative level because of it, it may be a buff, but you don't have to play like the NPCs get this magical power level scanner that detects your power based on what your wearing, what animal you wanted to befriend, or whatever other cosmetic choice you made.
In Palace of Fallen Stars, the 5th module of the Iron Gods adventure path, my players deliberately manipulated the standard methods of recognizing level: gear and reputation. They wished to enter the city of Starfall to gather critical information without alerting their enemies, The Technic League.
They had been adventuring under assumed names and no-one in Starfall had seen their faces. They split up, left their high-level gear behind, reverted to their original identities, and entered the city by simply walking in. The gate guards reported the arrival of those identities to the Technic League. The Technic League file clerks looked up the out-of-date records on those people and chose to ignore those supposed 1st-level characters entering Starfall for trade. This is the power of narrative!
The strix skald decided that she was too distincive, so she donned a Hat of Disguise and pretended to be a winged non-flying aasimar. 13th-level skald pretended to be a 3rd-level cleric of Desna via her skald healing abilities to further muddle her identity. That was a combination of mechanical features and narrative.
And rewriting the module to deal with the new narrative was so difficult that I asked for help in the Paizo Iron Gods subforum, Inconspicuous PCs Unmotivated in Palace of Fallen Stars.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps, but that example is a bit more different than the proposed "fly a wall" option, which has more of a physical application to the character than a narrative one. My Wizard was a slave to Drow, but I took the Tinker background because he was granted a boon of freedom after helping expose a coup in the noble infrastructure, and used his knowledge from his "apprenticeship" to make a living by making things. The expanded background here is purely narrative.
With physical applications like wings or tails, perhaps other options become available that otherwise wouldn't be. As an example back in PF1, there was a way for non-tailed characters to acquire tail attacks. So, some players wanted to play those builds because they thought it would be fun and interesting and add a new level of customization never expanded upon before. However, it was ruled by a Paizo dev that, even if they could select the feats, certain narrative things like physiology (such as not having an actual tail) does not let you gain free things like tail attacks to utilize.
So, let's say there are feats that grant benefits via physiology that characters who don't typically have that physiology want. If I decided that it would be fun/cool if I gave Kim the Kobold a set of wings and Ken the Kobold no wings, to force diversity between players/characters, that's a mechanical advantage in that case. It can be a problem for future proofing as well, if so.
Physically having wings but not being able to fly is already in the game, both flavor-wise and mechanically. Tengu.
You can be a rare tengu with vestigial wings incapable of flight, and you don't HAVE to take the Skyborn Tengu heritage to do it. It's just on the flavor page of base Tengu, you can just...have wings that don't do anything but exist on your back and make shirts annoying to buy. You only start to get a MECHANICAL benefit when you pick Skyborn Tengu, and even then the heritage doesn't say you even need to have those wings anyway!
You do not have to tie every cosmetic choice to a feat or a trait. If someone came up to me and said they wanted to play an aasimar, describe a dude that looked like an angel complete with fancy feather wings and a halo, I wouldn't say "oh, well, you can't have a halo unless you take the halo feat, and you're not allowed to even have unusable wings until you start getting the wing feats, and they're only permanent at level 17." That would be unnecessarily restrictive for no good reason.
Tieflings have always been considered to have tails and horns, or at least very CAPABLE of having those things, but they don't automatically get a tail slap and gore attack in either iteration of Pathfinder. They just...get feats to make those appendages do things mechanically, but no one is gonna tell Tim the Tiefling he can't have a tail on his character until he takes a tail slap feat, even if he didn't WANT to hit things with his tail at all.
Same with Dhampir's and fangs, they need the feat to get the bite attack. Catfolk, tail and no tail slap. There is a lot of support in Pathfinder as a whole for people to have appendages that offer no mechanical support.
If Kim and Ken the kobold both want to have wings, but only Ken takes the feat to make them work mechanically, that's fine. Only his wings work, Kim's are vestigial and useless and just there. Unless this last paragraph of yours is you...choosing what physical features your players character's have FOR them, in which case I disagree with the whole...concept of that. To be honest your last paragraph kind of confuses me a bit, I'm sorry. ^-^;
In Palace of Fallen Stars, the 5th module of the Iron Gods adventure path, my players deliberately manipulated the standard methods of recognizing level: gear and reputation. They wished to enter the city of Starfall to gather critical information without alerting their enemies, The Technic League.
They had been adventuring under assumed names and no-one in Starfall had seen their faces. They split up, left their high-level gear behind, reverted to their original identities, and entered the city by simply walking in. The gate guards reported the arrival of those identities to the Technic League. The Technic League file clerks looked up the out-of-date records on those people and chose to ignore those supposed 1st-level characters entering Starfall for trade. This is the power of narrative!
The strix skald decided that she was too distincive, so she donned a Hat of Disguise and pretended to be a winged non-flying aasimar. 13th-level skald pretended to be a 3rd-level cleric of Desna via her skald healing abilities to further muddle her identity. That was a combination of mechanical features and narrative.
And rewriting the module to deal with the new narrative was so difficult that I asked for help in the Paizo Iron Gods subforum, Inconspicuous PCs Unmotivated in Palace of Fallen Stars.
That is an excellent story and I love it, Iron Gods was a fun run for me as well, but my players tackled that book differently. It makes sense that they went in using disguises, considering the area and what they were there to do.
Narrative is a powerful thing, but giving it power it does not need can lead to absolutely mind-boggling restrictiveness, as we see here in this thread. The fear that a simple, cosmetic, and NARRATIVE choice will lead the players to trying to gain access to MECHANICS they have not accessed in the manner they're supposed to comes off as combative to me. If you weren't into rewriting that narrative based on their choices, would you have told them they're not allowed to do what they did? Players make choices, and those choices shape each story into a unique experience for each table.
Unrelated, I love strix! One of my favorite races in 1e because, if you can't tell, I really really like birds.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has been stated multiple times, and then clearly again, that what Krispy was suggesting wouldn't involve any mechanical changes. But you still read it as them trying to get mechanical benefits.
If you read what you want, despite the actual things the others are saying, what's the point in discussing?