D&D (2024) Playtest 6: Paladin ... Divine Smite is a Spell now

[DEFCON 1]

This feels like you're trying to make a parody of an argument rather than actually arguing. Re-fluffing has always revolved around consensus. Otherwise it's just re-imagining, and it's a hell of a lot less fun that way.

Nope. I laterally have never once thought that re-fluffing had to have consensus of everyone at the table. That if I said "My Magic Missiles" look like copper boomerangs" and someone else said "No, that looks stupid, you can't say that" that my magic missiles were now not allowed to look like copper boomerangs.

If THAT'S the kind of table you play at... first of all, I am very, very sorry. But secondly, I do not believe your type of table is in any way a standard. Most likely, most tables haven't given either of our opinions and sides of this argument any real thought so there's no consensus to be had. I doubt most people care about what either of us are arguing for or against.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That wasn't part of the argument the person I was responding to was making, and I didn't say everything not the same was an edge case.

I completely understand the action economy, and I'm also completely fine with Divine Smite being reigned in from an "every attack" situation to "once per turn".

You said "90% of the time it will be indistinguishable".

That's obviously false, given the gigantic change that using a Bonus Action represents.

It doesn't change them to "once per turn", either. It changes them to "Once per round, on your turn". You can't generally use Bonus Actions outside your turn, and you only have one. So no more smiting in any situation which is say, an attack of opportunity, or any other out-of-turn attack.

I'd be fine with "Once per turn" too, indeed, rather than requiring a Bonus Action, that's what I'd suggest.

 

[Maxperson]

I've never had a DM veto my "re-fluff" of a game mechanic, nor have I ever done so as a GM for a player's re-fluff.

I have. It's about 50/50 with me. Magic Missiles have never been an issue, but larger re-fluffing is hit or miss.

The only exception I might make is if a player seeks some mechanical advantage based on their re-interpretation of the ability/spell description, and even then, I usually just nix the mechanical effect, not the re-fluff itself.

Changing mechanics is not re-fluffing, though.

For instance, I'm totally fine a player saying his magic missiles appear as streaks of flame. I won't allow those missiles to actually light things on fire, however.

Agreed.

If your experience is that a DM will more often than not disallow re-fluffing, then I suggest you find other people to play with.

It depends on what is trying to be re-fluffed. Not everything works as a re-fluff. I once had someone here on the site try to tell me that it was okay to re-fluff a greatsword to be a two handed dagger that does greatsword damage and had greatsword mass. That's ridiculous on its face and I would not allow that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Nope. I laterally have never once thought that re-fluffing had to have consensus of everyone at the table. That if I said "My Magic Missiles" look like copper boomerangs" and someone else said "No, that looks stupid, you can't say that" that my magic missiles were now not allowed to look like copper boomerangs.

If THAT'S the kind of table you play at... first of all, I am very, very sorry. But secondly, I do not believe your type of table is in any way a standard. Most likely, most tables haven't given either of our opinions and sides of this argument any real thought so there's no consensus to be had. I doubt most people care about what either of us are arguing for or against.

This is ridiculous in the extreme.

Re-fluffing has always meant something mutual. Pretending it means just "re-imagining" in some lonely way is bizarre internet-person arguing that serves no purpose.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Correct.

Not correct. Fluff and mechanics are tied closely together. If you re-fluff medusa's gaze attack to say that the person turns into rubber, but the mechanic still turns people to stone, there's a disconnect that breaks things.

100% wrong. The DM has ultimate say over it, because the narration is his. You the play can say your magic missiles look like fiery hawks, but when the DM narrates them as blobs of energy, that's how they look and are presented in the fiction, not how you visualize it. Your personal visualization is irrelevant to how they look in the fiction.

Nor is their perception relevant. How he narrates it is how it looks in the fiction.

And that fails for a lot of us. Re-fluffing a ranger does not a fighter make. Nor can it actually happen unless the DM is on board with it.

Barkeep: "There's that poor ranger again who thinks he's a fighter."
Barmaid: "Poor man. I'm going to give him a drink on the house and see if it helps."

Right. These are all things FOR YOU. And how YOU see them.

But how YOU see them is not universal. And WotC is under no obligation to curtail their designs to make sure they fit under what YOU think they should be. I would never in a million years want them to not come up with new ideas because they thought YOU wouldn't accept them. Sorry.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Right. These are all things FOR YOU. And how YOU see them.

But how YOU see them is not universal. And WotC is under no obligation to curtail their designs to make sure they fit under what YOU think they should be. I would never in a million years want them to not come up with new ideas because they thought YOU wouldn't accept them. Sorry.

LOL no. You keep saying this, but all we're learning is that, is either:

A) You, DEFCON 1, have, presumably for years or even decades, totally misunderstood what everyone else is talking about when they say "re-fluffing".

or

B) You are presenting a ludicrous and laughable internet-argument that re-fluffing now only means "one specific person imagining it a specific way".

 

[Sir Brennen]

You said "90%".

That's obviously false, given the gigantic change that using a Bonus Action represents.

Again, the comments you're nitpicking were regarding someone else's statement, not blanket.

It doesn't change them to "once per turn", either. It changes them to "Once per round, on your turn". You can't generally use Bonus Actions outside your turn, and you only have one. So no more smiting in any situation which is say, an attack of opportunity, or any other out-of-turn attack.

I'd be fine with "Once per turn" too, indeed, rather than requiring a Bonus Action, that's what I'd suggest.

And I think a reasonable reading of my comment on the action economy would understand that, since I'm talking about the playtest Smite spell, a Bonus Action only happens on your turn. This is another unnecessary nit-pick.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is ridiculous in the extreme.

Re-fluffing has always meant something mutual. Pretending it means just "re-imagining" in some lonely way is bizarre internet-person arguing that serves no purpose.

Yes, it is ridiculous to the extreme.

But I think we might have a disagreement on who is the lonely person bizarrely internet-person arguing. If you want to say it's me, hey, I can't stop you. But you'll just have to go to bed tonight knowing that there's at least one person out there in internet-land who things this universal truth of yours regarding re-fluff is in fact a pile of caca.

 

[DEFCON 1]

LOL no. You keep saying this, but all we're learning is that, is either:

A) You, DEFCON 1, have, presumably for years or even decades, totally misunderstood what everyone else is talking about when they say "re-fluffing".

or

B) You are presenting a ludicrous and laughable internet-argument that re-fluffing now only means "one specific person imagining it a specific way".

You saying it does not make it true.

 

[Nadan]

First off, Sage Advice is advice, not rulings - even in the compendium. Second off, I'm unable to find text supporting your interpretation. I think you might be misremembering - where is the text you mean?

screenshot from DND Beyond's Sage Advice Compendium