D&D 5E The non barbarian barbarian

[Tormyr]

We just started a Curse of Strahd campaign. It is run by one of my players, and we play an episode (1-3 sessions) or so in between the chapters of our 5e Age of Worms game (starting chapter 10 Wednesday!). He had us set up character trees, and I made 3 characters, the de Rolo siblings:
* Lindsey, Human Bard (Modeled after Lindsey Stirling)
* Banner, Human Barbarian (using half-orc ability bonuses, modeled after Bruce Banner)
* Percival, Human Warlock (modeled after Percival de Rolo from Critical Role)

Lindsey could be played as a regular bard who fought with her music. Percival and Banner required various amounts of reskinning for character concepts.

In Critical Role, Percival is a gunslinger with a dark Patron. I changed this to a Warlock that cast directional spells with his gun (wand). He spins the revolver to different chambers for different spells (regular for hex, one with a diamond for chromatic orb, a blank chamber that does nothing for interrogations, etc.). That did not require a mechanical change, but the DM signed off on it.

Banner required the most changing, he comes from a noble family, but the parent's were murdered by (something), the sight of which caused Lindsey to become an extreme introvert and transfused magic energy into Banner before continuing its rampage. The servants evacuated the children, and they grew up in a new town with the rest of the PCs. He has been continually haunted by another presence in his mind. The other one is prone to violence, and the loss of concentration from the mental strain of keeping it in have caused him to fall behind in his studies and lose his weapon training. He has turned to meditation to try to keep the other one contained, and in his mental journeys, he has come across a bear that speaks to him and attempts to guide him.

The reskin is mostly cosmetic, and it could have been entirely cosmetic, but I asked the DM if I could lose all weapon proficiencies and instead give him the monks unarmed strike and proficiency in thrown improvised objects (like rocks). So he does 1d4+3(or +5) while raging to unarmed strikes and 1d4+3 with rocks. He can wield a weapon, but he does not have proficiency. At 6th level, his unarmed strikes will be considered as magical weapons while raging.

So these work into my philosophy as a DM to allow reskinning and changes to classes as long as they are no better than the default. Percival cannot really cast spells yet as he has not finished building his gun. Banner is a barbarian that does 1d4+3 damage per hit. One of my players plays a half-gnoll, we based it off the gnoll in the monster manual, but it gets less racial goodies than any of the PHB races.

To tie it back into the original post, Banner is a noble that uses the Barbarian class but is definitely not a "barbarian." He is more of a barbarian "because magic."

 

[Saeviomagy]

Some of the things on my list were done by the DM, others were done by the player without checking with the DM first. Is there tacit "DM Approval" in everything you do in a game, from sitting down at the table on? Sure. Does that mean there's no distinction between a system that puts tools in the hands of the player (risking 'player entitlement') vs one that keeps tools in the hands of the DM (DM Empowerment)? No.

Sure, there's differences between those types of systems, but none of those differences apply to enforcing fluff. The differences are almost entirely one of whether the tools to build mechanics are present and whether they are labelled "dm only". The closest that D&D has ever come to allowing players to define mechanics was in 2e with Player's Option: Skills & Powers.

Even in games with no fluff bound to their default abilities, the DM is still the person who says "this is the tone of the campaign". If I end up playing call of cthulu, set in the 1950s, and the player next to me has decided he's playing a green-eyed cat girl wielding a katana, it's up to the DM to say "no - that's silly". And he did not do so when it came up, for the record. CoC is hardly a game of player entitlement.

 

[Lillika]

This thread, makes me want to refluff a Totem Barbarian (Wolfy kind). Mmmmmmmm, sooo yummy. My worshipper of Sune will be filled with a magical pink aura that protects her from damage (only the slashy, cutting, bruising kind, that could cause scares and bruises), at the same time lighting the enemy up (advantage on melee attacks) with maybe hearts and stuffs, and filling her with great strength and damage cus of all the luv in her heart. Giggles this does sound like fun to play, and the lvl 14 Bear Totem ability, the enemies would be so awestruck by her beauty and masterful swordsmanship that they would have disadvantage to attack anyone else.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure, there's differences between those types of systems, but none of those differences apply to enforcing fluff.

Technically true, but not the point. The DM can enforce fluff whether the system gives the players flexibility to re-skin or not. It's just a matter of when the DM becomes involved, the player needs to bring in the Empowered DM pro-actively, in order to get the fluff he's after because he needs the 'rules' to change in order to change the fluff (eg, changing fluff will interact with the rules). The 'entitled' player comes to the DM with his character already re-skinned and the DM can reject it or not. The difference is not 'enforcing' or not, the difference is participation & latitude vs simply approve/reject.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Technically true, but not the point. The DM can enforce fluff whether the system gives the players flexibility to re-skin or not.

There's no difference between reskinning and changing fluff, and therefore no difference between the DM enforcing fluff and enforcing reskins.

It's just a matter of when the DM becomes involved, the player needs to bring in the Empowered DM pro-actively, in order to get the fluff he's after because he needs the 'rules' to change in order to change the fluff (eg, changing fluff will interact with the rules).

If the rules need changed, it's no longer a reskin or a refluff. It's a rules change.

The 'entitled' player comes to the DM with his character already re-skinned and the DM can reject it or not. The difference is not 'enforcing' or not, the difference is participation & latitude vs simply approve/reject.

None of the suggestions in this thread would need to pass rules-change muster, any more than your list of 4e monstrosities would.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's no difference between reskinning and changing fluff

That's why I used them synonymously.

If the rules need changed, it's no longer a reskin or a refluff. It's a rules change.

The line between fluff text and rules text is not always that clear - in 5e, in particular, DM judgment is needed to draw that line. That empowers the DM not just to enforce the specific fluff he wants, but to have that fluff engage the rules where he feels it works best.

None of the suggestions in this thread would need to pass rules-change muster.

Depends on who's running.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The line between fluff text and rules text is not always that clear - in 5e, in particular, DM judgment is needed to draw that line. That empowers the DM not just to enforce the specific fluff he wants, but to have that fluff engage the rules where he feels it works best.

I'm not sure when you feel it's not clear. I mean sure, it's not in a separate paragraph in a different font, but it's pretty obvious to me when something is addressing the mechanical effect of a character upon the game world rather than something that isn't mechanical at all.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not sure when you feel it's not clear. I mean sure, it's not in a separate paragraph in a different font

That would be clear, yes.

but it's pretty obvious to me when something is addressing the mechanical effect of a character upon the game world rather than something that isn't mechanical at all.

'Pretty obvious' would be subjective or open to interpretation. 5e is intentionally written in natural language, which is ambiguous by nature and requires DM interpretation at every turn. It serves a dual purpose, both making the game more approachable (it is, indeed 'pretty obvious' most of the time), because there's less 'jargon,' /and/ supporting DM Empowerment by inserting the need (or even just opportunities) for DM rulings into every facet, not just of playing the game, but of understanding what it presents.

Thus, even if a innocuous-seeming clause in a spell description looks 'pretty obviously' to be fluff text, the DM could interpret it as putting a limitation on the spell or making it function differently in a specific situation, and make a ruling to that effect. Since /any/ text could contribute to a DM ruling or interpretation, the player is not entitled to re-skin anything - it's up to the DM to opt-in to any such changes, and rule as to what they'll mean for the character if they are allowed. The Empowered 5e DM just has a lot more latitude.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Thus, even if a innocuous-seeming clause in a spell description looks 'pretty obviously' to be fluff text, the DM could interpret it as putting a limitation on the spell or making it function differently in a specific situation, and make a ruling to that effect. Since /any/ text could contribute to a DM ruling or interpretation, the player is not entitled to re-skin anything - it's up to the DM to opt-in to any such changes, and rule as to what they'll mean for the character if they are allowed. The Empowered 5e DM just has a lot more latitude.

I think we're just talking matters of degrees here - for instance I wouldn't even consider "One character's shortsword, shield & javelins are gladius, scutum, and pilii" to be even a change of flavour text.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think we're just talking matters of degrees here - for instance I wouldn't even consider "One character's shortsword, shield & javelins are gladius, scutum, and pilii" to be even a change of flavour text.

It is certainly a matter of degree - and the DM judges the degree at which it becomes an issue. Putting a Roman Legion stamp on gear is a perfect example. A gladius is just a shortsword (arguably the archetypal shortsword, chosen for the legions for it's speed relative to heavier blades, something 1e modeled with a speed factor, but 5e models only with finesse), a scutum is just a large shield (5e only has one kind of shield), lorica squamata is just scale mail, lorica hamata, chain. But, lorica segmentata does not neatly correspond to a D&D armor, so there's a potential need for some judgment, there.
And, the fun one, the innocent pilum. Roman pili ranged from tiny javelins carried pinned inside the shield - arguably D&D 'darts' - to full-sized, heavy-shafted things more comparable in size to spears, but with narrow, 'armor piercing' heads, and soft-iron or wood pins designed to bend or break on impact, so the weapon couldn't be picked up and used effectively by enemies. They were also designed to stick in an enemy's shield to impair it's defensive use and/or the enemy's movement.

5e isn't set up to handle much of that, at all, so by saying OK to a pilum, the DM just might be opening a can of worms. Innocuous as a synonym for 'javelin' may seem.

(And, yes, as a DM, I have approved PCs kitted out as legionaries, and ruled in favor of certain of those tricks.)