What the player wants might be relevant to the DM's decision, depending upon the DM. The point is that the player can't just go ahead and make the change unilaterally, either with the expectation that the effect will be entirely cosmetic, nor the expectation that it'll have mechanical effects - he is 'entitled' to neither. The DM is empowered to decide whether any given change is acceptable (for instance, as always, whether it's campaign-appropriate), and whether/what effects they might have down the line.If you're not sure about it just ask the player whether they want the 'javelins' their Roman-themed character uses to be one-shot affairs with a chance of disabling a shield if they hit it, or just a standard throwing-spear designed to kill stuff.
What the player wants might be relevant to the DM's decision, depending upon the DM. The point is that the player can't just go ahead and make the change unilaterally, either with the expectation that the effect will be entirely cosmetic, nor the expectation that it'll have mechanical effects.
...and in others, it might be different, because it's a matter of DM judgment.In any group I've been in...
Sure, I acknowledged that the campaign-appropriate veto was always a possibility in ever edition when you first brought it up. I have not asserted otherwise.But that's not edition or system specific, and it's more likely to be about whether the flavour is appropriate to the campaign than assigning extra rules to a reflavoured item.