D&D General Do people like re-skinning?

[Quartz]

Reskinning is increadibly useful. Often it's just changing the SFX. A fireball is the same as an acid ball just with a different damage type.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That is an interesting point. I don't consider reskinning (though it looks like I tend to call it refluffing) to be homebrewing at all, whe reas (to me) if you tweak anything mechanically, then you're homebrewing. I'm not against homebrew (at least when it comes to monsters and magic items) but I consider it a stronger level of intrusion against the game's integrity than I do refluffing.

To me, refluffing is 110% always allowed whereas homebrew is only allowed with DM's permission.

 

[Fenris-77]

That is an interesting point. I don't consider reskinning (though it looks like I tend to call it refluffing) to be homebrewing at all, whe reas (to me) if you tweak anything mechanically, then you're homebrewing. I'm not against homebrew (at least when it comes to monsters and magic items) but I consider it a stronger level of intrusion against the game's integrity than I do refluffing.

To me, refluffing is 110% always allowed whereas homebrew is only allowed with DM's permission.

And when I'm talking about tweaking, I'm speaking as a DM, not a player. As a player I'll stick to conceptual changes designed to use existing character class rules to portray a new concept.

 

[Tallifer]

To distinguish:

Reskinning monsters is a simple and useful dungeon master's trick behind the screen. He can alter the mechanics as well to fit the lore, the encounter or the adventure. The dungeon master's world is his own, but limited time means grabbing a pre-written monster or NPC and changing the name, etc is a standard tool. Moreover, it is an important tool to prevent players always using book knowledge to overcome interesting mysteries.

Reskinning character mechanics should alter nothing mechanical on the character. It takes much more imaginative language sometimes (e.g. I hate the traditional D&D "cleric" as a mace-wielding armour-clad pseudo-fighter with pseudo-miracles: but refluffing the heavy armour and shield as cloth robes and a divine aura takes a lot of care.) The player should not be able to abuse the rules ("My heavy armour looks like cloth and my shield is a divine aura from a holy symbol" but do not let him say, "My heavy armour is weightless and has no penalties to movement etc." He would have to refluff it as "My robes are so bulky and voluminous that they encumber just like heavy armour.")

I think reskinning is harder for PCs in 5E than in 4E, because many of the rules are such poorly written tldr paragraphs of mixed fluff and mechanics and imprecise language.

 

[Minigiant]

Yup.
That ogre boss, 2 ogre guards, and 10 ogre in the cave?

Thems half giants.

 

[TwoSix]

It's great for things that are supposed to be unique in the campaign world. For things that resemble organizations or populations, it's lazy and clumsy.

Which is part of the reason why I reskin so liberally. Everything is unique. No one NPC has the exact same capabilities as a different one.

 

[nomotog]

Maybe, like in a fighting videogame, the enhanced attack state is a once per battle thing and only lasts as long as you keep your "combo chain" going. Fits for me.

I think this is a good example of when I start to dislike a reskin. You eventually run into issues where the skin and the mechanics come into conflict and you have to try and wrangle more fluff justifications onto it. At this step, I think it might be better to change some of the mechanics attached to rage. Like make it a dex bonus and maybe rather than a requirement to attack you have a requirement to move.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think reskinning is fine, and at times useful. But, I think a design is at its best when you can tell what it’s supposed to be without the description. Like, take this custom monster I designed for example:

Spoiler

[REDACTED]
Medium [REDACTED], neutral evil
Armor Class 8
Hit Points 6 (1d8 + 2)
Speed 20 ft.
STR 13 (+1) DEX 7 (-2) CON 15 (+2)
INT 3 (-4) WIS 6 (-2) CHA 5 (-3)

Damage Vulnerabilities fire; bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from weapon attacks that target the [REDACTED]’s head (imposing disadvantage on the attack)
Damage Resistances necrotic; bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from weapon attacks that don’t target the [REDACTED]’s head
Damage Immunities poison, psychic
Condition Immunities charmed, exhaustion, frightened, poisoned
Senses passive Perception 8
Languages —
Challenge 1/4 (50 XP)

[REDACTED] Fortitude. If damage reduces the [REDACTED] to 0 hit points, it must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw unless the damage is fire or from a weapon attack targeting its head. On a success, the [REDACTED] drops to 1 hit point instead.

Actions
Grab. Melee Weapon Attack: +3 to hit, reach 5 ft., one creature. Hit: 2 bludgeoning damage, and if the target is Large or smaller, it is grappled (escape DC 11).
Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: +3 to hit, reach 5 ft., one grappled creature. Hit: 4 (1d6 + 1) bludgeoning damage, and the creature must succeed on a DC 13 Constitution saving throw or contract a disease. Until the disease is cured, the target can’t regain hit points except by magical means, and the target’s hit point maximum decreases by 3 (1d6) every 24 hours. If the target’s hit point maximum drops to 0 as a result of this disease, the target dies and rises as a [REDACTED] 1d4 hours later.

I’d be surprised if anyone could read that stat block and not immediately figure out what it represents, even with the name and creature type redacted. Likewise, I’d be surprised if players could fight a group of them and not immediately figure out what they represent, even if I didn’t name or even describe them.

The same can’t be said of a different statblock reskinned to be the creature in question. Reskinning, by its nature, relies on DM description to communicate what the mechanics being reskinned are supposed to represent narratively, and in my opinion that makes a reskinned design element inherently weaker design than something tailor-made to feel like the thing it represents.

 

[GMMichael]

On the other hand, reskinning classes feels horrible to me. You can see all the mechanics and how they deviate. I understand reskinning is the best option sometimes, but I still see it as the lesser option.

Well, there is the school of thought that classes are a metagame concept, so it shouldn't matter how they're skinned; their rules are supposed to be behind-the-scenes anyway.

But on the other hand, it would be weird to reskin say, a warlock class, with a fighter-skin. Then crazy things could happen, like a new book, or new edition...

The same can’t be said of a different statblock reskinned to be the creature in question. Reskinning, by its nature, relies on DM description to communicate what the mechanics being reskinned are supposed to represent narratively, and in my opinion that makes a reskinned design element inherently weaker design than something tailor-made to feel like the thing it represents.

A reskin is a tool for expediency, so sure: inherently weaker. But also inherently better than stopping the game to draw up nine levels of NPC plus lair actions.

Your nature-of-reskinning seems to suggest that the DM's job is to convey mechanics to the players in a story-wrapped way. Am I reading that wrong? I would hope that my DM would convey story to me first, then use mechanics to support it.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I like the idea of reskinning, but I feel like it often falls short. I don't uphold the dualism of fluff and mechanics, but treat them a single monolith.