D&D General Do people like re-skinning?

[Fenris-77]

Y'all need to read the thread. Many posters are also including minor rules changes under the rubric of 'reskinning' as a concept. I don't think it's useful to have definition war, so I'm trying to just roll with those two definitions in mind.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

To me that is re-skinning. You are re-skinning the fireball into a new spell, the frostball or whatever.

I like, no..., LOVE re-skinning but i will add a caveat to that (which is actually the meat of my comment)

Reskinning can be great but makes the game bland if its just done unilaterally. Reskinning is best done in a way that encorperates thematic and lore based restrictions on whuch spells can ve reskinned and in what way specifically by observing patterns of mysticism that you have woven into your world. Otherwise you get homogenized spell catalogue deluxe, now with ashtray bland flavor for all your magic flavoring needs. Unilateral ability to do these switcheroos ruins everything. Definitely best to observe limits. Not just logistical ones. Imbalance is good. Asymetry is good. Ones that actually feel mystical. Meaningful. As a matter of fact if you do that it will even add flavor to magic theory as a topic because it implies a grand structure to the magic of the universe.

Ps. A hoarfrost (hoarfrost, btw, is a frost that kills plants all the way down to the bottoms of their roots and also causes hypothermia in animals without shelter much quicker than other frost weather) is a reskin i have done of cloud kill in my own campaigns. Comes in as a very ground clingy creeping (briskly creeping) white thick fog.

 

[prabe]

to me, re-skinning fireball would be something like the creation of a firewave in the dimensions of a fireball at the point of origin. Same spell, different look. Making a iceball is an alteration of mechanics, so it's basically a new spell based on fireball. Not a re-skin. My two cents.

I believe I've seen you go around with folks about the boundaries between mechanics and fluff (or in this discussion, skin). Some people think changing the damage type (fire to cold) isn't really changing the mechanics; IIRC, you believe it is. I think it's a different question from what you'd allow--I think I remember that you're more flexible about that than I would guess from your definitions.

Personally, I don't think making a fireball-equivalent spell that does cold damage is anything to stress over. YMMV.

 

[dave2008]

to me, re-skinning fireball would be something like the creation of a firewave in the dimensions of a fireball at the point of origin. Same spell, different look. Making a iceball is an alteration of mechanics, so it's basically a new spell based on fireball. Not a re-skin. My two cents.

I said the ice-ball was re-skinning a fireball into a new spell. So we agree on the new spell point. The point of re-skinning, IMO, is to make something new as quickly and efficiently as possible. Your fire wave is also an alteration of the mechanics (at least how I picture it). A fireball is a sphere, a wave would not be. If it is 100% the same mechanics, that is not re-skinning, it is just changing the name.

 

[Tallifer]

Except that Cold and Fire damage are resisted by different creatures. (4E grognard here) (meaning I am an old fart raised on AD&D, converted to 4E, and then left in the dust once more LOL)

 

[Asisreo]

I said the ice-ball was re-skinning a fireball into a new spell. So we agree on the new spell point. The point of re-skinning, IMO, is to make something new as quickly and efficiently as possible. Your fire wave is also an alteration of the mechanics (at least how I picture it). A fireball is a sphere, a wave would not be. If it is 100% the same mechanics, that is not re-skinning, it is just changing the name.

I guess a better example would be instead of fireball exploding in crimson flames, they explode into azure or inky-black flames.

My only issue with reskinning is that I can't remember the darn re-skin for certain character's, as a DM.

 

[Weiley31]

Fey Fire would be fire that does Fire or Ice damage based on preference or use.

 

[Captain Panda]

Reskinning, as others have said, keeps 5e interesting for me. If I was locked into the fluff being tied to the mechanics I'd have lost interest years ago.

 

[Fenris-77]

My only issue with reskinning is that I can't remember the darn re-skin for certain character's, as a DM.

That can be an issue, especially when players want to reskin things for pretty frivolous reasons. I'd be fine with something like this: all my spells have purple effects because of my drow heritage. Why not, it's cool and easy to remember. But if instead it's this: well, my magic missile is blue, but my farie fire is a kind of light green. My scorching ray is a kind of neon pink shot through with orange streamers, and my eldritch blast is a kind of chartreuse with a handful of sparkles tossed in.... I'd probably have to put my foot down.

I tend to focus on reskinning during character creation primarily as a tool to help players get exactly the concept they're going for. Sometimes this is low key, but other times it's more substantial, for example when fitting together a MC built to reflect a single concept In that case some good reskinning can really pull the idea together. I tend to get grumpy when people start asking to change all manner of things during the game though, because no, I'm not going to remember and, frankly, it's not that important.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

As mentioned upstream there are really two different definitions of reskinning in play. One is the straight refluff, like your axe to knife example above. Call that the player version, since it also includes the refluffing of classes for concept reasons. Then there's the DM version, which also may include various levels of changes to the actual rules to aid the fit of the reskin. You can call that homebrew if you want. Personally, I don't normally make that option available to players except in exceptional circumstances.

I tend to use the term 'homebrew' to refer to rules created from whole cloth to replace or add things to the game. Like when I make my own spells, or classes, or mechanics. Changing an NPC stat block you found in a module doesn't seem to be on the same scale though. Are we really saying that anything that isn't used as is from a printed source is homebrew? Because that sounds a lot like just run of the mill DMing to me. I only ask because 'homebrew' is a pejorative in some circles.

Yep. The definition of reskinning that I would use is when appearance and/or flavour is changed. If mechanics are changed, I'd consider that homebrew. However I most certainly would not regard "homebrew" as being a perjorative.