D&D General Do people like re-skinning?

nomotog · Apr 26, 2020

What do you guys think about the practice of reskinning different classes, monsters, races, ect to make new things? Like if you don't have the statblock for a lake monster so you just use the purple worm, or if you didn't have a psychic class, so you just used the sorcery class and changed the fluff on the abilities?

As a whole, I am not a fan of reskinning. I like it when fluff and mechanics complement each other so reskinning old mechanics new fluff breaks that. I think it's more ok for elements like monsters because the players often don't know the mechanics behind the fluff, and it's not often worth it to make a new monster. 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.

Morrus · Apr 26, 2020

I think it’s one of the best tricks in a GM’s toolkit. I do it constantly.

Paul Farquhar · Apr 26, 2020

Done right the players will never know.

JiffyPopTart · Apr 26, 2020

Reskinning is what keeps me interested in 5e since it has so little player crunch to explore.

SkidAce · Apr 26, 2020

I totally agree with Morrus.

Reskinning makes things possible, and helps with character concepts in addition to monsters and items etc.

A character example;

A monk with a level of barbarian. Barbarian class and rage fluffed as going into a "zen state" of combat.
So the monk does monk stuff, and when need goes into a trancelike combat mode, gaining bonuses to damage and resistance.

Like the girl from the Firefly movie.

Maxperson · Apr 26, 2020

nomotog said:
What do you guys think about the practice of reskinning different classes, monsters, races, ect to make new things? Like if you don't have the statblock for a lake monster so you just use the purple worm, or if you didn't have a psychic class, so you just used the sorcery class and changed the fluff on the abilities?

As a whole, I am not a fan of reskinning. I like it when fluff and mechanics complement each other so reskinning old mechanics new fluff breaks that. I think it's more ok for elements like monsters because the players often don't know the mechanics behind the fluff, and it's not often worth it to make a new monster. 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.

I both like it and don't like it. I like it when as you mention, the fluff and mechanics complement each other. if they don't, it creates a disconnect. However, it's pretty easy in many cases to create new and different complementary fluff for a set of mechanics. If a player had an idea for a PC of a race that doesn't exist, but is mechanically like an elf, but came up with new fluff explaining the elven abilities, I'd allow it. If the player wanted a two-handed dagger doing 2d6 points of damage as a heavy weapon(a refluffed greatsword), I'd say no. Daggers don't hit that hard, so the fluff doesn't match the mechanic.

JiffyPopTart · Apr 26, 2020

Want to play a classic "primitive warrior" but still be balanced with a fighter wearing full plate and a shield?

Take a monk, reskin the abilities from being dojo taught karate to lessons learned from the jungle wildlife. Reskin meditating for Ki to communing with nature.

BOOM: A loincloth wearing spear wielding front line fighter who stays alive and contributes to the party.

TwoSix · Apr 26, 2020

I don't think I could play D&D without reskinning. Pretty much my first thought when I make a character is "How can I use these mechanics in a way that's almost unrelated to what the concept initially was"?

Maxperson · Apr 26, 2020

SkidAce said:
A monk with a level of barbarian. Barbarian class and rage fluffed as going into a "zen state" of combat.
So the monk does monk stuff, and when need goes into a trancelike combat mode, gaining bonuses to damage and resistance.

See, that's an example of the fluff not matching the mechanics. Why would a Zen state end if you don't attack something? Why would a zen state grant a bonus to strength saves and strength checks? Why would it only apply to weapons using strength? Zen is typically associated with speed and accuracy, not strength. That fluff creates a disconnect with the mechanics in question.

SkidAce · Apr 26, 2020

Maxperson said:
See, that's an example of the fluff not matching the mechanics. Why would a Zen state end if you don't attack something? Why would a zen state grant a bonus to strength saves and strength checks? Why would it only apply to weapons using strength? Zen is typically associated with speed and accuracy, not strength. That fluff creates a disconnect with the mechanics in question.

Sure, and yet the player had fun, so we were cool with it.

D&D General Do people like re-skinning?

nomotog

Explorer

Morrus

Well, that was fun

Paul Farquhar

Legend

JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark

SkidAce

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

SkidAce

Legend

Similar Threads