Are you a refluffer?

[Garthanos]

In general fluff and mechanics must match so well that players can still anticipate from what they see... if they can´t rely on descriptions they are helpless...

One stroke from a real world dagger can kill you dead... same with the axe... (and both are throwable).
One mans skill WILL result in more damage with whatever weapon he uses in comparison to another man and will also grant greater range.

apparently you cant trust the real world... does it make you helpless?

 

[Derren]

One stroke from a real world dagger can kill you dead... same with the axe...
One mans skill WILL result in more damage with whatever weapon he uses in comparison to another man.

So can the PC rogue also use d12 daggers?

 

[Garthanos]

Wizards in 4e can generate an incredible number of minor incidental effects (see the at-will cantrips picture them used in concert with any of the at-will powers), worrying about slight deviations in effectiveness of one description versus another of MM seems especially silly. Use your imagination and yeah eke things out of it. I see this as an intended effect that is one of the reasons why they put page 42 of the DMG in the game and why players were told to reskin there powers.

 

[Barastrondo]

First, the spear is clearly recognizable as a spear no matter what variant you have, not so with the magic missiles.

Just as I read "spear" as a general term for a class of variant weapons that all involve a blade on the end of a long haft, I read "magic missile" as a general term for a class of variant starting-level spells that all involve doing a base amount of damage from a distance.

For example the cutting at range knife is much more stealthy than the original magic missile and when its the 4E MM which can affect nonliving matter you can do some quite nice things with it casters with who use normal MMs can not.

Seems that would foster more creativity, not less.

Or take the sunflower seed spitter from a previous posts. Now you need ammunition for your spells. And so on.

In our group we wouldn't find it a great trial to say "you have all the sunflower seeds you need" as a handwave. We tend to gloss over similar mundanities like purchasing socks. But that's kind of a side effect of reskinning; if you have the mindset to do it in the first place, these aren't really "problems" so much as minutiae.

When you only stay in "tactical combat mode" all those differences won't really matter, I agree. But by glossing over such differences you imo rob the players of the chance to be creative with those spells outside combat, either by saying that it doesn't work, hurting the flavour you actually wanted to create with the refluffing in the first place, or telling your players that they should be nice and not try to be creative.

I'm afraid I don't follow here. By allowing players to reskin their spells, just as I allow the villains to reskin theirs, there is a wider variety of creativity within the game. If you allow a reskinning that is stealthier in one way but also more flamboyant in another, then you encourage creative use of that spell. You'll have to explain a little more in detail about how a spell that always looks and acts exactly the same fosters more creativity in a game, because I'm not quite getting it.

Also, what do you think is "better"? The storm cleric having exactly the same spells as the sun cleric, just with a different look, or the two clerics actually having different spells?

The latter would be better, but what we're describing here is in the absence of any "storm cleric spells," denying players the chance to play, or fight against, storm clerics until someone comes up with unique rules for storm clerics.

In the end, saying that refluffing doesn't change anything doesn't work. It will change something. And thats why you should not do it on the fly just for coolness. If you want different spells, give them different spells. Thats even more "cool" and you do not have to worry about the refluff being better than the original.

We don't worry about the refluff being "better than the original" because that's kind of the point. If the original flavor was the best possible, nobody would want to change it. If they do, it must be lacking in some way, yes? At least for some groups. Like mine.

It also helps the consistency of the world as imo its pretty illogical that dozens of spells look completely different from each other but behave in exactly the same way (and no, "Its magic" doesn't really cut it, as magic in D&D is very scientific and codified).

I don't really understand the desire to have magic be much less a source of creativity, personalization and aesthetics as mundane weapons, but if it suits your personal philosophy, have at it. I happen to like the idea that you can have multiple spells with the same out-of-character mechanic, much as I like the idea that you can have French, Italian, or even Chinese-inspired longswords that use the same +3 proficiency bonus and d8 damage as their out-of-character mechanic. It may not work at all for your group, but your approach doesn't work at all for mine. So it goes.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

First, the spear is clearly recognizable as a spear no matter what variant you have, not so with the magic missiles.
Second, the spears can be used for the same things and have the same limitations (except 0.5 ft length). Some reflavored spells here are vastly different from their originals.

You're assuming that way more is going into these spell refluffings than is really the case. The limit is the presentation. Period.

It's the DM's responsibility to keep the players within the bounds he and the rules have set. If the players try to burn things with fire-fluffed healing or grasp things with claw-shaped magic missiles, just say no. Or, better, say "Your grasp of the magic doesn't allow you to do that. Research a new spell and you might get it when you level up, though." Now there's explicit mechanics for it, players get something out of it, and the integrity of the mechanics system is preserved!

Also, what do you think is "better"? The storm cleric having exactly the same spells as the sun cleric, just with a different look, or the two clerics actually having different spells?

But they certainly can have different spells if you want to codify it like that (I actually do), just like the two spearmen had different spears. If Mr. EarthCleric reads Sunheal off a scroll, the sun church's version of cure light wounds pops off, producing soft glow and a feeling of warmth in the recipient; when he reads Electricure, the lightning god's version of cure light wounds pops off, with lots of sparks and a tingling sensation. But the mechanical result is the same in both cases as far as hp cured, counterspelling, SR, and everything else.

If the DM allows other effects beyond that, that's a problem of his own manufacture. Honestly though, as a player with a Lightning cleric I wouldn't ever assume my heal spells were conductive through water or metal. It simply wouldn't occur to me that my heal spell, while sparkly, is anything more or less than a heal spell. I might (in 3e, frex) eventually ask the DM for a prestige class or specialized metamagic feat or to do some spell research, though. Why? Because as a player I understand I'm slaved to the mechanics as much as the next guy.

In the end, saying that refluffing doesn't change anything doesn't work. It will change something.

Only if the DM lets it.

And thats why you should not do it on the fly just for coolness. If you want different spells, give them different spells. Thats even more "cool" and you do not have to worry about the refluff being better than the original.

(emphasis mine)
Ah HA! Now I see where we (at least) differ. Good refluffing is not ad hoc "on the fly" nor is merely for "coolness". Refluffers do it for good reasons, and often even maintain consistency while doing it. Whereas you like consistency between all magic missiles, I prefer that all magic missiles cast by graduates of the same mage academy be identical, and that sorcerous magic missiles be individualized thematically by bloodline, yet all mechanically identical-- mainly for simplicity. IMHO, that is consistent, at least as consistent as your assumptions. But of course, ymmv.

It also helps the consistency of the world as imo its pretty illogical that dozens of spells look completely different from each other but behave in exactly the same way

Like spears?

I think I understand yours & others viewpoint now, though I'll respectfully agree to disagree at this point. Thanks for the patience in responding (to all the posts!), and good gaming

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

.
Oh, and for the record, I am officially and irrevocably finished with the term "refluffer".
.

 

[Garthanos]

Just as I read "spear" as a general term for a class of variant weapons that all involve a blade on the end of a long haft, I read "magic missile" as a general term for a class of variant starting-level spells that all involve doing a base amount of damage from a distance.

And just as if the player using a spear describes his attack in a way that seems by imagination and appropriate use of situational features.... to go beyond basic effects the DM should haul out rules like the DM's best friend and have at it.... NOT say ooh you cant do that its not exactly how they describe it in the book.

I don't really understand the desire to have magic be much less a source of creativity, personalization and aesthetics as mundane weapons, but if it suits your personal philosophy, have at it.

I think the desire is rooted in the version war banner flown by the individual you are quoting. (I have him and anyone featuring similar sigs on my ignore list)

 

[Garthanos]

.
Oh, and for the record, I am officially and irrevocably finished with the term "refluffer".
.

Oh I didn't even consider it in the first place ... though when it was initially mentioned in this thread I was vaguely neutral - after having one meaning "exposed" it went in to the out bucket.

 

[the Jester]

And thats the problem with refluffing. It has no effect on the mechanics which simply is silly.

You seem to be missing the point of reflavoring (sorry, I ain't saying "refluffing" if I don't put it in quotation marks). Your argument is essentially like saying, "There's no point in my character wearing a blue shirt if there's no mechanical difference from a red shirt!"

 

[The Ghost]

Add me to the list of people who do not reflavor.

I don't have any objections to reflavoring. If a player wants to describe their Magic Missile as "three faeries streaking across the sky with tiny swords made of Jello" so be it. For me that Magic Missile is 3d4+3 force damage and whatever the text in the book says is good enough.