Are you a refluffer?

[GnomeWorks]

Magic is mysterious and nobody is a complete expert on the endless variations of freakish creatures living in the corners and cracks of the world. But really, I just like treating D&D like an episode of Lost.

D&D lost the whole "magic is mysterious" when they codified exactly what wizards could and could not do.

You may enjoy attempting to recapture the "magic is mysterious" feel. IMC, magic is - usually - just as predictable as technology. It has set methodologies and set spells, which produce predictable results.

Are there wildcards? Yes. These are the exception, not the rule.

This sort of thing really depends on the group, and the DM/player "contract".

...

I'd be bored stiff with out a little fluffing by the DM. (Ahem.)

You say this like the only place to introduce world flavor is by screwing around with the thematic aspect of well-known and well-understood game mechanics.

My setting is by no means "boring," at least not in my own opinion. I have heavily modified the 3.5 ruleset, approaching my revamp with the belief that mechanics should reflect flavor: our psionics system, for instance, is nothing like our magic system, because they are two distinct things.

I could just reskin magic to make psionics. That, however, feels cheap to me, and I would much rather prefer having a mechanical grounding for the differences between the two.

If the game is a tactical simulator, then being able to easily identify threats is extremely important.

If the game is a way to tell a story about "real" characters, then refluffing the familiar to induce a sense of wonder is not only desirable... it is *necessary*.

Thanks for the assumption about my playstyle!

Inducing a sense of wonder != stories about "real" characters. You can have interesting and well-developed characters and "stories" without resorting to screwing around with the mechanical underpinnings of the game by messing with thematic elements.

"Wonder" is by no means necessary to the game, just as combat is not.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I don't quite understand this. How does it lose consistency and cohesion? The rules haven't changed. The effect is the same. It just looks different. And if the PC makes his Arcana check, he learns just that.

Because game mechanics and "fluff" are tied together. You shouldn't cut the two from each other; if a thing is described as a sword, it should behave as a sword, not as an axe.

The same thing goes for magical effects.

I'll agree that you wouldn't want to overdo it, but sometimes it's a great way to keep things interesting. Remember, on the other side of the coin, if the players always know what's going to be thrown at them the world becomes predictable and boring.

Well, my setting has more than enough weird homebrew stuff in it to keep them guessing. You don't need to mess with base assumptions to make events unpredictable.

But that's just it... If I take an Ochre Jelly, for example, change all references of "acid" to "fire" and call it a Horta Lava Monster, then what's really the difference from building the same monster from scratch?

I don't think that qualifies as a reskin, at least not as I'm using the term (and maybe that's causing some confusion in this discussion on my part - if so, my bad). You are not just calling an ochre jelly a "Horta Lava Monster," and describing it as being fire-based rather than acid-based but leaving the mechanics alone, you are modifying the mechanics to reflect the new flavor.

What do the players care? Either way, it's something new to them and they'll be unsure of its specific abilities until they fight it for a few rounds or make an appropriate Knowledge check.

Surprisingly enough, this issue is not just about the players. Lack of cohesion and internal consistency irks me, regardless of what side of the screen I am on. The setting has to make sense.

 

[Pbartender]

There is nothing wrong with expecting consistency. If X works Y way, and always has, then it should continue to work in Y way, rather than suddenly unexpectedly working Z way. Even if you let players figure it out, it was still something they had no way to plan for, no way to consider, because it was assumed that X yields Y, not Z.

I wonder if you're thinking of something else...

In my Magic Missile example, I see it a little differently:

X (standard description MM) works Y way. It continues to work that way. nothing changes.

W (alternate description MM) also works Y way, even though it looks different.

As need as the "distance cut" reskin of MM is, it raises questions, though. Can dude still do it if he loses the knife?

Sure, why not? Use your imagination... He just uses a different weapon as a "focus" -- crooking his fingers and scratching, or punching the air or whatever.

Changing the thematics of a thing gives rise to the possibility that other aspects have been changed, as well.

And that's exactly what makes it interesting. It injects just a little bit of suspense and uncertainty that ratchets up the tension of the encounter just a little bit. The occasional unknown is what keeps the game exciting.

 

[Pbartender]

Because game mechanics and "fluff" are tied together. You shouldn't cut the two from each other; if a thing is described as a sword, it should behave as a sword, not as an axe.

The same thing goes for magical effects.

Right, but how do you define the fluff as mechanics?

Consider that, except for the "group" label, a battleaxe, a flail, and a warhammer all have the same stats. They are, essentially, all reskins of each other.

Must a Close Blast 5, targeting Each creature in the blast, using Intelligence vs. Reflex to attack, and dealing 2d6 + Intelligence damage always be described as "A fierce burst of flame erupts from your hands"? Why can't I breathe that fire out of my mouth like a dragon? Or sweep heat rays across the battlefield from out of my eyes?

 

[ExploderWizard]

D&D lost the whole "magic is mysterious" when they codified exactly what wizards could and could not do.

OD&D? The original game had standard spell lists. Anything else was to be created by the participants. Mystery by its very nature needs to be unknown. How was that any different?

 

[Beginning of the End]

There are things that exist in the world; magic missile is one of them. When someone uses it, the characters should be able to recognize it, if arcana is one of the things they know about, because that's how things work. While it might appear slightly differently, there is no way to mistake the effect for another one. If you start doing this willy-nilly, it completely - IMO - nixes the players' ability to plan and identify threats. They have no idea what's going to be thrown at them, so the world becomes - from their view - chaotic and disorganized.

I think you're over-reacting.

There are two ways to re-skin something:

(1) It's the same thing, it just looks different. For example, in my campaign spellcasters tend to customize their magic missiles -- one might juggle golden balls of energy and then hurl them; another might send bolts of energy lancing from his fingers; another might shoot beams from his eyes; and so forth.

But these are all still magic missiles; succeed on a Spellcraft check and you'll recognize it as such.

Suggesting that this causes the world to become "chaotic and disorganized" is like claiming that the real world is "chaotic and disorganized" because some of us drive Fords and some of us drive Chevys. They're all trucks.

(2) It's not the same thing, but it uses the same stats (or slightly tweaked stats).

This, too, is hardly the end of the universe. I might stat up a golf cart by taking the stats for a riding lawnmower and removing the "mow grass" special ability. None of us consider the world fundamentally incomprehensible because there's more than one type of four-wheeled vehicle with a top speed of 20 mph.

Similarly, I don't think the PCs will be lost in a world of madness if somebody has developed a spell that works exactly like magic missile but uses a knife as an arcane focus.

Your belief that "everything that gives a +2 bonus to Strength needs to be the exact same thing or the universe doesn't make sense" is, frankly, incomprehensible to me.

 

[ForceUser]

D&D lost the whole "magic is mysterious" when they codified exactly what wizards could and could not do.

You may enjoy attempting to recapture the "magic is mysterious" feel. IMC, magic is - usually - just as predictable as technology. It has set methodologies and set spells, which produce predictable results.

Are there wildcards? Yes. These are the exception, not the rule.

Actually, think about it for a second. Your PC wizard knows what he himself can do. He's got a good idea of the extent of his master's powers, perhaps. He doesn't necessarily know what the PC cleric can do, or what the NPC wizard he just met can do. He certainly doesn't know the exact powers of Devian, First Adept of the Weeping God, who is currently trying to rip out his immortal soul to feed his evil master. He's a wizard, so he can observe, predict, make some educated guesses with Arcana rolls, but he's not 100% certain. And what about the PC sorcerer? Magic for him is intuition, emotion, illogic. The shaman talks to spirits, and I can't imagine that spirit magic is as codified as wizard magic. Not to mention the fact that in magic fantasy worlds wizards don't exactly trust one another 100% of the time, and are prone to keeping secrets even when they do (speaking of the archetypal trope, I mean).

So at the end of the day, even if the party wizard knows exactly how wizard magic works, that doesn't exactly mean he knows how all magic works. It's not like he's got access to the PHB the way his player does.

I'm not saying you're wrongbad in the way you view magic or anything. Just that there is plenty of wiggle room even in a system as codified as 4E.

 

[EroGaki]

Actually, think about it for a second. Your PC wizard knows what he himself can do. He's got a good idea of the extent of his master's powers, perhaps. He doesn't necessarily know what the PC cleric can do, or what the NPC wizard he just met can do. He certainly doesn't know the exact powers of Devian, First Adept of the Weeping God, who is currently trying to rip out his immortal soul to feed his evil master. He's a wizard, so he can observe, predict, make some educated guesses with Arcana rolls, but he's not 100% certain. And what about the PC sorcerer? Magic for him is intuition, emotion, illogic. The shaman talks to spirits, and I can't imagine that spirit magic is as codified as wizard magic. Not to mention the fact that in magic fantasy worlds wizards don't exactly trust one another 100% of the time, and are prone to keeping secrets even when they do (speaking of the archetypal trope, I mean).

So at the end of the day, even if the party wizard knows exactly how wizard magic works, that doesn't exactly mean he knows how all magic works. It's not like he's got access to the PHB the way his player does.

I'm not saying you're wrongbad in the way you view magic or anything. Just that there is plenty of wiggle room even in a system as codified as 4E.

I agree with this. I would like to think that magic, as it exists in a campaign world, isn't so cut and dry; each wizard uses different methods to produce his magic. A cleric of the sun god would use different rites than a cleric of the god of chocolate pudding to heal someone. The results are the same, but the methodologies, incantations, and visual effects all differ.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

You say this like the only place to introduce world flavor is by screwing around with the thematic aspect of well-known and well-understood game mechanics.

Not at all. However, I do generally assume that very few mechanics have (or even ought to have) any thematic component at all.

Most people's posts here aren't talking about actually changing the mechanics at all (that would be "homebrewing" imho). They're simply changing what the mechanics look like. My "Sorcerous claw" example above is exactly identical to "magic missile" in every respect-- except that it manifests as ghostly claws that swipe at the target, rather than bolts of force that shoot out and strike the target. The mechanics aren't changing, just the thematic presentation. And even the "Ghostspider bite" is effectively "magic missile" with a poison save attached-- a new spell, sure, but it operates according to established mechanics.

I often treat classes the same way. A class is a bundle of mechanics, nothing more. So a character might belong to The Brethren of Ohaldurim, wear a black cowl and blue sash, tithe, carry a polearm, and recite prayers thrice daily. But this character could mechanically be a fighter, sorceror or rogue as easily as a cleric or monk. Or all brethren are clerics, with the good and darkness domains, and proficiency with ranseurs. It just depends on the campaign.

I could just reskin magic to make psionics. That, however, feels cheap to me, and I would much rather prefer having a mechanical grounding for the differences between the two.

Totally cool. To D&D is grand, but to homebrew is divine

I'm curious, though, if you've tinkered with the mechanics to handle, for instance, the thematic differences between sorcs and wizards? With respect to spell selection, they're basically identical. That's the sort of poorly-defined distinction (by RAW) that reskinning is really nice for, IMHO. Then it's easier to say things like:

• "Lord EvilSorc casually waves his hand, raking you with his Sorcerous Claws spell."
• "With a dozen finger wiggles, Prof. Maggie GoodMage and her students simultaneously launch a volley of Magic Missiles."
• "Prince Pugilissimo, renowned Battle Sorc of the Realm, makes a fist and swings, his Force Punch almost knocking the enemy commander from his mount from 50 paces away!"

All these spells use exactly the same mechanics as Magic Missile, but are reskinned to fit the characters. In this example, academy wizards all learn the same variant on the spell, while spontaneous casters have their own personalized versions.

To each his own, I suppose. As long as it all works and the group's having fun

 

[Derren]

I agree with this. I would like to think that magic, as it exists in a campaign world, isn't so cut and dry; each wizard uses different methods to produce his magic. A cleric of the sun god would use different rites than a cleric of the god of chocolate pudding to heal someone. The results are the same, but the methodologies, incantations, and visual effects all differ.

Why? When something works exactly the same, why should they look completely different? I can understand the reasoning that divine magic would look different depending on the deity. But why should arcane magic not be "cut and dry"?
Why do you insist that there are dozens of completely different spells out there which yet do exactly the same thing? That doesn't add any "coolness" but is imo just lame. Instead call magic missile a magic missile and let everyone see that it is a magic missile which every respectable wizard can cast instead of saying its a "weird glowing stuff. By the way it works exactly as a magic missile, no difference at all".