Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest User" data-source="post: 8119336">That line in my post was not meant for you specifically, which was unclear.I will also state, I personally adore Eeyore; my post was a bit tongue in check, as I found your  initial post dour in tone.You have my sincere apologies, if you were insulted.My point of actual disagreement is labeling someone that wants to re-fluff existing mechanics as a "problem player".The whole intent of the Artificer's spell casting focus being Tools, was so the player can describe, differently, how a spell is cast and cosmetically how the spell takes effect.Are all Artificer players "special snowflakes" (as I believe was being bandied about before)?Cosmetic changes to spells or class ability is like cosmetic changes to the fenders of your car.  Fenders are not structural components.  A Magic Missile spell that looks like giant Wasps flying like unerring darts..makes not one whit of mechanical difference.Swapping Energy types out on a spell can make an impact, but overall such swaps, are mostly an equal trade.The books openly state that re-skinning the weapons in the game is expected.The 5e system, in multiple books, states one can, and in some cases, should change the fluff to meet one's needs.The system encourages "Special Snowflakes".I am also going to state, anyone who uses the term "Special Snowflakes" seriously ...has Disadvantage on CHA checks with me.  Give me a break people....we are amateur RPG referees....write a story if you want to control everything.The people that use the term "Special Snowflakes" in a pejorative fashion, are the biggest flakes of "special", of them all. </blockquote>

Verification