D&D General Do people like re-skinning?

[Son of the Serpent]

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.

So if I change the name and ONE other thing then you'd be fine with it? I'm curious about when this Stat Block of Theseus stops being a reskin and instead becomes a bona fide new monster. Flavor + name is not enough, but flavor + name + removing one movement mode is? What about the NPC monsters that are literally designed to be reskined by various races? What about 3e style monster templates?

I just find the objection so strange. I can't even grasp the objection.

What about reskinning an adventure module? Or taking the taven map from a different module and inserting it? Or taking an NPC that the players skipped over and inserting them later in the adventure? Or any of the other dozens of ways to adapt and reuse old content on the fly?

Reskinning basically means youve taken a thing and only changed what it appears to be. Repurposing everything uder the hood (or nearly) with new skin.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Reskinning basically means youve taken a thing and only changed what it appears to be. Repurposing everything uder the hood (or nearly) with new skin.

I agree. While there's nothing wrong with changing minor mechanical things like damage types on spells or tweaking a monster's abilities, etc.. that stuff goes beyond reskinning into light homebrewing, IMO.

Or perhaps fluff-only overlaying is "Refluffing" and "Reskinning" can include a slightly deeper cut with some minor mechanical tweaks. Homebrewing might involve more building things ground-up (nothing wrong with that either).

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I agree. While there's nothing wrong with changing minor mechanical things like damage types on spells or tweaking a monster's abilities, etc.. that stuff goes beyond reskinning into light homebrewing, IMO.

Or perhaps fluff-only overlaying is "Refluffing" and "Reskinning" can include a slightly deeper cut with some minor mechanical tweaks. Homebrewing might involve more building things ground-up (nothing wrong with that either).

well, take my cloud kill example up thread. I think there is a slightly more extreme thing that also can be considered a reskin. Taking a spell and reskinning it with certain different effects added (if done right) is an example of what id call the most extreme thing that still counts as reskinning. But in this use if reskinning its not to reuse something without anyone realizing you have. Its to reuse in a way someone DOES notice youve done exactly that. This type of reskinning can serve an illustrative purpose about the cosmically structured nature of magic. See my post up-thread to see a more clear explanation of what im talking about. Essentially you can reskin a spell with a slight change to denote qualities of the structure of magic.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Its not laziness, if the right stats for the monster are a different monster re-skinned.

And who cares if the players find out? 'The War Ogre has the same stats as a Fire Giant (sans fire resistance) so I'm using that stat block.'

Whether or not the stats of a Fire Giant present the best representation of a War Ogre, there's no way that you could possibly know that without working out the stats on your own.

If you just re-skin the stats without examination, then the stats probably aren't the best fit, in which case you're probably guilty of mis-representation. Your job as DM is to figure out the right stats; not just whatever stat block you can sneak past the players.

If you actually do work out the stats for a War Ogre, and your honest interpretation comes out looking exactly like a Fire Giant, then you didn't really re-skin anything; you did your job, and coincidentally come out with the same answer as if you'd taken the shortcut.

 

[Maxperson]

Whether or not the stats of a Fire Giant present the best representation of a War Ogre, there's no way that you could possibly know that without working out the stats on your own.

If you just re-skin the stats without examination, then the stats probably aren't the best fit, in which case you're probably guilty of mis-representation. Your job as DM is to figure out the right stats; not just whatever stat block you can sneak past the players.

Not everyone plays your one true way. We're plenty capable of figuring out the best way to make a War Ogre playing our ways, and without misrepresenting anything to the players.

 

[S'mon]

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'll reskin monsters. I may refluff classes a bit too.

 

[dave2008]

If we start nixing or changing the abilities, I wouldn't call it a pure reskin.

That is exactly what a re-skin is. A re-skin is there to make things easy, not a straight jacket. The important part of a re-skin (in this context) is to get the correct CR monster (HP/AC/attack bonus/DPR). Everything else can be easily modified or dropped. Ideally, you get something close to what your looking for so you don't have to spend to much time revising the appearance of the mechanics.

 

[dave2008]

Whether or not the stats of a Fire Giant present the best representation of a War Ogre, there's no way that you could possibly know that without working out the stats on your own.

That is false. Working out the stats via the guidlines in the DMG does not make it any more a War Ogre than re-skinning a fire giant. A War Ogre is not a thing, it is fictional. There is no "best" representation. Working out the stats via the DMG only tells you you used the DMG to create the monster. It tells you nothing about how good the representation is. For example, I don't think the "best" representation of a dragon is in the MM or accounted for in the DMG guidelines. However, that doesn't make it the "best" either. It makes my opinion and that is all.

If you just re-skin the stats without examination,...

No one said re-skin without examination. The process of re-skinning is an examination.

...then the stats probably aren't the best fit, in which case you're probably guilty of mis-representation. Your job as DM is to figure out the right stats; not just whatever stat block you can sneak past the players.

That is not the DM's job. The job of DM is to facility a game that is fun for everyone. That everyone includes the DM. You also seem to mis-understand what the stats is. I stat block is a tool to help the DM explain/describe a monster to the players, it does not represent the monster. The DM does that.

If you actually do work out the stats for a War Ogre, and your honest interpretation comes out looking exactly like a Fire Giant, then you didn't really re-skin anything; you did your job, and coincidentally come out with the same answer as if you'd taken the shortcut.

What does: "work out the stat of a War Ogre mean to you."

 

[nomotog]

That is exactly what a re-skin is. A re-skin is there to make things easy, not a straight jacket. The important part of a re-skin (in this context) is to get the correct CR monster (HP/AC/attack bonus/DPR). Everything else can be easily modified or dropped. Ideally, you get something close to what your looking for so you don't have to spend to much time revising the appearance of the mechanics.

In the context of what I was talking about changing the abilities was removing the point. The idea was can you get away with using a wholly different stat block for a monster. That challenge or argument doesn't exist if you are not using the stat block.

I worry this thread will end up in some kind of definition battle. When I made this thread, I was thinking of reskinning as using the same mechanics but changing the fluff. However, it looks like a good number of people think a reskin involves changing the mechanics with the fluff.

 

[MGibster]

Whether or not the stats of a Fire Giant present the best representation of a War Ogre, there's no way that you could possibly know that without working out the stats on your own.

Even if I work out the stats on my own there's now way I could possibly no it's the "best" representation possible.

If you just re-skin the stats without examination, then the stats probably aren't the best fit, in which case you're probably guilty of mis-representation. Your job as DM is to figure out the right stats; not just whatever stat block you can sneak past the players.

I don't think most people reskin without examination. If I wanted to introduce kobolds into my campaign, not those little reptilian versions but the spirits of Germanic folklore who help you with household chores, I'm not going to open the Monster Manual and randomly select a creature to fill in. I'm going to think about which creature is closest to what I want and go from there. In this case I'd probably just use the goblin stats.

I think some of us have a fundamentally different idea of what the DM's job is and I know ensuring stat block purity isn't on my list. The DM's just is to ensure we're all having a good time. And what's this idea about misrepresentation you're talking about?

If you actually do work out the stats for a War Ogre, and your honest interpretation comes out looking exactly like a Fire Giant, then you didn't really re-skin anything; you did your job, and coincidentally come out with the same answer as if you'd taken the shortcut.

One of the early AD&D modules had the PCs infiltrate the lair of a bunch of giants. The mod used ogre stats to represent young giants and specifically points this out to the DM. If reskinning is good enough for official D&D products I don't see any problem with it.