D&D General Do people like re-skinning?

[Fenris-77]

Yep. The definition of reskinning that I would use is when appearance and/or flavour is changed. If mechanics are changed, I'd consider that homebrew. However I most certainly would not regard "homebrew" as being a perjorative.

I've seen a lot of posters say things things like "I don't allow homebrew at my table" which has always made me wonder where they get all their NPCs and locations from. I'd bet they don't all come as-written out of official WotC publications. I feel like some people use homebrew sometimes to talk about player produced rules alterations and don't apply the same term to what the DM does (which is essentially wholesale hombrew all the time).

All this just to try and clarify the terms we're all using.

 

[billd91]

That can be an issue, especially when players want to reskin things for pretty frivolous reasons. I'd be fine with something like this: all my spells have purple effects because of my drow heritage. Why not, it's cool and easy to remember. But if instead it's this: well, my magic missile is blue, but my farie fire is a kind of light green. My scorching ray is a kind of neon pink shot through with orange streamers, and my eldritch blast is a kind of chartreuse with a handful of sparkles tossed in.... I'd probably have to put my foot down.
<snip>
I tend to get grumpy when people start asking to change all manner of things during the game though, because no, I'm not going to remember and, frankly, it's not that important.

Why put your foot down? If it's just cosmetic stuff on their own character, why not just have the player manage all that? Then you don't have to remember it either.

 

[Maxperson]

I believe I've seen you go around with folks about the boundaries between mechanics and fluff (or in this discussion, skin). Some people think changing the damage type (fire to cold) isn't really changing the mechanics; IIRC, you believe it is. I think it's a different question from what you'd allow--I think I remember that you're more flexible about that than I would guess from your definitions.

Personally, I don't think making a fireball-equivalent spell that does cold damage is anything to stress over. YMMV.

Oh, I'm not at all stressed and I allow and even encourage thematic wizards. Cold, fire, electricity, etc.

Changing fire to cold is a mechanical change, because it impacts the mechanics. Fire resistant/immune creatures can be hurt by it now, and cold resistant/immune creatures have protection that they didn't have to a fireball.

 

[Asisreo]

Oh, I'm not at all stressed and I allow and even encourage thematic wizards. Cold, fire, electricity, etc.

Changing fire to cold is a mechanical change, because it impacts the mechanics. Fire resistant/immune creatures can be hurt by it now, and cold resistant/immune creatures have protection that they didn't have to a fireball.

It also affect dragon sorcerers and elemental adept which let them boost basically all damaging spells.

I'd probably have a few changes that I wouldn't mind. Like acid <-> poison, fire <-> cold, Radiant -> necrotic (maybe not the other way around, depending on the campaign). I do think it's at the cusp of homebrew and reskin since it affects mechanics but not by too much. Maybe I'll let them "discover" the new spell, too.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I don't reskin often, but when I do, I do it without hesitation and feel no guilt.

 

[Fenris-77]

Why put your foot down? If it's just cosmetic stuff on their own character, why not just have the player manage all that? Then you don't have to remember it either.

If it's all on them, that's exactly what I'd do. But in D&D the burden of description falls very much on the DM, at a lot of table, so if there's any expectation that I'm going incorporate their Rainbow Bright spellcasting into my exposition I'd say no thanks.

 

[billd91]

If it's all on them, that's exactly what I'd do. But in D&D the burden of description falls very much on the DM, at a lot of table, so if there's any expectation that I'm going incorporate their Rainbow Bright spellcasting into my exposition I'd say no thanks.

Then change that expectation. Instead of the player saying "I'm casting magic missile and targeting that guy and the horse he rode in on." and you narrating what the missiles look like - have him or her do it "Three missiles, sputtering and sparking like fireworks, leap out from my fingers - two flying toward that guy and one to his horse - striking with a cracking sound." Boom. Done.

 

[Fenris-77]

Then change that expectation. Instead of the player saying "I'm casting magic missile and targeting that guy and the horse he rode in on." and you narrating what the missiles look like - have him or her do it "Three missiles, sputtering and sparking like fireworks, leap out from my fingers - two flying toward that guy and one to his horse - striking with a cracking sound." Boom. Done.

Yes. I can DM. Some people expect that burden to fall on the GM though and I am disinclined to acquiesce to their request when it's frivolous. If they want to narrate it that way great, I would have suggested that first anyway, yeah.

 

[prabe]

Oh, I'm not at all stressed and I allow and even encourage thematic wizards. Cold, fire, electricity, etc.

Changing fire to cold is a mechanical change, because it impacts the mechanics. Fire resistant/immune creatures can be hurt by it now, and cold resistant/immune creatures have protection that they didn't have to a fireball.

I'll grant your point (I believe @Charlaquin possibly among others made it, too) that it changes who's resistant to it and who's not, but that doesn't strike me as a purely mechanical change. Part of that is probably because I've played a lot of supers games, where the fire/cold would be a description, not something you'd pay for (if that makes sense). It's not unbalancing, in any event, and I agree that this isn't something I'd stress on much.

EDIT TO ADD: I realize now that I've probably explicated the core of how I at least differentiate between fluff and mechanics. Mechanics are things you'd pay for (or get points back for, I suppose), fluff are things you wouldn't. Obviously not everyone is going to see things that way.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

• Cuts down on DM workload. I can grab a Fire giant, remove its fire resistance, and reskin it as a 'War Ogre' and describe it as a huge Ogre, clad in plate armor and wielding a giant axe. No-one would be the wiser.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, when I say it's bad practice. You're too lazy to figure out the right stats for this monster, so you just do whatever is easy for you, with the justification that the players won't find out.

The DM is the eyes and ears of the players. They're supposed to be able to trust you. This sort of behavior is a betrayal of that trust.