Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 6867376">&quot;Cutesy&quot; yes, but not technically ad hominem; I was trying to colorfully suggest that objections are really based on an overly narrow restriction on how to interpret ability scores.&nbsp; Or perhaps an aesthetic dislike of the consequences.&nbsp; But changing the meaning of Int this way is really no different...literally absolutely identical...to refluffing the description of a spell or a weapon.&nbsp; &quot;My longsword is actually a katana.&quot;&nbsp; I can understand the aesthetic objection (and share it, in many cases) but my objections are entirely subjective.I'll agree that roleplaying Eloelle and Calivan would be harder, and all four of them would be harder than simply taking the default (boring?) interpretation of low Int.&nbsp; If the most erotic text that Deuce can find is &quot;How to Torture a Modron&quot; then the player better think quick to explain why he got distracted, or possibly introduce a new, hitherto undiscovered fetish to his personality (or roll well so he doesn't have to).&nbsp; Heck, maybe this is where we learn that his beloved is a Modron.&nbsp; I'll also suggest that at my tables the player would be free to decide what kind of book he finds in order to support his storytelling. I suspect, given the conversation in another thread, that somebody like [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] would say the content of he bookshelves is strictly the DM's domain.That's a Parade of Horribles argument.&nbsp; (Or, dare I say, a genuine Slippery Slope?)&nbsp; Going down that path doesn't have to lead to mechanical impact if the DM doesn't allow it to.Again, what I'm describing is not different from refluffing spells or gear....just harder to roleplay.&nbsp; Do you object to that, when there's no mechanical change?&nbsp; Or does letting the player describe his longsword as a katana risk him suddenly doing more damage because, you know, katanas are better in every way?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 6867376"] "Cutesy" yes, but not technically ad hominem; I was trying to colorfully suggest that objections are really based on an overly narrow restriction on how to interpret ability scores. Or perhaps an aesthetic dislike of the consequences. But changing the meaning of Int this way is really no different...literally absolutely identical...to refluffing the description of a spell or a weapon. "My longsword is actually a katana." I can understand the aesthetic objection (and share it, in many cases) but my objections are entirely subjective. I'll agree that roleplaying Eloelle and Calivan would be harder, and all four of them would be harder than simply taking the default (boring?) interpretation of low Int. If the most erotic text that Deuce can find is "How to Torture a Modron" then the player better think quick to explain why he got distracted, or possibly introduce a new, hitherto undiscovered fetish to his personality (or roll well so he doesn't have to). Heck, maybe this is where we learn that his beloved [I]is[/I] a Modron. I'll also suggest that at my tables the player would be free to decide what kind of book he finds in order to support his storytelling. I suspect, given the conversation in another thread, that somebody like [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] would say the content of he bookshelves is strictly the DM's domain. That's a Parade of Horribles argument. (Or, dare I say, a genuine Slippery Slope?) Going down that path doesn't have to lead to mechanical impact if the DM doesn't allow it to. Again, what I'm describing is not different from refluffing spells or gear....just harder to roleplay. Do you object to that, when there's no mechanical change? Or does letting the player describe his longsword as a katana risk him suddenly doing more damage because, you know, katanas are better in every way? [/QUOTE]

Verification