Reflavouring Powers

[Sunseeker]

I don't think this article is so much about the mechanical technicalities of "how to remake powers", but more to inform new players and DMs(or old ones) that this is acceptable, allowable, and clearly, intended.

Personally, I have always done this. From complex things like reimagining how a race exists in my world, to simpler stuff like exchanging the keyword "radiant" with "necrotic" to fit the theme of a dark-paladin.

As mentioned above, I would really like for this to be integrated into the CB, whereever there is a "type" keyword, you could instead use a dropdown box to select a different type. Though there is obvious room to break builds with synergies created that didn't exist before, I think the more theme-oriented nature of this move is more valuable than any possible game-breakers.

 

[Wrathamon]

The first campaign I ran in 4e when the PHB first came out did exactly this...

It was an all human campaign but the player could pick any race. They just had to reflavor the racial abilities. They were magical version of the X-men so it worked out with the weird races.

I also wanted them to reflavor the Powers to match their persona.

It worked out really well... one guy made a goblin ranger into a smack talking pugalist.
He said his weapon attacks were fists. Twin Strike became Bada Boom

 

[RLBURNSIDE]

Radiant vs Necrotic

I don't know why there can't be powers that have the damage type built-in as part of your "theme" chosen at first level.

If you want to play a radiant-focused str-paladin, you end up at some levels with only necrotic dailies, which is anti-thetical to a paladin dedicated to killing undead, say. An anti-paladin, sure, do necrotic damage with all your powers. Holy Strike -> Unholy Strike, blahblah. Some people say there's no alignment inherent in the damage types, but there are resistances implicit in monsters you are fighting, which steers your choice of powers depending on your campaign.

It's shouldn't even be a question of reflavoring, but a core rule :

This power does either Radiant, Or necrotic damage, depending on the focus chosen at level 1.

Sick of all the frost builds because other damage types need love too. They should be plugging the holes in their rules instead of making us do this work for them. Heck, we can even PAY for this, by buying new books. It shouldn't cost a feat for a str-paladin to have a viable radiant damage power at every level. Right now, it does. This is broken IMO.

About the reflavoring Twin Strike, I also love the idea of pretending like a double weapon such as the double ax, is really just a single-sided but double-edged battle axe that you can use to hit twice with. Same damage, same stats, different feel entirely. One of the sad things is never getting more at-will attacks with a single weapon in this game.

Here's a good way to re-imagine a Cavalier Mount: Draco-Cop

 

[DMZ2112]

I found this whole thing insulting when it was first being proposed and I still find it insulting now.

It's not that new players don't need to hear this. They do, and to that end articles like this are valuable. What's insulting is that the design team still seems to think that the ability to ignore and change their rules is an advantage to their design strategy. "Buy our product! You don't have to use it!"

Rule 0/Page 42/etc. are not selling points. Relying on them is lazy design. But maybe I'm just oversensitive.

Personally, I encourage my D&D4 players to design their own powers (and to a lesser extent their class features) from scratch, using the library as a guide, because it is the only way to get anything resembling personalization in the system. You can only reflavor to a given distance -- if a power knocks someone down, it knocks them down, no matter what you call it.

As for changing damage types, I think it's great so long as you don't end up with a wizard with eight kinds of balls.

 

[Truename]

Rule 0/Page 42/etc. are not selling points. Relying on them is lazy design. But maybe I'm just oversensitive.

Yeah, I think so.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I found this whole thing insulting when it was first being proposed and I still find it insulting now.

It's not that new players don't need to hear this. They do, and to that end articles like this are valuable. What's insulting is that the design team still seems to think that the ability to ignore and change their rules is an advantage to their design strategy. "Buy our product! You don't have to use it!"

Rule 0/Page 42/etc. are not selling points. Relying on them is lazy design. But maybe I'm just oversensitive.

Personally, I encourage my D&D4 players to design their own powers (and to a lesser extent their class features) from scratch, using the library as a guide, because it is the only way to get anything resembling personalization in the system. You can only reflavor to a given distance -- if a power knocks someone down, it knocks them down, no matter what you call it.

As for changing damage types, I think it's great so long as you don't end up with a wizard with eight kinds of balls.

I think you're confusing two diferent things.

Certainly I agree that Rule 0 is not a selling point. But Rule 0 and Page 42 and reflavoring powers are honestly three entirely different things.

Rule 0 is rather simple, and fits your point - the DM can change the rules. That's great, but if the DM is changing all the rules, and if so many rules need to be changed, there's a problem.

Page 42 isn't about that though, it's about "Here are some numbers and guidelines for doing cool things that haven't really been planned." It's a great addition, because if anything it's the opposite of Rule 0 - it's saying "Hey, we can't plan everything, but here's some DCs for when you encounter other stuff!"

Reflavoring powers is neither of those, because it's not mechanical in the slightest. Reflavoring classes is the same. You're taking a mechanical "thing" and giving it a different fluff "thing." It's also really awesome. It's changing the ranger's animal companion into a skeleton and making yourself a psuedo-necromancer. Reflavoring is boss, because it lets you play a much wider array of characters then you otherwise could.

 

[DMZ2112]

Cirno --

They're all the same thing because they're all lazy. A good game shouldn't need its rules changed; they should be robust and flexible enough to suit the vast majority of circumstances. Likewise, no game should need a page that essentially says, "There's a lot of crap we didn't bother to cover, so here's a page of kludges."

And finally, while I applaud any player's creativity in reflavoring a ranger into a necromancer, I'd rather have the rules for a necromancer in the first place.

No game is perfect. Even the best of them will require these three things in some small measure. But I have to roll my eyes whenever Wizards says, "You know what the best thing about our game is? It's not finished."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And finally, while I applaud any player's creativity in reflavoring a ranger into a necromancer, I'd rather have the rules for a necromancer in the first place.

Agreed 100%.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

They're all the same thing because they're all lazy. A good game shouldn't need its rules changed; they should be robust and flexible enough to suit the vast majority of circumstances. Likewise, no game should need a page that essentially says, "There's a lot of crap we didn't bother to cover, so here's a page of kludges."

Ok, so now your handbook is infinity pages long because you seem to think it has to cover literally every single aspect.

Uh, no.

Page 49 is simple. "Sometimes players do cool stunts. Here's a quick list of DCs you can give them."

Ok, the player wants to jump and swing on a rope then kick the baddie. There's no rule for "swing on rope then kick baddie" so we use the table - and quite frankly, there shouldn't be a rule for that.

Not every little thing needs rules. In most cases, simply guidelines work far, far better.

And finally, while I applaud any player's creativity in reflavoring a ranger into a necromancer, I'd rather have the rules for a necromancer in the first place.

Again, your book is now infinity pages long because you expect them to cover literally everything.

Alternately, Class-As-Identity is like the worst of things so yeah, again, no.

No game is perfect. Even the best of them will require these three things in some small measure. But I have to roll my eyes whenever Wizards says, "You know what the best thing about our game is? It's not finished."

If that's what they said, sure, I'd agree with you. But that isn't, and it's insulting for you to claim such.

I mean, honestly? You feel insulted because WotC talked about reflavoring? How did you ever play D&D, since reflavoring has been a part of the game since day one? What, I have to play a fighting man? Why don't I have my special viking pirate who was raised by lizardmen class? What is this D&D, you have a class for fighters and a class for barbarians, and a class for monks and a class for paladins and rangers and rogues...but no class for Greek hopilites?!

Reflavoring mechanics is the best thing because now you don't need a stupid little wriggly rule for every damn thing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My favorite system is HERO, so you know I'm on board with reflavoring.

However, I don't think DMZ2112 is asking for your hyperbolic "infinite" rulebook, just a D&D that incorporates the same breadth of mechanical support as the immediately previous base edition; with the example of the necromancer being a stand-in for itself and the other specialist mages.

If so, I agree with that view.