D&D 5E The non barbarian barbarian

[Ancalagon]

Erm, no ... It has several special features that a run of the mill javelin did not...

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

If you're not sure about it just ask the player whether they want the 'javelins' their Roman-themed character uses to be one-shot affairs with a chance of disabling a shield if they hit it, or just a standard throwing-spear designed to kill stuff.

There's a fairly good chance that the needs of an adventurer are different enough from that of a soldier in a military action that you won't need to worry about the distinction or coming up with special rules for specific weapons.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you're not sure about it just ask the player whether they want the 'javelins' their Roman-themed character uses to be one-shot affairs with a chance of disabling a shield if they hit it, or just a standard throwing-spear designed to kill stuff.

What the player wants might be relevant to the DM's decision, depending upon the DM. The point is that the player can't just go ahead and make the change unilaterally, either with the expectation that the effect will be entirely cosmetic, nor the expectation that it'll have mechanical effects - he is 'entitled' to neither. The DM is empowered to decide whether any given change is acceptable (for instance, as always, whether it's campaign-appropriate), and whether/what effects they might have down the line.

 

[Saeviomagy]

What the player wants might be relevant to the DM's decision, depending upon the DM. The point is that the player can't just go ahead and make the change unilaterally, either with the expectation that the effect will be entirely cosmetic, nor the expectation that it'll have mechanical effects.

In any group I've been in, the player would be free to make the change and assume it would be entirely cosmetic. Might there be a discussion about that cosmetic change at a future date? Sure. But that's not edition or system specific, and it's more likely to be about whether the flavour is appropriate to the campaign than assigning extra rules to a reflavoured item.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In any group I've been in...

...and in others, it might be different, because it's a matter of DM judgment.

The DM is empowered to decide whether any given change is acceptable (for instance, as always, whether it's campaign-appropriate), and whether/what effects they might have down the line.

But that's not edition or system specific, and it's more likely to be about whether the flavour is appropriate to the campaign than assigning extra rules to a reflavoured item.

Sure, I acknowledged that the campaign-appropriate veto was always a possibility in ever edition when you first brought it up. I have not asserted otherwise.

What is system specific is how the fluff & crunch is presented and how readily the two can be teased out - and how much latitude the DM has in ruling on both. In 3.5, the DM had less latitude - Rule 0 be damned, it was RAW uber alles. In 4e, the fluff of powers was segregated, and open to player change, and the crunch jargon-loaded. In 5e, it's natural language and rulings not rules - the DM is more clearly empowered than in the other two modern editions.