D&D 5E Yes, No, Warlord

[Aldarc]

With the EK and AT in the game, a spell-casting archetype is almost inevitable. Or an adjunct to the Healer feat or a Background or something for dealing with more esoteric/out-of-combat sorts of 'healing' that any character who wanted to deal with poison, blindness, treating diseases, lifting curses and the like could take in a party that lacked a CoDoBoP to pray/sing those little annoyances away.

Some maneuvers may even require 'concentration' to maintain, which could be another check or limiter on more powerful maneuvers. Or these 'concentration maneuvers' may be more akin to fighting stances, stratagems, combat presence, or some other sub-type of maneuver.

 

[Tony Vargas]

..and I'm back, turns out is was a simple procedure...

But yeah I guess instead of actually addressing the question,

I did address your questions. Yes the DM needs to buy into an optional class. Yes, there is a difference between that and extensively re-skinning/re-tooling a class to match a character concept. The former is much quicker & easier for all involved. Also, good classes spark character ideas.

I left the humor under an sblock so as to make the answers easy to see.

hyperbole and sarcasm/humor is the way to further the conversation....

It breaks up the monotony a bit. And it /does/ illustrate that, no, adapting a caster into a non-caster is not nearly as straightforward and simple as saying yes or no to an optional class.

But it's really not an exaggeration, I've seen must simpler issues take much longer to resolve. Gamers can debate. You've participated in the long debates around here, multiple that by ever table to try to adapt an existing class or homebrew one, vs just a simple yes/no to an optional class in print.

In what case it wouldn't work? "Fluffing" something to look different is what I described. You are describing "crunching" which is bending rules to make something different. Re-fluffing is perfectly fine and has absolutely no effect on the game.

even though I'm seriously wondering what makes 5e so much harder to re-skin??

You jumped straight to DM fiat. If you are talking about /just/ re-skinning, then, you need the mechanics to work right for the new fluff. Re-skin magic as not-magic and you've got a non-magical thing that can be dispelled. Change /that/ and you've gone beyond just re-skinning. D&D has never been up for quite that much reskinning, even in 4e, you couldn't re-skin to the point of changing source keywords and the like, not without things getting screwy and needing some rules revision, as well.

It's just the 5e design paradigm, they're not designing anything to be a generic effect that you can just append any fluff to, the process and the result are mixed to a degree, so you do come into all these questions of how & why. If you're not just pushing it to the level of burning the rulebook, that is.


Now, of course, the contrary question: What's the difference between turning down a player who wants to use an optional class, and turning down one who wants to extensively re-skin & re-design an existing one?

The difference between:

"Can I play optional class W from supplement M?" "No."

and

"Can I play a character who's kinda like a bard but not really, and kinda like a Battlemaster but not really, but more a hybrid but not multiclassed per se, and who does some of the cool stuff bards can do but without magic, and three of the not-that-cool things the battlemaster can do but a little better, and some other things neither the bard nor the battlemaster can do, and still without magic?" "Heck No."


What is so difficult about that?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Some maneuvers may even require 'concentration' to maintain, which could be another check or limiter on more powerful maneuvers. Or these 'concentration maneuvers' may be more akin to fighting stances, stratagems, combat presence, or some other sub-type of maneuver.

Stances were a pretty cool mechanic, yes. Or you could have a 'focus' mechanic from Bo9S, or a 'momentum' one like the rogue in 13A - there's any number of ways you might limit maneuvers without resorting to x/rest or faux components or anything.

 

[ZickZak]

If you are talking about /just/ re-skinning, then, you need the mechanics to work right for the new fluff. Re-skin magic as not-magic and you've got a non-magical thing that can be dispelled.

You didnt read what I said.
"You are describing "crunching" which is bending rules to make something different."
"Changing magical healing to non-magical is already a crunch and that is where your DM has to approve."

Changing keywords and mechanics is crunching and as such is effectively homebrewing, as you said.
Fluffing is something ONLY in your imagination. Let s get that straight. There is a guide in 4e PHB or DM somewhere.

Is this change purely cosmetic, or does it alter the mechanics in any way?

• If the answer is no, and the change is purely cosmetic - go for it.
• If the change involves even a minor change to how something functions mechanically - that crosses the line into houseruling

 

[pemerton]

Aside from the fact that inspirational and magical healing differs only in "counterspelled and anti-magiced", which can be fixed by the DM no problem... you can create fighter human with half-elf racials running around half naked with plate armor stats with a magical lightsaber scythe shooting lasers out of his eyes and it still fits the rules.

What is the problem with any of that? Human has half-elf racials - does that break the game? No. It is a half-elf (same size) that you, players, imagine as a human.
Plate armor stats while naked - the character is a dysfunctional person who is mentally able to put his leather pants with bells on in the morning ONLY if they are wet at the time. If he doesn't have the pants on during combat, he feels depressed and cant move very fast. The bells fix the stealth advantage and the rest putting on and off armor and the armor bonus.
Magical scythe and magical lasers out of eyes are irrelevant as long as you have magical weapons. In order to use the lasers the character needs to point with both free hands on the target.

Is this change purely cosmetic, or does it alter the mechanics in any way?

• If the answer is no, and the change is purely cosmetic - go for it.
• If the change involves even a minor change to how something functions mechanically - that crosses the line into houseruling

Making spells non-magical isn't purely cosmetic. Narrating plate armour stats as being naked is not purely cosmetic - as is illustrated by your own example, where it's not nakedness but a whole personality focused around pants with bells on.

In free descriptor-style games, the GM has to apply considerations of fictional positioning as part of the framing of any action resolution. (Eg in MHRP, Wolverine's player and the Punisher's player can both make action declarations involving the use of weapons, but because Wolverine's weapons are claws and the Punisher's weapons are guns, the constraints of fictional positioning are different.)

D&D has never been a free descriptor game in this sense (not even 4e). It has always integrated elements of fictional positioning directly into its mechanics - eg the rules around armour, melee vs ranged weapons, which stat can be used to attack with which sort of weapon, rules for interrupting/disrupting spell casting, etc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Apropos of nothing--am I the only one who saw the thread title and immediately thought "Win, Lose, or Warlord!"?

 

[ZickZak]

Making spells non-magical isn't purely cosmetic. Narrating plate armour stats as being naked is not purely cosmetic - as is illustrated by your own example, where it's not nakedness but a whole personality focused around pants with bells on.

In free descriptor-style games, the GM has to apply considerations of fictional positioning as part of the framing of any action resolution. (Eg in MHRP, Wolverine's player and the Punisher's player can both make action declarations involving the use of weapons, but because Wolverine's weapons are claws and the Punisher's weapons are guns, the constraints of fictional positioning are different.)

D&D has never been a free descriptor game in this sense (not even 4e). It has always integrated elements of fictional positioning directly into its mechanics - eg the rules around armour, melee vs ranged weapons, which stat can be used to attack with which sort of weapon, rules for interrupting/disrupting spell casting, etc.

Making spells non-magical isnt purely cosmetic - I agree, I said that like 4 times.

I have absolutely NO idea what you mean by the rest. Everything I said still applies. If you disagree, I would like an example where it s purely cosmetic and it doesnt work. My example with plate armor is cosmetic and works perfectly.

 

[pemerton]

I have absolutely NO idea what you mean by the rest. Everything I said still applies. If you disagree, I would like an example where it s purely cosmetic and it doesnt work.

Your example won't work perfectly if the table is using encumbrance rules - unless the bells are made of lead.

That's just one example of the more general point: D&D doesn't use free descriptors that get incorporated into abstract action resolution systems. The fiction is expressed through a whole lot of rules minutiae.

In the context of the warlord, a MC bard/cleric/whatever doesn't cut it, because it's not a non-magical inspirational character, and "refluffing" it as such is not purely cosmetic.

That's why some people would like a warlord option.

 

[Remathilis]

Apropos of nothing--am I the only one who saw the thread title and immediately thought "Win, Lose, or Warlord!"?

I keep reading like "Stop. Go. Pennzoil"

 

[ZickZak]

Your example won't work perfectly if the table is using encumbrance rules - unless the bells are made of lead.

The bells are made of plate armor scrap. Next.

Yes, fluffing doesn't work if you're trying to find loopholes.