Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Captain Panda" data-source="post: 7925113" data-attributes="member: 6861845">Maybe it's time to hit reset a bit and try to actually understand where everyone is coming from. So, at MaxPerson, Saelorn, Ad_Hoc, I have a few cases I want to run by you and genuinely get your opinion on. I have a few hypothetical characters here, ranging in the scale they alter fluff:Example 1: A barbarian, mechanically, who is a rural peasant who flies into a rage and fights with exceptional vigor on behalf of the lower class, and harbors a hatred of the nobility. I'd call this a minor refluff.Example 2: A bard, mechanically, who is flavored as a mage with no musical skills at all. They have a keen interest in magical theory and see themselves as an unconventional wizard sussing out the secrets of magic from many traditions. Basically a bard who is flavored like a more traditional caster. The two are fairly close mechanically to begin with, so I'd call this a moderate refluff. Example 3: A druid, mechanically, who is played in the style of Radagast, complete with a bunny sled. Radagast is more of a wizard who is attuned to nature than a druid, so I'd call this a moderate to high refluff. Example 4: A monk, mechanically, who is  a hobbit farmer who brawls and hits people with his hoe and utilizes old family fighting traditions ("Aunt Winnifred's Crotch Punch" for stunning strike, as an example). This departs pretty drastically from the monk flavor, so I'd call this a heavy refluff.Example 5: A paladin, mechanically, who is flavored to be a mechanical assassin who unleashes surges of energy through his weapons in the form of energy blasts on a hit (to replace smites), and who swears no oath. I'd call this an extreme reflavor. Now in all cases the underlying integrity of the mechanics is unchanged. All that has changed is the aesthetics, the flavor. Flavor and aesthetics can be important. That said, I'd allow everything from 1-4 and still consider it in the spirit of the game. Even 5 could fit at some tables, depending on the setting, and might make sense for a warforged paladin in Eberron.Would you be opposed to allowing these examples? If yes to some and no to others, at what point do you think the refluffing has gone too far? If no to all of them, do you not see why that position is an unpopular one?I argue that reflavoring a class (within reason, and suited to the setting) is not only in the spirit of the rules, but is a player actively showing initiative and putting effort into the game. I've seen a lot of people who threw a character together and just played Generic Monk#17 (which is not to say every monk who is very close to the PHB flavor does that, but it does happen), but someone who takes the time to redefine all the fluff to make sense for a rural hobbit is someone who has taken time to really delve into their character and put work in. As a DM, I wish every player would do that. Making a character your own is a good thing. That's actually one of the lines I do draw in the sand. You can't just look like one existing race and use the stats of another. If someone wants to be something unique, however, and they have what I judge to be a good reason, I'm willing to let them use the existing stats of a race that resembles their idea.</blockquote>

Verification