Do you, as a GM, allow players to modify certain things about premade weapons, spells, etc?
Things like "Can I use a Khopesh that mechanically functions as a Scimitar?" or "Can I use this spell which has X element but with Y element instead?" or are you more a "by the book" GM? Pic unrelated.
I don't let them rebrand weapons unless they're functionally similar and not already covered by the books. For spells, they make their own to begin with, so that's not really a concern (they still require my approval, of course). There are plenty of rules for modifying equipment/weapons and extensive armor design rules, too, so it's not something I need to do work for besides making sure it's in line with the game.
Sure, as long as they're willing to take a penalty. So they can use a Khopesh that mechanically functions as a scimitar if they are OK with have a -1 to hit, for example, or they can change the element on one of their learned spells if they're OK with it doing 1 less damage per dice, etc. If you're getting something you gotta give something up.
>Do you, as a GM, allow players to modify certain things about premade weapons, spells, etc?
Absolutely, I prefer playing systems where doing that is just no big deal to begin with. I can see how it could lead to problems for more complex ones.
The scimitar one is a given. Why the fuck do druids have scimitars in DnD? Fuck you gygax.
If it makes sense and unless the game gives you those options already. e.g.
>Can I use a Khopesh that mechanically functions as a Scimitar?
Yes, unless a khopesh would be unheard of in the setting or there already exist khopeshes that are mechanically different from scimitars. Though I would be unlikely to be running a game where the rules care about different styles of sword.
>So they can use a Khopesh that mechanically functions as a scimitar if they are OK with have a -1 to hit
why? what's the tradeoff they're making here, except character flavour for mechanical effectiveness?
>character flavour for mechanical effectiveness?
That is the trade off, faggot.
shit gm detected
You are not a good person.
Obviously, as long as the player doesn't horribly over-abuse this shit. In fact, reflavoring and rebranding items/weapons/spells/pets is a form of active roleplaying, that the groups I GM to severely lack.
I hope nobody has the misfortune of playing in your shit games.
You're punishing players for creating flavor.
Is it time for the powergamer faggots to whine already? All I did was answer the question, calm your tits.
I think you are confused about who is the faggot.
The only thing that's being punished is the board's post quality when people eat up this shitty quality bait.
There is a low chance he's even running a game, and a near-zero chance he's actually punishing people mechanically for refluffing their spells and weapons. It was the perfect bair for a thread like this because everyone will oppose the idea of punishing customisation at such a fundamental level that they reply without actually stopping to fucking think.
Ree.
somebody give me a bait.jpg
...
There's more stupid people than trolls.
Bait is a meme.
People really do live like this.
This is what humanity truly is.
Depends on the tone of the game.
In the dungeoncrawl game, yes. Because it's basically about me running the adventure as written and they are trying to have a good time despite that.
In the social game set in modern london that's abaot 4 teenagers figuring out what to do with no cash, no dignity and no trade skills, no. You are absolutely fucking not allowed to change how what you just found looks, smells, feels or sings like. If it's a burning sword, there's a fucking reason why it's a sword made of fire. There's a reason for the fire, and that reason is not "Adam thinks it would look cooler with electricity." It's something along the lines of "it's an angels sword and it's holy fire. Not holy lightning. Zeus did not have angels."
...
>bait is a meme
Nigger when I'm bored I go on /pol/ and pretend to be a FBI psi-op dropping subconscious suggestion code phrases. Baiting/trolling/flamebaiting is as old as the internet.
Well, answer this question since you're in the mood,then. What makes you think it's a good idea to penalize creativity? Don't you see how you're slowly etching it out of your players' heads pulling this dumb shit?
That's an incredibly boring thing to bait responses over.
I like to give all but the most flagrant trolls the benefit of the doubt, you can't carry on any kind of conversation if you're constantly second-guessing this shit.
Why would setting matter?
I get that found loot shouldn't be modified, it might be relevant to something later on. Maybe you've got plans for a fire themed encounter later on. I get that.
But if I go to a shop and ask to purchase a lightning sword during a resupply because I think it would be neat, why would the tone of the game make you say "There's only flaming swords on sale".
I legit don't understand. Can you maybe re-phrase it?
Yes, I've realised that if the two things are functionally similar it makes no difference to the game.Visual stuff especially. Look a D&D 5e warlock, the suggested chain pact familiar for archfiend patron warlocks is an imp, which is miles better in every way, stats and abilities wise, than the suggested fey patron familiars. I'm of the opinion that a warlock player, and a chain pact one at that, doesn't need a nerf just because he prefers the aesthetic of the fey patron to the fiend patron in terms of what suits the character he wants to play, so now if you want to play a chainlock at my table you can just take the imp statblock for your familiar and choose what it looks like yourself, doing it the normal way just gets in the way of some players for no good reason.
Depends.
>Can I use a Khopesh that mechanically functions as a Scimitar?
Weapon A that isn't in the ruleset that functions exactly like Weapon B which is in the ruleset. Sure, as long as Weapon A is comparable to Weapon B. Khopeshes and Scimitars are similar enough, so that would be a freebie in my group. Just be nice enough to ask about it before the game starts, and I'll give it to you.
Heck, I'll give rangers similar enough animal companions if they really want it. You want a goat for story reasons but don't want to suck in combat? Stat it like a boar. You want a lion, but are willing to give up potential combat potential for the sake of character design? Stat it like a panther.
>Spell with X element that has Y element instead
This is going to need a pretty good explanation. Spells are already pretty good by themselves, and are usually balanced around which element they use. Ever notice how fire spells tend to be the strongest? Its because (in D&D) the most common resistance is fire, and other elements bring other utility aspects to them.
you are a bad person
You have sharp eyes, stranger.
In my current game, I have a Storm Sorcerer whom I am allowing to learn Lightning rather than Fire version of various spells that deal Fire damage. He can't use them for any fire-related effects nor deal fire damage with them, however.
Since he's a Sorcerer and strapped for spells to begin with, I don't think it's going to unbalance the game.
>"Can I use a Khopesh that mechanically functions as a Scimitar?"
I mean, I guess? But why not just use a scimitar?
...
...
Specifically for D&D? Whatever.
In good games where there is actually a difference? No way.
As a GM there are some weapons I change the rules of. Hookswords should be exotic weapons and do d6 damage IMO, not d4 martial weapons. You try to use those like a normal sword and you're just gonna bend the hook and not get their proper potential, they need specific training, and I'm inclined to think they inflict worse wounds than a dagger.
>where there is actually a difference?
There's a difference in D&D, though.
For most weeb type weapons, I consider them monk weapons, so same stats as whatever weapon I find closest, so hooksword = monk shortsword, katana = monk longsword, naginata = monk glaive, etc.
As long as it's balanced and the fluff remains consistent, of course
I'm perfectly happy to let players refluff things.
But if your spell that used to have a diamond for a component is now gonna use pocket lint?
Not so much.
Yeah. When I run PF I let players who want to play a crossbow wielder, I give them the option to just use bow stats as long as they have bow prof.
>Granularity
>Good
user, I don't think we run in the same circles. Know any other aliens I can hook up with?
NO BECAUSE THE KHOPESH IS CLEARLY A TYPE OF AXE
To an extent, yes.
At the same time however, I imagine you could do certain fantasy parries with a khopesh you couldn't with an axe.
Offensively an axe, defensively a scimitar?
It might be worth looking at the scimitar and axe stats and seeing if there's a compromise to be made.
>Taking a debuff for a cosmetic
Generally yes. For the spells specifically, I'd let them change it when they learn it, or after some retraining and not just when you find yourself against something that resists it. Which comes to the next instance, if you want to, say, change a Fire spell to Poison that's fine, but if you want it to deal Force or Radiant, it will have to take a damage hit for game balance.
>"Can I use a Khopesh that mechanically functions as a Scimitar?"
I would need to understand why you would want to do this which I currently do not. Anyway, I wouldnt if the Scimitar and the Kopesh are mechanically different. How come your Scimitar doesnt have as high a crit range and gets to trip people? Makes no sense.
>"Can I use this spell which has X element but with Y element instead?"
Sure, if it makes sense and doesnt have a mechanic benefit that you would get for nothing. Spell Components usually are pretty abstract and tend to not matter anyway.
>I would need to understand why you would want to do this which I currently do not. Anyway, I wouldnt if the Scimitar and the Kopesh are mechanically different. How come your Scimitar doesnt have as high a crit range and gets to trip people? Makes no sense.
it's specifically on games that have vague or generic weapons - of course that if the designers did take it in account and they are mechanically different i wouldn't allow it, but if there's no khopesh and you want to use it as a scimitar "skin" then why not, yknow
Without knowing what game you're playing, answering is pointless.
Crunchy games require keeping things discrete, while narrative games treat most everything the same except for flavor.
In that case I would rather make up stats for a Khopesh that are mechanically different from a Scimitar and let you use that. Isnt it all about simulation?
most of the time it's just about playing and narrating a story, not necessarily simulation
>You want a goat for story reasons but don't want to suck in combat? Stat it like a boar.
goats are already in the MM though if i remember right
at least rams are
Evocation spells suck anyway, I'll allow it without much problems, unless they want untyped, Force, Hellfire or other cheesy type damage.
Yah. A sword is a sword is a sword. The only time weapons are different enough to justify mechanical differences is when dealing with size, nominally, or some truly outlandish things like a giant hook at the tip that can be used to grapple things.
If two weapons are both "flat metal blades of roughly the same length who both rely on stabbing or cutting for damage" then they might as well have the same stats.
Weapon refluffs don't change anything mechanically so I don't care what you want your weapon to be. Changing elements is actually a big deal mechanically so that one I won't give out for free.
>Inflicting penalties for roleplaying
Why do you breath?
If it's that freeform, it doesnt matter what you're calling the weapon you're using. Sure. Have your "Khopesh".
I think its more fun when mechanics reflect the fantasy.
...
Talking about the khopesh to scimitar example, in Pathfinder a khopesh is an exotic one handed slashing weapon that is d8, 19-20 x2 crit and has the trip property. A scimitar is a d6 martial one handed slashing weapon, 18-20 x2 crit with no extra property.
Exotic weapons require a feat for that type of weapon to be proficient with it, so being mechanically a scimitar would avoid that. Proficiency with martial weapons is gained by lots of classes.
The feat Dervish Dance requires a scimitar in one hand, lets you get Dex to hit and damage instead of using STR, and lets you treat it as a piercing weapon for the sake of other prereqs. A magus wanting to use a different weapon for a dex build might ask this because literally every dex magus is forced to use a scimitar for this dex to damage feat. Magus builds are already stuck on one handed weapon builds, so having any variety at all is welcome. I'd allow it.
The scimitar is also something between an axe and a sword, so is a falchion.
Depends on how big the change is and if the game already has rules for the thing they're asking for. If the system has rules for rifles and crossbows but the player wants their crossbow to do rifle damage, no can do. If the specific sword they want isn't statted, I'll let the take the closest thing to their sword. No, you can't have a stick that does damage like a bastard sword (unless you get a wizard to make it a magic stick).
For changing a fireball into an iceball or whatever, I might make a metamagic feat that allows them to prepare spells as different elements but cost a higher slot or whatever.
>"Can I use a Khopesh that mechanically functions as a Scimitar?
Do you think the person who wrote the rules for this system had a nuanced understanding of the relative tradeoffs of two swords that were used a thousand years apart from each other? Or do you think they made some shit up and gave the more exotic properties to the wackier looking weapon?