People who follow every item description by the book instead of refluffing to whatever fits the character, theme...

>oh yeah traveler's clothes look like
>battered and worn cloth sack
Perfectly acceptable.

>Shit like a Fly spell being some peter pan shit instead of letting the player have an illusion thing that gives him "wings" despite the spell acting exactly the same
Your GM should punch you in the balls.

I forgot to say, "unless the item is exactly what you want it to look like and does its job", specially if it's stuff like in where things are serialized product that fit an already-existing world, but even then if you have a cyberdeck that looks exactly the same as every other cyberdeck of that particular model without any chance of it being customized visually with stickers or whatever then you're missing the point of narrative

those are great narrative elements though, but i understand what you mean
I let my players refluff their spells if they tell me beforehand so I know what to describe it as, but I've played and known GMs that don't allow it because "they look different and thus it's an advantageous trick from the caster to avoid getting their spells recognized" which is bullshit because you're in control of the narrative and you can say shit like "yeah magic reflects the caster so while certain spells function exactly the same and are easily recognizable by their utility every spell looks different"

I AM the GM.

again not what i'm arguing here
but if you want that same 10ft pole to have little carvings of dicks hey be my guest as long as it's still a 10ft pole, THAT'S what i mean

>Your GM should punch you in the balls.

Not that guy, but literally why? That's on par with having your magic missile be blue instead of yellow

No it isn't. It's on par with going from having a character that can fly around to a character that can sprout wings and fly around. It's a whole extra function. It's a completely new power that the spell provides.

This is how a play Sorcerers, but fluffed as Fighters.

>It's on par with going from having a character that can fly around to a character that can fly around.

Woah...

And trying to argue with a GM that it's just "refluffing" is the reason that your GM has the moral authority and god-given right to punch you in the balls. Same with the frost-saber to magic-bottle-sword. Or "I want to pay for and use a rapier, but it's a scimmitar."

You're not re fluffing. You're asking for a fundamental change in what the item/spell does. And you're trying to pass it off as re-fluffing. Hence nut-punch-o-rama.

>I just realized I'm wrong, but I can change what you said in greentext and pretend that I'm not, any more.

but i'm not wrong, you're saying that someone who can fly gets a bonus for having illusory wings because ????
you're not making any sense my dude

>10 ft pole with tiny dick carving
Perfectly acceptable. As long as there is no implied or explicit change in the utility of the item in question, then you can really describe it as anything you want.

>despite the spell acting exactly the same
Since there is no change in function, I see no issue with a player saying "yeah I sprout wings and fly" vs "yeah I'm surrounded by gay golden sparkles and fly".

>sprout wings

Illusory wings, wise guy

>It's a whole extra function

It's a whole extra function that A) is actually bad in some ways because it'd be less difficult to hide the use of the spell, and B) can be done with cantrips anyway.

>using rules

>Or "I want to pay for and use a rapier, but it's a scimmitar."

>You're asking for a fundamental change in what the item/spell does.

How is that a fundamental change? It's literally asking to use a weapon that is functionally nearly similar to another one, but call it the shape of the other.

In 5e, the differences between a Rapier and Scimitar are the same as the differences between a Longsword and a Shortsword.

What is wrong with the player calling their Rapier a 'Long Scimitar' and using the Rapier stats? It changes nothing except making it more fluffy when their desert dwelling raider has a fitting weapon instead of something out of renaissance Europe

You can keep pretending not to understand why you're wrong.

But you are.

There is a change in function. Your character now has an appearance-altering magical effect, in addition to the other effect. You're asking for an extra power: the ability to change your character's appearance.

>is actually bad in some ways because it'd be less difficult to hide the use of the spell
But it's still extra functionality. That's not a re-fluff. That's adding in a whole new power.
>can be done with cantrips anyway.
Correct! So cast the cantrip, motherfucker. We're not gonna change the spell just because some other spell exists to do the thing that you're asking for this spell to also do. The fact that it's a cantrip is WHY you can't have your spell also do this.

In my book the dick carvings add a bonus to charisma and penetration

>functionally nearly similar to another one, but call it the shape of the other.
Functionally similar is not functionally same. That's not a refluff.

>being this much of an asspie nigger.

>being this much of a faggy player who wants the entire game we play together to be reshaped into his the images appearing in his spank-bank.

Yes, it literally is. They're functionally the same.

>Long scimitar 1d8 damage, Finesse, one-handed
>Rapier 1d8 damage, Finesse, one-handed

That is the literal definition of a refluff

Well at that point we have an explicit change in the function of the item. Which I realize now that I should have said "function" originally rather than "utility.

>pic related

And the cantrip can do many, many, many, many many more things when it comes to creating illusions compared to the extremely narrow thing of creating a set of wings.

It isn't some 'added function'. It's just changing how the spell looks in a detrimental way.

>being a humorless autist who legitimately reeeees at badwrongfun

Holy shit. You're the first person I've ever met on Veeky Forums who I legitimately think has autism

Well, and here I was thinking that OP's thread was pointless, since surely nobody on Veeky Forums would be autistic enough to do the thing he was complaining about.

Better enjoy your brown traveller clothes. Can't have them be green or red or blue since that might offer a bonus or penalty to stealth in certain locations and we can't have that.

5e's weapon set is dumb. A scimitar should be the slashing equivalent of a rapier instead of being exactly the same as a shortsword.

Better hope your fighter looks identical to the one in the book, too. Giving them big muscles and a loincloth would make them more intimidating, thus breaking the balance of my pretend board game.

Jumping into the conversation. It's not strictly detrimental, for example it could invoke awe in people or make you more attractive. It's also kinda snowflakey in a way that some people can't stand.

It's not that big deal though, if you were otherwise a cool player I'd say "sure".

>Help! Help! They're changing minor narrative details of my narrative-heavy hobby in order to add flavor and variety to help make characters unique!

Yeah, but invoking awe could still be done just as easily with any other spell, or just the fact that you can fly in the first place. Since the wings are clearly illusory and not an actual illusion intended to fool anyone, the only people who would get tricked into thinking you're an angel or powerful being are those who have never seen an angel or magic before in their lives, at which point any spell would work.

The snowflake nature of it is avoided if you say just 'wings' and not 'angel wings', but bird wings on the back of a person often look like angel wings regardless of shape. Perhaps if they followed the arm instead, like a harpy?

Either way, I'd argue the downsides of being a more visible target or having them shine through if you have to suddenly hide would be a more relevant downside.

Im with you on everything but the sword example. A sword's a sword. If my DM habded me that dumb shit itd only NOT be immediately in the sell pile because it could arguably be useful for sneaking a weapon into plaves where they don't want you to have one.

Also, I would allow that if someone wanted to make it, but it'd have- gasp- mechanical drawbacks. It'd be more expensive, more fragile, and not eligible for quickdraw. On the other hand, it wouldn't be susceptible to rust monsters, be wieldable by druids, and be relatively easy to sneak into places. If you change the fluff, which is fine, mechanics change too. It might still be a +2 flameburat sciimitar, but if the sword is made of rubies expect to have people trying to steal it and expect to have to do more maintenance than usual. Immersion is good.

>Phoneposting

Why did I even try

Im gonna be that guy here and say ones peircing and ones slashing. But also IDGAF what players use as long as they're having fun whenever i DM. You want a spear thats like a halberd stats but pericing? Sure w/e. Its a short lance or a great spear. You want your maul to do piercing damage because its two giant spikes on a stick? Works for me.
Does it really matter if you make the game more fun?

I've yet to even really see a circumstance where damage type really comes up in 5e. Maybe against skeletons? Still seems really situational and swaping one for another won't help in that regard.

Yeah, playing 2e has made me realize that damage types don't really matter any more. Noone has the balls to wrote "non-bludgening weapons deal only one damage" in the "special defence" section anymore.

Yeah, from a quick search, it seems like very few things in the Monster manual care. All the Skeletons are vulnerable to bludgeoning, along with Ice Mephits. Some of the Oozes are immune to Slashing entirely, Treants resist both aside from Slashing, and Xorn resist both aside from bludgeoning as long as they're nonmagical.

So the only time I can see any consistent advantage is when you change a non-bludgeoning weapon into a bludgeoning one, since the only one of these I could see anyone fighting with any regularity would be Skeletons.

It's rules, you MTP-loving bastard.

>2ed D&D
>"Hey, can I trip that fucker who tries to bypass me?"
>"Sure, man. Roll, umm, Strength."
>3ed D&D
>"Hey, can I trip that fucker who tries to bypass me?"
>"Do you have Combat Reflexes?"
>"Erhm, no"
>"Then don't fucking try this bullshit with me, motherfucker"

Some of us got tired of the endless bitching over what constituted "minor mechanical implications" and what's just trying to get around the rules, or having to try and explain to new people why Dave gets an attack at 1d4 + Dex and another at 1d4 because he's using daggers, but Angie is making a single attack at 1d10 because her "daggers" are actually a refluffed halberd that we're just like "Fuck it, I'll solve it all. No more fucking refluffing period."

I wish it wasn't like that, but that's why it is.

The real problem is that at some point the fucker that wanted the wings is going to try and use them to pass for Aasimar or fake being a celestial messenger or something else that is not in any way intended to be part of the Fly spell and whine when they can't do it because it "just makes sense."

Threads like this drive me to drink. What the fuck is wrong with people that refluffing is suddenly illegal? Its not the fucking autism, I've got that and I don't get that bad.
Y'all need an actual game, not some min-maxing theory bullshit that never leaves the dungeon.
People these days don't like crafting exceptions to rules.
>I wanna trip this fucker if he moves past me
>you got combat reflexes?
>no
>roll dex at -2, aim for his ref+10 (or whatever you target for a trip attempt these days)
Boom, done.

Your group sounds like a bunch of aspies

He said its an illusion, so you can't touch the wings, no one can attack the wings, and no one can see the wings

And I'm sure the imaginary group in your head that represent your only friends are such great players it would never come up.

>hey can I use these wings to try and bluff being a celestial messenger
>sure, but you have disadvantage because they're illusory wings and don't look substantial or physical

Wow, how dare that fucker ruin the game by trying to roleplay or do stuff. He's going to ruin everything by trying to disguise as something he isn't by using a level 3 spell instead of a lower level one that's specifically designed to do disguises and illusions even better.

>"I'd just let him do it, because fuck the rules, am I right? Hell, describe shit good enough and I might decide to give *you* free spells!"

That's how they get, yes. I don't know that guy but trying to game the system is what at least 2 or 3 of dudes I've played with do.

If someone gaining marginal, highly situational benefit from a spell reskinning somehow throws a wrench into the game then maybe there's a problem with the system you're using (or more likely the campaign that you're running).

Welcome to roleplaying games, genius! No, I'm not going to be all grumpy because someone who wanted to have a cooler-looking flight spell decided to use it for the incredibly narrow task of trying to trick idiots into thinking they're an angel.

Would you also get upset if somebody used Burning hands to light a campfire instead of a cantrip?

Step 1: Ignore rules
Step 2: Blame system for not working
Step 3: Shitpost about it

No, dumbfuck, because the spell actually says "The fire ignites any flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried."

Read the fucking book before you start changing shit, you complete mong. You don't even know what fucking rules you're trying to change do.

Those feats and spells exist specifically to give you options, and if you just give those options away without making them pay resources for that then you're breaking the game in half and spoiling your players.
And if you give those options for free to some players yet allow others to pay for them then you're being a cunt. Picks are limited and extremely impactful.

this thread is why D&D is shit

The game's fine. It's the community that needs an overhaul.

D&D is the best system for what it does. You're just an entitled bitch with zero gumption.

You're still not getting it, are you? I'm fine with changing the flight spell to have illusory wings, because it's copying 1% of the functionality of a fucking cantrip.

Because any player who actually plans on pretending to be an angel effectively is going to use a lower level spell, not the highest level one.

If you want to light a campfire, you use a basic fire cantrip of literally any kind. You could use burning hands, but why would you?

Similarly, if you just want to pretend to be an angel, you can illusion yourself up some angel wings. And the best part is those won't have the same disadvantage the obviously-fake ones from the Fly spell would have.

Ideally, you'd want to use multiple spells in any case, both to make yourself capable of flight, and to give yourself a full angel disguise, rather than just looking like a Wizard with magic wings.

What part of this are you not cramming into your thick skull? Yes, I know the rules. No, I'm not about to shut down a neat idea just because

>B-but muh RAW
>B-b-but muh story! What if he ruins muh railroad by disguising as an angel with the wrong spell?
>N-nobody else better ever agree to change these rules! I mean it!

Those feats and spell give you those options with minimal or no penalties. I'll allow you to replicate them, but at a cost of higher failure chance and other possible drawbacks. Got the feat? No additional problems. I'm not going to go "no, you can't use this tactical option because you didn't pay the mechanical tax".

>wasting a higher level spell for the added effect they wanted instead of the cantrip for illusion that does basically the same effect is wrong, not because the player is an idiot who doesn't know his tools, but because he decided to refluff his higher level spell

epic, absolutely epic

Altering something minor to suit the interests of your game or one of your players =/= Ignoring rules.

Perhaps try reading the introduction to virtually every RPG ever written that describes how the rules are flexible guidelines?

Then you break the game. The whole set of options is already described before the feat section, just adding whatever devalues the feats.

tfw you're trying to troll but the system is bad enough that breaking it makes it better

I'm not saving you from the consequences of your poor decisions. Obviously.

But I'm also not giving you free shit on top of what the rules say you get. In actual games, not that you'd know, you only get a limited number of spells, and what they do is clear. If you don't take a cantrip, you don't get that cantrip's benefit. If you choose one weapon over another, you choose that weapons stats.

I don't give a shit if this causes anal chafing. You get what you get and you don't throw a fit.

At that point, I really have to wonder why you even want them at all

Counterargument: all of this is narrative and imaginary. Read: not real.

If I'm GMing and I want to allow a player to do something, I have the choice, the right, and the capability to decide whether or not it works a certain way. I, for one, like magic to always have an illusory effect unless stated otherwise, because that's how I want magic to look like in my games/settings. The game doesn't say that, but I do, and the world (and the game!) runs as I say it does, in the same way that I could decide to ignore or modify certain rules or aspects of the mechanics to have a better overall experience with my players.

Aren't RPGs beautiful?

God forbid someone "breaks" this game that as we know is already 100% perfectly balanced in every way when played as written.

>If you don't take a cantrip, you don't get that cantrip's benefit.

And this altered flight spell also doesn't get that cantrips benefit.

It creates a weird glowy magic-looking pair of bird wings.

Unlike minor illusion, it can't create wings that look real. It can't make a different type of wings. It can't make the infinite array of objects that aren't wings. It can't create any sounds of any kind.

You're complaining that a player asked for 1% of a cantrip for free, and then that they dared to bring it up during play.

Better also not let anyone purchase any clothes that aren't rulebook-approved boring brown. Changing the color of things is a minor aspect of Prestidigitation, and it would be against the rules to hand that out for free.

D&D is funny like that. I actually had to look up the rules again, its been that long since I last played 3.5, and I went "ah, okay. I'll still give multiple aoo, but as I already said, with a cumulative -2 penalty for each after the first. Combat reflexes just delays the onset of the penalties, and I won't dock you an action next turn if you take a shit ton of them". But I'm sure someone will scream at me to stop playing since I like giving players options.

>people who think their character is such a special snowflake that they need to tailor every item to be _exactly_ in line with their envisioned Mary Sue

>No! Your character has to wear shit brown clothes covered in shit! If you don't look as generic as possible, I will REEEEEE

How dare you make sense

Like, do you not enjoy earning anything? It's worlds more satisfying to start small and earn each of those parts of your character, not to just fiat it at the start.

Lemme guess, you probably the 'The Conjuring' films are good horror, and that IPAs are the best beers?

4e. Dullest magic item set in existence. Re-"fluffing" is a must.

>Like, do you not enjoy earning anything? It's worlds more satisfying to start small and earn each of those parts of your character, not to just fiat it at the start.

To use examples from this thread, are you really suggesting that it's not okay for a dex based character from a land where everyone mainly uses scimitars and other curved blades to want one that has the stats of a Rapier? He has to start with either a shitty option or take a European sword instead of just having something that fits his character?

That you can't just let someone describe a small visual effect of their spell? That if I cast Light it can't be blue or green, because by RAW it casts light like a torch, so it has to be the same color as fire?

There's a difference between earning stuff and making small tweaks to basic shit to fit your character better.

wow d&d is the best system to run specifically d&d. what an accomplishment.

My GM will crucify me.

Oh, would you look at this from literally the very first page of the 5e DMG.

>rule 0 excuses everything
I'm going to create the best RPG system in the entire world in one post
The one and only rule: You get to decide the rules
Fucking wow, were the fuck is my decades of market share and cultural recognition?

Nowhere, because you gave it away for free on the internet instead of publishing it before the internet existed and filling it with a baseline ruleset that people could modify or add to.

And of course, you do realize that using rule 0 to create new magic items or alter the visual appearance of things is a far cry from trying to use it to excuse the flaws of a bad game, right?

Like, using rule 0 to try and fix FATAL and say it's good would be stupid. Using it to decide that the fighter's flaming longsword can function as a torch despite the item description in the rulebook not saying so because it makes sense and you as a DM want to allow it is fine.

I've literally seen anons on Veeky Forums say that D&D can run any kind of game and do it well because of rule 0.

>b-but these dumb people used rule 0 to justify something stupid!
>that means every use of rule 0 is dumb!

Is that really the argument you want to go with? You're going to tell me that I'm some sort of terrible person because I felt like telling a player his flaming weapon could light a room?

Considering you can basically say your character does whatever you say they do, but the end mechanical result is the same, plus or minus a circumstance bonus, does it really matter if one guys Fly spell is Peter Pan, another is Wings, or another is scrapping together a Jetpack?

You are objectively in the right and likely a fun GM to play with
Why do you feel obligated to argue with obtuse retards ?

Then you've been hanging around in the wrong threads. I remember a post several months ago where someone said they were going to run a gundam game in d&d, and literally every other post in the thread was asking them what the fuck they were thinking or providing other system ideas.

I refluffed a Backpack to fit a Centaur character. I'm not sure if that's what OP means, but all it really does is hang off of his horse half rather than his human half.