Do you look at the bonus or the description?

Kzach

Banned
Banned
I was just looking through some backgrounds for an NPC companion character I was building for my group, and suddenly it struck me that I only ever look at the bonuses, not the descriptions.

Whether making NPC's or PC's, I'm a firm believer in making an effective character that contributes success to the group. But at the same time, I also love giving them quirky personalities and interesting backstories. In fact, I don't think I have a PC with less than a 1,000 word essay for his history (most are around 2,500 :D).

I never, however, feel constrained by the descriptions and often whilst reading Dragon or Dungeon articles with backgrounds in them, find the backgrounds to be pointless. After all, if I want a certain bonus, I'm not going to turn it down in favour of some fluff that I can just change to whatever suits the character.

And this attitude runs through all my decisions in character building, as both a DM and player. I often tell my players, "Don't let your imagination be restricted by what's on the page; if you want the bonuses of an Executioner's Axe but want to call it a greatsword, go right ahead, if you want dwarf stats but want to roleplay a human, that's fine too."

I figure as long as the rules balance out, ie. if you choose the stats of an executioner's axe, then for all rules purposes, it's an executioner's axe, the fluff doesn't change anything but what it looks like, then there's no reason to be restricted by the fluff.

So, do you look at the description or the bonus when making characters?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I figure as long as the rules balance out, ie. if you choose the stats of an executioner's axe, then for all rules purposes, it's an executioner's axe, the fluff doesn't change anything but what it looks like, then there's no reason to be restricted by the fluff.
No, I wouldn't do this. Probably because their are fine RPGs that do not provide descriptions for the numbers in the first place. So if I want to do whatever I want, I will pick on of these. Fluffing is fine, but refluffing in D&D seems to me like wasted effort.
 

I used to think it was a great idea to have extensive backgrounds for my characters...

But I've changed my philosophy. Too many players playing the same 'tragic event altered his destiny' characters (including myself) that I started playing characters with simple backgrounds.

I found that it made my characters more able to deal with the current adventure rather than some events in a nebulous past. I found I prefer characters who are shaped by the events of the roleplay as it happens, and this leads to dynamic characters more often than having a history lock him in stone.
 

I look for the bonus first. Then I try to see if I can rationalize the background into my character concept; if I can't, I make my own character background that would include the bonus I want. As always, I then run it past the DM to make sure it's okay.

I'm all for using backgrounds to expand on roleplaying, but I don't want to be straitjacketed by them if I have a niftier concept.
 

To tell the truth I usually pick backgrounds like 'Born Under a Bad Sign' or Impultur ... and so I can totally dump CON and have top class HPs...

If I were playing a character with a high CON build then I'd look at what skills needed buffing up or a really important skill to that class like Stealth to a Rogue and pick a background in accordance. That might only be a small part of his background which I enjoy rolling up on random background generators.
 

I look at the bonuses first usually. I made a rogue and wanted to be trained in arcana, but many of the backgrounds I liked didn't fit that. I eventually went with the Pivotal Event - Amazing Creation (created a magical trap).
In the end I didn't look at the bonuses because I was optimizing, but because I wanted a skill that fit the character.
 

I look at keywords first, since I often have feats that provide synergies there and it's often where fluff and crunch collide, which makes me happy. Then I look at bonuses. If I'm still undecided after that I'll take a look at the description; while I *can* re-fluff things, I prefer not to do so often.
 

I usually try to be as flexible a DM as possible, but there are times when I draw the line. For instance, I wouldn't let someone take the dwarf stats and apply them to humans, because it simply doesn't make sense in the context of my game. Dwarves are more resilient than humans, but less flexible, which fits the stats that they give you. Same with the Executioner's axe. It's got those stats because it's a huge, one-sided half bashing, half slashing weapon. A massive sword simply doesn't fit within those parameters. If someone wanted to make their own sword with the stats of the executioner's axe (because they had heavy blade feats or something) I would let them, but only if they went through some rigorous process to get there.
 

An en-worlder inspired me with there skinning of a dwarf as a human... lameness resulted in slowed movement ... his martial arts style gave him better balance to resist being moved... it worked very very nicely. The very kind of thing you resist Sage ... is what convinced me to not resist. ;p
 

Personally, I design PCs from all kinds of starting points- a line in a song, a weapon I think is cool, a class I want to try out, a story I just read, and so forth. Edition, system, genre or RPG doesn't matter.

Once I have a concept, I let the concept dictate the design of the PC. Often, I'll plot a path for the PC.

However, that is just the starting framework & set of guidelines for the PC. He or she or it is free to develop as the campaign implies, suggests or even demands.
 
Last edited:

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top