Does anyone take a class for flavour anymore?

[Trickstergod]

Generally, I start with a character concept and build from there.

Considering all the prestige classes out there, it's not too hard to find one that keeps you more or less competent yet also fits the bill, concept-wise.

I still haven't found any bard prestige classes that really strike my fancy, though. I had a Bardic Fighter/Bladesinger, but that's not quite the same.

Of course, the fewer books one has access to, the more limited choices are, and the more likely one is not going to base a character on concept but instead power available.

But with a good chunk of books on hand, there's a decent combination for just about anything you may want to play.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I have been noticing a distrubing trend on these lists and elsewhere. It seems to me that a lot of people are taking a class or prestige class strictly for the abilities they offer. Has power gaming become so ingrained. I love the idea of prestige classes as a sort of flavour template to build on, not as a ability package. I have seen people not take on a class because some ability is not optimised even though its a perfect fit for the concept.
....
Verrick actually get a wisdom bonus. Now most players I know would never have done that even though it fits well with the character concept, many just don't understand not fully optomising for the wis bonus.

I dunno, if the abilities of the class don't fit what you want, it doesn't really have the right 'flavor' no matter how good the introductory text reads. I don't really see how a prestige class can "fit the concept" if it doesn't build on the concept of what the character does.

Or to put it another way, no npc needs to know what class levels my character has, but they know what she does, what she is good at, etc. That is the flavor to me, not a "kiss me, I'm a palidan" T shirt that only she can wear, or the "you've been evaded by a shadowdancer, I'm so shadowy and cool" note to leave behind every time she hides.

As for sub optimal choices... I think there's a big huge grey area between the "powergamer" who allocates every feat, skill point and equiptment gp to the absolute fullfillment of being the best X, and the "Rolewimp" who proudly proclaims his wasted levels and bad stat choices as though that somehow makes him a better roleplayer than someone whose character fulfills his starting vision and does what they are designed to well enough to be worth somethign to the party. I'd say you, like most of us, fit in that grey area, and there's no reason to call someone a powergamer because they tend more to one side than you do. Since the game is one of adventuring and getting things done, part of my character concept is what my character is meant to do or contribute. My gladiator contributes damage and damage soak,and while I may sink a good chunk of her measly skill points into costuming and cross class perform, I'm not going to cripple the utility of the character by wasting feats or heavily skewing stat assignment early on. I'm certainly not going to obstruct the group by saying that she's an 8 con, 10 str fighter who always wanted to be a melee tank and has a lot of heart... Thats the other side of black and white "powergamer vs willing to suboptimize" so lets not go there...

kahuna burger

 

[cybertalus]

I have been noticing a distrubing trend on these lists and elsewhere. It seems to me that a lot of people are taking a class or prestige class strictly for the abilities they offer. Has power gaming become so ingrained.

I think part of it is the distorting nature of the Internet. It's much easier to discuss characters in terms of "builds" than it is in terms of motivations, so discussions about builds tend to predominate. After a while of being constantly exposed to mostly those kinds of conversations it becomes more and more difficult to not think in those terms at least a little.

At least that's been my experience. In the pre-Internet days I used to think a lot more about personality and background than I did about powers and abilities, now it's pretty much the opposite. Of course for me pre-Internet was also pre-3E, so I can't say for certain that the abundance of powers in 3E isn't also a factor. Afterall when the only real "build" decision a player needed to make about a fighter was which weapons to use, that left more room in the thinking for things like personality and personal history.

 

[lord_banus]

I realise they are not mutually exclusive but rather that some throw out consistancy and logic just to create a great build.

I like the rogue taking on cleric levels. Thats the kind of thing I am talking about. I guess I am super optimised characters, its getting really boring as non of them have any style. Maybe its just too much focus on the rules and not enough on the character. Its encouraging to see that some of you are not having this problem.

I understand the enjoyment of building a great character but without some sort of flaw, a lot of them seem hollow. Perhaps I will just use Distinctions and Drawbacks and force my players to take a few.

 

[Abisashi]

True dedication

Can't a fighter be totally devoted to becoming the greatest killing machine? The wizard to being the most powerful spellcaster to ever stride the multiverse? The paladin to being the greatest weapon against evil? I think these are all just as valid characters for roleplaying as "rolewimps," if not more so. It makes no sense for your 16 int wizard who is constantly threatened with death to waste levels/feats, that would be pretty stupid... similar situation for a high wis character, this is a question of common sense.

I don't get the impression that people are only focused on big numbers, I get the impression that they are correctly roleplaying their characters, who are interested in surviving a proffession which has a high fatality rate. If you are skilled at damaging people with high-precision strikes in special circumstances, does it not make sense to learn the interesting multi-weapon technique that those wilderness warriors seem so good at so as to maximize your damage potential (and thus, your life expectancy)? (ala rogue multiclass to ranger, especialy, in 3.0)


How about this... if you woke up tomorrow in the Forgotten Realms and had to survive as an adventurer, would you practice spellcasting or farming (keeping in mind that you are adventuring). True, you would have some metagame knowledge, but it is obvious even to your character what the differences are between classes (in the realms, at least... could vary by campaign). You might begin with abilites useless for your new occupation, but that's because you weren't expecting to become an adventurer. Once you are, you either practice the skills that matter... or die.


There's nothing wrong with a character not being min-maxed, since they don't have the clarity that the rulebooks provide us, and even then, many wouldn't devote themselves 100% to adventuring - but some would, so there is nothing wrong with it either, as long as you can still roleplay.


In my experience, roleplaying skill is independant of min-maxing skill.

 

[lord_banus]

Can't a fighter be totally devoted to becoming the greatest killing machine? The wizard to being the most powerful spellcaster to ever stride the multiverse? The paladin to being the greatest weapon against evil?

There is nothing wrong with these characters as they are fufilling their concepts. Thats not the point i am trying to get at. My point is that if the greatest even killing machine was afraid of small children, it would make for a better well rounded character.

There's nothing wrong with a character not being min-maxed, since they don't have the clarity that the rulebooks provide us, and even then, many wouldn't devote themselves 100% to adventuring - but some would, so there is nothing wrong with it either, as long as you can still roleplay.


In my experience, roleplaying skill is independant of min-maxing skill.

What I am saying is that the min-maxing skill is getting in the way of the roleplaying skill and while it is independant it does have an effect.

I guess it comes down to balancing a character. My example of the Verrik may have skewed the conversation a little. A character has more depth when it has flaws, they may be low ability scores, less useful skills or some other disadvantage. They need not hamper the main focus of the character but should have some impact on play. A lot of fantasy characters have their flaws

Conan - Dumb, Last of tribe
Luke Skywalker - Naive, country hick
MOst of the Characters out of Belgarion/Belgarath
etc

 

[SSquirrel]

That being said, i know more players than not who base their char's on concepts and stories, rather than numbers and rules. Like someone said earlier, the two are not mutualy exclusive. Often times i will see a class whose abilities set off the creative spark of storybuilding.

Well sometimes I sit down with a specific concept like an ancient Loremaster/Wizard, etc....but many times I don't really know waht I want to play besides race/class. I roll up the attributes and start selecting skills and as I'm doing this ideas for exactly who this person is start appearing to me. I wait until I have abit more structure so I don't end up with "aww crap these stats will never work for my idea" and they tend to work out pretty well and end up being pretty indepth...even tho I have been known to still not choose a name until like the 3rd session *grin* Naming characters is my worst thing.

Hagen

 

[evileeyore]

I am currently playing a Ranger with a Wisdom of 10. No plans to ever increase it.

 

[Abisashi]

let's be friends

What I am saying is that the min-maxing skill is getting in the way of the roleplaying skill and while it is independant it does have an effect.

? That is contradictory; do you believe that it is independant, or do you believe that it has some effect?

A character has more depth when it has flaws, they may be low ability scores, less useful skills or some other disadvantage.

Sure, but there seems to be this belief that the disadvantages have to be mechanical - which would imply that one can't roleplay depth, one must have it mechanically represented, which is funny given that most of the people who hold that position are very anti-mechanics.


But I think that this thread is a result of "rolewimp" propoganda; most people are very much into roleplaying their characters, and like cool abilities too. I think you see this trend because people are (falsely) accused of it, and as discussed earlier, it is easier to discuss mechanics than roleplaying on a forum.

 

[lord_banus]

? That is contradictory; do you believe that it is independant, or do you believe that it has some effect?

Actually your right. You would think I would know better being a software developer. It is independant for purely mechanical min-maxing.

Sure, but there seems to be this belief that the disadvantages have to be mechanical - which would imply that one can't roleplay depth, one must have it mechanically represented, which is funny given that most of the people who hold that position are very anti-mechanics.

But I think that this thread is a result of "rolewimp" propoganda; most people are very much into roleplaying their characters, and like cool abilities too. I think you see this trend because people are (falsely) accused of it, and as discussed earlier, it is easier to discuss mechanics than roleplaying on a forum.

Roleplaying often has a bearing on mechanics. Not always though. In previous editions of Dnd the social game was less of an issue but a lot of skills in 3e relate directly to roleplaying. Not all games or players utilise this but for me it is a key aspect.

Perhaps your right in that it is the nature of this forum that the roleplaying aspects get neglected but I have run quite a few games with different groups in the last few years where I have had players running characters that are either the absolute best at something or mediocre at something, never bad or at a disadvantage. These characters to me always seem flat and uninterresting and none get any player investment in them. I remember games where players were petrified that their characters would get killed because they had invested so much in them but the players I am talking about see character death as a reason to create another build. Some don't even wait to get killed.