Does anyone take a class for flavour anymore?

[Tokiwong]

I just play, but I tend to optimise why suck at something when you can be the best

I enjoy roleplaying all the way, but I hate to feel useless.

 

[FraserRonald]

The character I created for our Conan campaign (using the Conan RPG rules) was completely mapped out before any roles were made. When I say mapped out, I had his background and personality set. The skills and feats I took for him were a mix of practical/mechanical-based and character-based. I'm really excited to try out this character this weekend not because of the mechanical dimensions (which did come out quite nicely) but because of the personality of the character.

And he does have a flaw, a weakness, and it is not mechanical. He thinks he's really smart and he has a heck of an ego.

Should be interesting.

 

[replicant2]

A lot of fantasy characters have their flaws

Conan - Dumb, Last of tribe

Just a correction here, Conan was far from dumb. He was portrayed as somewhat stupid by Arnold Schwarzenager in the film Conan the Barbarian, but in the original stories written by Robert E. Howard he was not only cunning, but had an above average intelligence. Very capable of smart exchanges and a degree of philosophical thinking.

This actually strengthens your point, however, in that Conan was anything but the stereotypical brainless barbarian. Rather unique in a point-based character creation where players might choose int or wis as "dump stats" in favor of str and con.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Well KahunaBurger said most of what I have to say. So, for good measure, I'll quote the bits that seem to sum it all up.

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.

If your shadowdancer doesn't actually evade her pursuers then the note saying "you've been evaded by a shadowdancer" is going to look rather silly. If the game mechanics don't back up the cool flavor of the class you're taking then your character doesn't have that flavor--no matter how cool most of characters with that class are.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Just a correction here, Conan was far from dumb. He was portrayed as somewhat stupid by Arnold Schwarzenager in the film Conan the Barbarian, but in the original stories written by Robert E. Howard he was not only cunning, but had an above average intelligence. Very capable of smart exchanges and a degree of philosophical thinking.

This actually strengthens your point, however, in that Conan was anything but the stereotypical brainless barbarian. Rather unique in a point-based character creation where players might choose int or wis as "dump stats" in favor of str and con.

Even in the movie, I don't think that Conan was portrayed as being all that stupid. When he is released from his slavery, he definately naive with regards to civilization. However, he manages to show his cunning when he sets an ambush for Thulsa Doom and his riders, complete with a gear-operated trap that slams a wooden spike into whoever triggers it.

 

[MerricB]

It's hard to discuss role-playing on a message board, because its something that cannot be related easily; it relies so much on the personality of the players. Thus, though I can describe how something plays in my campaign from a RPG, you won't really understand the context as it relates to my players.

Discussing the game mechanics is much, much easier.

Cheers!

 

[I'm A Banana]

That rogue up above who had a turn of faith? There are ways they could've played the same character, and not basically 'wasted' a level. Volunteering at the church, undertaking quests for the god, choosing to wield items sacred to them,e tc.....these would be just as flavorful, but not blowing a level.

If you're into RPing, flavor doesn't come from the class, it comes from the character -- you can choose to be something you're good at, and still be a versatile, diverse creature. Not every religiously devout character needs to take a level of Cleric, not every good cook needs to take Skill Focus: Cooking, not every knight in shining armor needs to be the best rider in the land.

Being a good cook is not the +13 ranks in PRofession (Cook); it's the desire to get exotic ingredients, try new things, attending the Annual Cooking Convention in Freeport, etc.

 

[Qualir]

Utilizing game mechanics to create an effective character does necessitate sacrificing character flavor. My most memorable character, according to other members of my group, was an extravagently flaming homosexual bard. The character happened to have awsome attributes, magic items, spells, and abilities. He was integral to the party's success on multiple occassions. In the end, though, it was not his statistical information that made him so great; it was his personality. None of us actually remember any of the other characters from that group, but we do remember that hilarious bard always trying to impress the local militia boys and stopping in the middle of combat to fix his hair or degrade his opponent for marring his exquisite outfit.

 

[Saeviomagy]

There's a PC in my campaign, a 5th level rogue with Wis 9, that has been so helped by the party members from a LG church that she's changing her alignment from CG to LG and taking a level of cleric because of their (and the diety's) good example! How's that for flavour!

The thing is - if she gets (basically) nothing from being a cleric, what's the difference between here taking the level in cleric, and her NOT taking the level in cleric?

Is it suddenly impossible for people to roleplay something like devotion to a religion, just because a mechanic for it also exists?

 

[JimAde]

I have no problem with people taking all the best goodies to make their characters "more" of what they originally envisioned. The thing that bugs me is kind of the opposite of what's being discussed here. That is, people taking levels in a class that IS flavorful for purely mechanical reasons.

"Then I'll take a level or two in Monk to get the flurry and then..."

The whole idea behind a monk is somebody who has chosen a life path of discipline. Leaving the monk's path should be a big deal (hence the reason you can't go back).