Does anyone take a class for flavour anymore?

[Felon]

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.

It's not like designing a flavor-based character is mutually exclusive with powergaming. Quite the opposite. In heroic fantasy, a big part of a character's concept often has to do with the character in question being a total badass who nobody in their right minds should &#%@$!! with. For instance, if I want to play a character inspired by Vampire Hunter D or Blade, but then come to the conclusion that the Hunter of the Dead PrC is a lightweight, I'm probably going to look for a more effective route. That's just being sensible. After all, I'm not going to have fun playing a brooding man-of-few-words vamp hunter that gets his arse kicked regularly by every bloodsucker on the block.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

The nature of the rules system is designed to have you min-max. The 3E designers said as much themselves, after all.

Actually, what was claimed is that 3E was supposed to allow all forms of gaming: Immersive, Min/Max, Power Game, etc.

Problem is, CR is set up to remain challenging to the Min/Maxers and Power Gamers. This, of course, means that if you don't Min/Max or Power Game, you end up being below CR, which gets a bunch of upstarts whining about your character being ineffective when, in reality, it's really the game making some choices appear to be bad when they aren't.

In fact, most of the prominent, popular fantasy archetypes people are so fond of are defined by their great abilities in one area or another. Personality is the area where roleplaying should be focused on, not combat effeciency.

The archtypes, yes. However, in litarature and movies, no one is exactly an archtype; They usually have other abilities and features that, while not uber-potent, add depth to them. And I think that's what people want when they take a Feat or a few Ranks in something "sub-par" (if such a mythical thing truly exists): They want that other part reflected in their mechanics alongside the archtype qualities that make them effective adventurers.

This is one of the reasons I allow extended training for extra Skill Points.

Being weak is not being a roleplayer.

Strangely enough, neither is being powerful.

The question is, how powerful must the character be?

Personally, I've played studious types that could barely take care of themselves, and I've played one-man killing machines (my current Oathbound character leads an army, and he and his Grey Elf Shaman/Witch Cohort Lover both have items from BoED and BoVD that make them... Interestingly potent.). However, when I encounter players that insist that every character must be uberfied or they're a waste of paper, I can't help but pity the individual for their lack of vision and inabilities as a role-player. I couldn't imagine playing the game with such a limited view of what's good and what isn't.

 

[Pants]

Strangely enough, neither is being powerful.[/b]

No one is arguing that.
I've often seen people on MB's claim that they are 'roleplaying' merely because they are the 80 year old fighter, with bad strength and Con, really high Int and 'sub-par' Feat choices and not do anything else to flesh out their character.

Sorry to say, but just playing a weak and ineffectual character does not automatically a roleplayer make.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

No one is arguing that.
I've often seen people on MB's claim that they are 'roleplaying' merely because they are the 80 year old fighter, with bad strength and Con, really high Int and 'sub-par' Feat choices and not do anything else to flesh out their character.

Sorry to say, but just playing a weak and ineffectual character does not automatically a roleplayer make.

Y'know, I must admit, I've seen claims like this as well. However, in the "real world", I haven't. Now mind you, I distinctly and clearly advertise my game as RP-focused and story immersive. With that in mind, you would think that, at some point, I would have attracted such a player at some point during the last decade or so. But I haven't.

It makes me wonder if such a thing is an actual occurance, or if it's just someone on a message board using the anonimity of the web to try and stir up trouble.

 

[Pants]

Y'know, I must admit, I've seen claims like this as well. However, in the "real world", I haven't. Now mind you, I distinctly and clearly advertise my game as RP-focused and story immersive. With that in mind, you would think that, at some point, I would have attracted such a player at some point during the last decade or so. But I haven't.[/b]

Well, I've never played with anyone who had a +5 vorpal dancing sword. Doesn't mean they don't exist.
I've never played with a flagrant munchkin either, but again it doesn't mean they don't exist.
I've also never played with someone who hates wizards, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

It makes me wonder if such a thing is an actual occurance, or if it's just someone on a message board using the anonimity of the web to try and stir up trouble.

I wouldn't know, but I've read it enough times on the web to know that some folks think that is directly related to roleplaying.

 

[lord_banus]

No one is arguing that.
I've often seen people on MB's claim that they are 'roleplaying' merely because they are the 80 year old fighter, with bad strength and Con, really high Int and 'sub-par' Feat choices and not do anything else to flesh out their character.

Sorry to say, but just playing a weak and ineffectual character does not automatically a roleplayer make.

Thats a rather narrow view of the kind of games you can play. A '80 year old fighter, with bad strength and Con, really high Int and 'sub-par' Feat choices' sounds to me like a veteran general who while past his prime can still be a major player in a high level game involving controlling armies and political intrigue. In this kind of game he would be very powerful due to his intelligence. A tank character would be next to useless, relegated to being out on the field.

 

[Pants]

Thats a rather narrow view of the kind of games you can play. A '80 year old fighter, with bad strength and Con, really high Int and 'sub-par' Feat choices' sounds to me like a veteran general who while past his prime can still be a major player in a high level game involving controlling armies and political intrigue. In this kind of game he would be very powerful due to his intelligence. A tank character would be next to useless, relegated to being out on the field.

Remove all that part about him being a veteran fighter and having a past at all. He's essentially a set of stats, only these stats are bad instead of good. Some people actually think that being totally ineffective is directly related to RPing.

 

[Creamsteak]

I disagree with calling it "taking a class for flavour." I hate when people term RPG related material as flavor, and I don't see why it is a good or bad to take a class for story/background related reasons.

If a player wants to take a class because it makes them a stronger melee/ranged/caster character by specializing in one vein, that's absolutely fine. If a player wants to take a feat or class because it is exactly what fits thier current character concept or the point in the story, that's also fine. I think both perspectives are equally valid and don't step on each other in any way, nor are they mutually exclusive.

For example, a rogue finds a falchion they want to use even though non-proficient. At thier next feat, they take weapon proficiency. Eventually they start taking weapon master levels with this same weapon.

That is equally valid to the fighter findng the same falchion and then moving into that prestige class.

 

[kigmatzomat]

The rogue in my game decided the Dragon Disciple was "the shiz-nit" and set down that path. Overall it's a wash rules-wise; his stat boosts offset his lower BAB and the handful of spells and special abilities displace roguish tricks & sneak attack. But it has a hefty social penalty (playing DragonLance-ish) and he knows his history will be an issue from the occassional strange dream.

Lots of juicy bits with no significant powergain vs. core class progression.

And it's all a matter of opinion for flavor vs. power. Some people consider social skills flavor but the bard in my game considers them power (so does the cleric and paladin, actually). BAB is great but you don't always whack things and there are times it's socially unacceptable to sling spells. By the same token, words have little affect on golems.

It all depends on the game as to if something is story vs. mechanics.

 

[Ghostwalker_Daishi]

My (limited) experience...

I have a Fighter who is moving towards the Ghostwalker PrC from Sword and Fist. I personally feel that the Ghostwalker is a fairly underpowered option for virtually any player, especially compared with some of the other options in that book *coughWeaponMastercough*.

However, I absolutely love the flavor involved in being a Ghostwalker, and it fits perfectly with my Fighter's background (family was slain by rampaging Orcs, he got revenge in a fit of furious bloodshed, but now he wanders the land aimlessly, feeling guilt for letting his family get slain).

Also, one of my players has a Psion who just took the Half-Dragon template. Totally useless, since he is terrible at melee and tends to hang back too far to use the breath weapon, but he is a rabid fan of dragons and wanted to make dragon-ness his "theme".

Just my contribution to the thread. *shrug*