Does anyone take a class for flavour anymore?

[DragonOfIntellect]

The nature of the rules system is designed to have you min-max. The 3E designers said as much themselves, after all. When I create a character, I come up with a concept, and then build him to be the best he can be within that boundary. I really do not see how giving characters drawbacks or less effecient skill choices makes them a deeper character. 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.

Look at the great characters of fiction, after all. To use three examples, Robin Hood, King Arthur, and Aragorn son of Arathorn. The personality, the backstories, the motivations, is what made them great. Did the fact they were all supremely talented in their chosen fields of activity do anything to detract from their power as characters? Being weak is not being a roleplayer.


PS

And agreed about Conan, he was portrayed as very intelligent in the books, comics, and the first movie. Key note, silent does not equal stupid.

 

[S'mon]

I'm willing to make a somewhat sub-optimal choice for 'flavour' if it will enhance the characterisation of my PC, but I play in a Midnight game, a harsh setting, and I don't want to do something that's seriously likely to get my PC killed. Eg: if a prestige class is significantly weaker than staying with the core class, I would be reluctant to take it no matter how good the flavour. I think a good GM should be willing to work with the players so that choices made to aid the roleplay interest of the PC do not significantly impair the PC's overall effectiveness - assuming that the GM agrees with the player that the choice is a desirable one from a roleplay/story POV, of course. My Midnight PC is a Sarcosan of noble descent, she would like to take the Freerider PrC some day - following in her father's footsteps - but as it stands the Freerider PrC is very weak and might seriously undermine her effectiveness in her role within the group, which is to be the Ironborn meat shield & soak up the damage. So I'm discussing it with the GM to see if the class can be tweaked to fit. At worst I don't take the class and continue as a straight Fighter, at best the class is made comparable to straight-Fighter, and everyone's happy.

 

[Chroma]

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.

That would be in my game.

Unfortunately, the player doesn't have that high of a wisdom either, but they *do* have a stubborn streak... *laugh* So, once it was thought of to do, there was nothing that could be done to change it. So, we applauded instead of criticized... so, I agree with you.

Though, I don't think a single level will greatly undermine the character, especially as she's rather rash and will probably end up in some monster's gullet long before 20th... *laugh*

 

[Thanee]

Both types of playing styles - storybased roleplaying and strategical powergaming - exist. Most players have tendencies to use both in a mix, often taking decisions based on one or the other, but not always on the same.

For example, one player in my campaign, who is mostly a powergamer (but not one of the silly kind, who totally neglects backgroundstory and flavor), has picked the dwarven waraxe feat for his dwarven wizard, just because it fits. I offered to him the option to pick one level of fighter and go eldritch knight (we play without PrC, unless they are absolutely necessary for a character concept, like our cleric/wizard who is allowed to go mystic theurge), but he refused.

When I do my own characters, I usually decide on any specifics because of background and flavor, but always with the technical side in mind. I'd never completely waste a feat on skill focus, for example, I'd then find another way to make the character skilled in something, but using some skill points to get some 'useless' skills for flavor purposes is no problem usually. Likewise, I do not write up a background story first and then try to find a suitable class and whatever else has to be decided upon, I also do not pick race, class, feats, etc and then write up a background to fit those decisions. I usually do a mix of both, deciding on race and class, writing some background and then choosing any specifics, like feats, skill points, spells, equipment, etc to fit the story I have in mind.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Cor Azer]

I generally come up with a concept, and then try to find a class that suits that concept. My most recent character (from a campaign that collapsed before starting unfortunately) was a cowboyish version of Eomer (LotR) crossed with a slightly less mercenary version of Jayne (Firefly)... and I still haven't decided what class to make him (fighter or ranger). I knew the skills I wanted from him, his personality, his background, feats and all... but still haven't decided if he should be a fighter or a ranger (or something else entirely, but other choices would be harder to fit I think).

As for the players in my campaign, some are making choices based on flavour, some aren't. It just depends on the person; but it doesn't really bother me. People who powergame in my campaigns tend to get less spotlight time though, as the role-players tend to give me more hooks to deal with (That said, I'm fairly lucky in that all of my players have tried to give me plot hooks both from the start of the campaign and during the game).

 

[BluWolf]

I have done it once or twice but this concept usuallu comes up more in skill selection. I will usually spend skill points on very relevant but not neccessarily "effective" skills.

Animal training for a fighter that grew up in a hrose breeding family. Cartography for the rogue son of an explorer. A few characters wit high ranks in cooking and a dwarf with a very high rank in brewing.

 

[Belen]

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).

I think that this is what the original poster really meant. I have seen this scenario a lot. I think it can be difficult to deal with these concepts in-game because a GM may not know exactly what the character is trying to achieve.

In any event, the GM should provide RP reasons anytime a character multi-classes from their original class. Once the game begins, the GM and Player really needs to work together to build the flavor an reason for someone becoming a Monk/ wizard etc.

At least, I am going to attempt this in my upcoming campaign and hope for the best.

 

[WayneLigon]

Sure, I take PrCs based on flavor. I've only had two characters do that, but they both did it for that reason.

The 15th level Bard started taking levels of Herald (a Dragon PrC) when he was assigned to the Duke's court as a spy and aid to the government.

The Ranger I played specifically took levels in classes to get to Holy Liberator; that was his goal and he worked towards it. We were fighting to liberate our homeland from an invading culture, so.. liberator, you know?

 

[Arnwyn]

In any event, the GM should provide RP reasons anytime a character multi-classes from their original class.

Hmmm.... I would think that the player should be providing that.

(Unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning.)

 

[Particle_Man]

I go back and forth. For example: I am considering playing a single-classed CW Swashbuckler (flavour) and I want to use all of the skills. I note that if I am human, use my point buy to get an 18 INT, and take nymph's kiss from BoED, I can get all 10 swashbuckler skills maxed out (excepting Craft and Perform). This is more mechanical. Then I come up with a background for the character that includes being raised from age 10 among fey folk and an elven court, including a retired elven swashbuckler (old but good), falling in love with a nymph, and then seeing her get kidnapped by bad guys (and my elven sword-tutor dies defending her, as do other elves). This makes me, the impulsive human, try to track her down now, while the elves are trying to more carefully find out who did this, how, and how to take him/her out, and maybe how to get the nymph back. Thus I start adventuring, with a long-term goal in hand (flavour). In the long-term, I decide I want to become the ultimate two-weapon fighting swashbuckler. This includes taking the two-weapon defense feats (all three) and the two weapon fighting feats (all three). I will also take dodge, since that matches up with the swashbucker's dodging abilities. Those feats are likely sub-optimal, but fit the concept (go flavour!). So now I have mapped out the character concept.

See, back and forth is the key. I agree that taking a class without any other reason than kewl abilities wouldn't work, but taking the class and giving an in-character justification works for me. Basically, it depends on whether the DM takes into account that you are deliberately not maxing out your character abilities, when sending monsters and such against you.