Separating Crunch and Fluff at Character Creation

[Mokona]

Character backgrounds don't write themself so it doesn't work to say that -3 Fort Save is "in character". It's a game mechanic which can just as easily be represented by the low Fort progression her class already has. There is no absolute standard for "how bad" her character's Fort Save needs to be.

Literary heros can be more interesting if they have flaws. Some even have tragic flaws that are very severe. Perhaps the player hopes to set up a situation (her Fort Save) that is a flaw around which roleplaying can be hung. In order to do this the DM will need to cooperate and ignore the rules. The DM's goal with this flaw should be to make it count enough to excite the story but not kill the character randomly due to a bad save and prematurely end the story.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Literary heros can be more interesting if they have flaws. Some even have tragic flaws that are very severe. Perhaps the player hopes to set up a situation (her Fort Save) that is a flaw around which roleplaying can be hung. In order to do this the DM will need to cooperate and ignore the rules. The DM's goal with this flaw should be to make it count enough to excite the story but not kill the character randomly due to a bad save and prematurely end the story.

OTOH, its also up to the player to make his or her PC act as if they are aware of their flaw.

Of course, that could mean avoiding unnecessary risks ("I'm fragile, I must be careful"); that could mean being a thrill seeker ("I'm fragile and could die at any time, CARPE DIEM!") or a whole bunch of things in-between.

 

[Dausuul]

Y'know, as a 3.X caster, if I had the option to take an AC hit in exchange for a free Spell Focus feat, I would totally do it. Spell Focus is a top-tier feat, especially for a caster like the beguiler whose spells all come from just a couple schools; and an arcane caster who has to worry about her AC is doing something wrong.

Now, taking a -3 hit to your Fort save to pick up a familiar, that's less defensible from an optimization perspective. Still, a good familiar can be very useful in the right type of game - they're perfect for scouts and spies. (If she picks a familiar that can't fly, then you've got problems...)

 

[Greg K]

If she's taking flaws for extra feats, then where is she being less of a power gamer? She's just tweaking what her tweaks are in the name of the game.

According to the OP in the very beginning, the decisions were based upon the character's background and not optimization. So, I was basing her decision to take the flaws to get the feats in light of that.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

Now, I'm wondering, does one require the other? To me it doesn't. I can easily make an optimized character with just as well-written a background and personality as her while still staying competitve or useful to the party whereas she seemingly thinks that an optimized character is just what you make of it. I'd rather have a well-built character with a story attached than a well-written story with a character attached (and possibly not be of very much help to the group). What are your thoughts?

I sympathize with your frustration. It would suck if the beguiler's vulnerabilities became a significant liability for your party. But you need to understand that this other player has different priorities than you. You use the term "optimized" and "well-built character," but such language presupposes a particular goal. On what metric is a character optimal? By what criteria do you judge whether a build is good or bad? For you, the goal seems to be a team that is ready to overcome typical combat encounters. For the other player, the goal seems to be to realize an imagined character in a story that will unfold.

If you are dead set on convincing her to change her build, I would start by convincing her that team effectiveness should be a priority. She won't change her decisions if she doesn't accept your goals as desirable. However, you should also consider whether allowing her to enjoy the game in her way will really detract so much from your enjoyment. Has the DM already created all the encounters and adventures, and will your group judge whether they had fun by whether they can beat these challenges? If not, then why not trust the DM to create combat challenges appropriate to your party?

 

[MadMaxim]

If you are dead set on convincing her to change her build, I would start by convincing her that team effectiveness should be a priority. She won't change her decisions if she doesn't accept your goals as desirable. However, you should also consider whether allowing her to enjoy the game in her way will really detract so much from your enjoyment. Has the DM already created all the encounters and adventures, and will your group judge whether they had fun by whether they can beat these challenges? If not, then why not trust the DM to create combat challenges appropriate to your party?

That was my motivation. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't have to be her personal walking medipack but the entire party's. It doesn't detract directly from my enjoyment of the game that she has a very weak spot with her Fortitude save, but it will start to detract when all the effects requiring Fortitude saves start hitting her character and kill it (and the DM said there'd be an array of challenges, so it's not just roleplaying encounters). From an optimization stand point I'm trying to be the biggest help to the party possible within the framework of the rules, that's why I optimize. I can figure out a personality and a good background story without the rules.

On another note, I've been kicked out of the group for being rude to her over some other matter, so it's not really a "problem" any longer... I found out that some people just can't handle the truth even when they're asking for it themselves... But that's not appropriate for this topic and I'm not trying to derail this thread. And thanks for all your opinions by the way

I think it's time to give 4th edition a spin

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It doesn't detract directly from my enjoyment of the game that she has a very weak spot with her Fortitude save, but it will start to detract when all the effects requiring Fortitude saves start hitting her character and kill it (and the DM said there'd be an array of challenges, so it's not just roleplaying encounters).

And yet so many major fictional characters had some kind of "Achilles heel"- Superman (Kryptonite, magic), Green Lanter (the color yellow), Aquaman & Sub Mariner (amphibians who weaken the longer they're away from immersion in water), Indiana Jones (snakes, why did it have to be snakes)...and...and Achilles, of course.

A flaw humanizes the character.

I once played a "brick" type PC (super strong, super tough) in a supers game, but while virtually impervious to physical damage, unlike most bricks, she was no less vulnerable to energy attacks. It made things very interesting.

On another note, I've been kicked out of the group for being rude to her over some other matter, so it's not really a "problem" any longer... I found out that some people just can't handle the truth even when they're asking for it themselves...

There's your sign.

 

[Pierson_Lowgal]

RPG's are cooperative games both amongst the players and the characters. I think each player owes it to the other players not to create a burdensome character unless all players are interested in that sort of game.

I create characters with fluff first, but I generally create characters that are at least average on the power curve because in D&D I feel doing so helps the GM when designing encounters and a gimped character can unduly become the center of attention.