PDA

View Full Version : Have you ever sacrificed utility for flavor?



Rixx
2009-11-03, 03:55 PM
Character backgrounds don't often lend themselves to an optimized character - while a lot of people make their stats first and then build their character around it (which is by no means the wrong way to play), a lot of us like to think of our concept first and then make our character. Of course, this often leads to some sub-optimal choices made in the name of character concept - which, if you're playing in a group of similarly-minded people who make sacrifices to effectiveness for fluff reasons, is usually not a problem.

For example, I'm playing in a couple of Pathfinder games, one of which I play as a half-elf Rogue. Now, half-elves get Skill Specialization at first level as a bonus feat in Pathfinder, so I took... disguise. Now, Stealth, Perception, or Acrobatics would all have been more useful, but the specialization in Disguise was more important to my character's backstory.

When have you folks made suboptimal decisions in the name of character concept?

Tyndmyr
2009-11-03, 03:59 PM
I disagree that utility and flavor are at odds, unless you make them to be.

Sinfire Titan
2009-11-03, 04:00 PM
If I ever want to play a nature-themed character, I specifically avoid Druid. Under no circumstance have I ever played a Druid. Its either Totemist, Ranger, Cleric, or Spirit Shaman. Never Druid.

Merk
2009-11-03, 04:02 PM
I have a character concept of an LG wizard who uses Nonlethal Substitution with all of his damage spells; I think that qualifies. I'm spending a feat to accomplish something worse than what I could do without the feat, but this is the kind of wizard that doesn't like killing if he can help it.

t_catt11
2009-11-03, 04:03 PM
If I ever want to play a nature-themed character, I specifically avoid Druid. Under no circumstance have I ever played a Druid. Its either Totemist, Ranger, Cleric, or Spirit Shaman. Never Druid.


I find that, if you start a character out at level one, using a developed backstory, and you roleplay all the way through, it is rare to actually come up with one of the celebrated ultra-optimized builds that you see bandied about on the boards.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-11-03, 04:06 PM
Yup.

Currently I'm playing a 4E Eberron game with a Valenar Half-Elf Barbarian who sacrificed her LV 2 Feat slot (at LV 1 - DM's blessing) for a Dragonmark of Storm that she has no hope of using for, oh, most of Heroic.

It does make for a bitchin' backstory though :smallbiggrin:

Kylarra
2009-11-03, 04:07 PM
You pretty much always sacrifice some utility for flavor. It's just a matter of how much and where. Since you start off with a concept, even if you're mechanically minded you have a concept, that's already killing options in favor of remaining true to the concept. Etc, etc /endrant.



On topic, some things I like to do is pick up reserve feats for my wizards, or the spell thematics feat. Neither are terribly awesome, but I like them.

DragoonWraith
2009-11-03, 04:11 PM
If you aren't playing Pun-Pun, you're sacrificing utility for flavor. Congratulations.

These things are not at odds and trying to pretend that they are is simply yet another case of the Stormwind Fallacy.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-11-03, 04:13 PM
I once considered taking levels in Dragon Disciple because it fit my Halfling Sorcerer's goal of tapping into his draconic heritage.

KillianHawkeye
2009-11-03, 04:15 PM
I disagree that utility and flavor are at odds, unless you make them to be.

It's true that these concepts are not inherently opposed, but I'm sure there are enough people who willingly choose a "weaker" option because it fits the character better. Personally, I find that having a strong concept to guide me when making a character helps me make that character unique and avoid it becoming some cookie-cutter build that I read about online. And yes, this sometimes does result in intentional suboptimization.

So to answer the OP, yes. Yes I have.

Rixx
2009-11-03, 04:16 PM
If you aren't playing Pun-Pun, you're sacrificing utility for flavor. Congratulations.

These things are not at odds and trying to pretend that they are is simply yet another case of the Stormwind Fallacy.

I know that much, but as long as what fits your character's concept and backstory and what makes your character mechanically more effective are two different choices, these things are at odds.

Myrmex
2009-11-03, 04:17 PM
I disagree that utility and flavor are at odds, unless you make them to be.

Mmm, maybe I'm misinterpreting "utility" in your statement, but following from how the OP uses it, I think the biggest flavor/utility issue is with DMM clerics. Ideally you want Planning & Undeath domains with a LA +0 race, but what if you want to play a Hobgoblin cleric of Hextor?


If you aren't playing Pun-Pun, you're sacrificing utility for flavor. Congratulations.

These things are not at odds and trying to pretend that they are is simply yet another case of the Stormwind Fallacy.

Uhh, yes they are. You gave a very extreme example of why they are at odds.

A less extreme example would be using a greatclub instead of a greatsword.

Paulus
2009-11-03, 04:19 PM
I love fighting unarmed. That is all. Do not turn this into a monk war, please and thank you.

AstralFire
2009-11-03, 04:20 PM
If you aren't playing Pun-Pun, you're sacrificing utility for flavor. Congratulations.

These things are not at odds and trying to pretend that they are is simply yet another case of the Stormwind Fallacy.

These things aren't necessarily at odds, but they do at times vie with one another. I am hardly advocating that you will necessarily get better or more roleplay if you're a Fighter with a 16 Cha/Int/Wis and an 10 Str/Dex/Con, but there is presently no simple way to get a clever sword-and-board warrior who has a strong sense of self and a silver tongue while remaining mechanically viable. The closest that I can think of off the top of my head is the Crusader or Warblade, and you are definitely weaker in both cases than if you arranged the stats into a different array.

So yes, I have at times 'gimped myself' for flavor.

Starscream
2009-11-03, 04:30 PM
I did this with one character I'm currently playing. We're all Gestalt characters with Ninja on one side, and whatever we want on the other.

I picked druid, but I was afraid it was too powerful a combination. Adding my wisdom bonus to AC, being able to go invisible and ethereal at will while Wild Shaped, etc. Druids are already almost brokenly good, and Ninja complements them rather well.

So I thought up a cool character theme and altered my build a bit to accompany it. I wanted to do a plant themed character, like Swamp Thing and Floronic Man, so I took the Woodling template which cost me three caster levels (bad move).

I also gave up Wild Shape and my Animal Companion for the Shapeshift ACF. I did this partly for simplicity, but mostly because I would lose the benefits of my template if I Wild Shaped. By Shapeshifting I kept my plant-y oddness.

When everyone in the party was offered a free Domain, I took the Plant domain, even though I knew it wasn't very powerful. I also tend to focus on plant related spells.

Unfortunately, my nerfing efforts were a little too good, and I became very death prone. After kicking the bucket about three times, the DM let me trade in my template for three more levels of Druid (the justification being that since I had reincarnated, my new body wasn't a plant monster anymore). Since then I've been a lot stronger, but I still kept the other plant-themed aspects of my build.

MOLOKH
2009-11-03, 04:44 PM
I took Iron Will for my monk after we barely ascaped from an encounter with some kind of evil dryad who was trying to put us under a Geas or something and I rolled a critical on my save. As we were tracking her through a deacaying forest and a giant bog, my character was at almost all times at close to minimum hitpoints, because he was too proud to allow our cleric to heal him, and he almost died from starvation because he couldnt admit that he didn't pack provisions. After we leveled up some more I took Endurance for him.

Poil
2009-11-03, 04:51 PM
My current Egyptian themed magician in Shadowrun uses a Sandstorm spell as her primary means of blasting stuff. It is a physical spell with an added elemental (sand) effect. Completely awesome but sucks compared to the better Mana Ball spell: it is a lot easier to protect against it, filling a room with an explosion of sand is a bit too obvious if you are trying to hide your magical abilities and I can't cast a very damaging one due to the massive drain (+5). On the upside it looks really cool, fits great with Egyptian magic for obvious reasons and it has a chance to screw with guns and equipment that's not designed for desert use.

It might appear that the chance to ruin your foes weapons are a good thing but it's a lot cheaper and more reliable to hit them with a spell designed to break them or simply just to kill them with a higher force Mana Ball.

Boci
2009-11-03, 04:52 PM
My current Egyptian themed magician in Shadowrun uses a Sandstorm spell as her primary means of blasting stuff. It is a physical spell with an added elemental (sand) effect. Completely awesome but sucks compared to the better Mana Ball spell: it is a lot easier to protect against it, filling a room with an explosion of sand is a bit too obvious if you are trying to hide your magical abilities and I can't cast a very damaging one due to the massive drain (+5). On the upside it looks really cool, fits great with Egyptian magic for obvious reasons and it has a chance to screw with guns and equipment that's not designed for desert use.

But why not just take mana ball and describe it as a blast of sand?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-03, 04:54 PM
I find that, if you start a character out at level one, using a developed backstory, and you roleplay all the way through, it is rare to actually come up with one of the celebrated ultra-optimized builds that you see bandied about on the boards.

Such as Druid/Planar Shepard?

Superglucose
2009-11-03, 04:55 PM
I disagree that utility and flavor are at odds, unless you make them to be.
For example: my current wizard character is training to be a teacher at the arcane university. To this end, he's pushing his ranks in a few Knowledge skills as high as possible. He is also busily trying to figure out which spells are the most useful in an adventuring career and how to best use them, since invariably some of the students are going to want that information.

That means he has a wide variety of spells, and is quite the utility character since he knows things no one else would know.

Poil
2009-11-03, 04:56 PM
But why not just take mana ball and describe it as a blast of sand?

1. Doesn't break stuff, just people.
2. I didn't think of it. :smallredface:
3. I like the spell too much to replace it.
4. Giving the walls that sand blasted look is kinda neat.
5. There's already way too much whining in the party about the overpoweredness of the mana bolt/ball spells. Coming from guys who play adepts starting with 24 dice worth of revolver shooting and accurate one-shotting knife throwing at bow distances.

Inhuman Bot
2009-11-03, 04:57 PM
I disagree that utility and flavor are at odds, unless you make them to be.

I played a monk instead of an unarmed Swordsage.

Severus
2009-11-03, 05:01 PM
This isn't sub-optimizing a character. It's making a choice.

Sub-optimizing is when you decide that your character concept is a wizard who only ever attacks with his trusty mace.

The difference between optimal and almost optimal rarely, if ever, makes a difference.

The difference between optimal and borked, however does.

Tavar
2009-11-03, 05:02 PM
I played a monk instead of an unarmed Swordsage.

So? That doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that you can play a monk instead of a narmed Swordsage. Care to show how that makes Utility and Flavor at odds?

arguskos
2009-11-03, 05:04 PM
Hell, my favorite character in 3.5 does this, by virtue of his race. He's a dvati (two bodies, one soul), meaning that he must spend twice as much wealth on defensive items and he has half as much health as normal. Yeah, his build helps, since he's a Wiz/Archivist/Mystic Theurge, but then again, Theurge isn't the greatest thing ever, and he takes mostly divination and defensive spells, since that's his thing. Battle frightens him, so he avoids it if he can.

Tengu_temp
2009-11-03, 05:06 PM
Quite often I make some less than optimal choices, like playing a fighter-type character with decent intelligence and/or charisma for no reasons other than I don't want to be a boring brute, or choosing skills that fit my character's concept but aren't that useful in the actual game. But then, I tend to powergame the hell out of the rest of the character, so most of them end up on the optimized end of the spectrum anyway. And, if you ask me, there are few better ways to make a character.

BRC
2009-11-03, 05:09 PM
In a way, anybody who isn't playing a Batman style wizard, DMM cleric, or Druidzilla is sacrificing utility for flavor.

Tavar
2009-11-03, 05:10 PM
In a way, anybody who isn't playing a Batman style wizard, DMM cleric, or Druidzilla is sacrificing utility for flavor.

Actually, more like a God/cindy style wizard. Batman Wizards are the most party-friendly of the wizard play styles.

Myou
2009-11-03, 05:11 PM
My highly optimised gestalt wizard loaded with metamagic reducers took a feat just to get a Coure Eladrin familiar, who he now carefully guards and doesn't let go into combat, because I wanted him to have an adorable little fairy boy as his companion. :smallsmile:

Inhuman Bot
2009-11-03, 05:11 PM
So? That doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that you can play a monk instead of a narmed Swordsage. Care to show how that makes Utility and Flavor at odds?

Well, a monk can't contribute to combat. Like, at all, as I discovered. Unarmed swordsages can at least do that.

I like the ideas behind the monk, though.

Boci
2009-11-03, 05:12 PM
Well, a monk can't contribute to combat. Like, at all, as I discovered. Unarmed swordsages can at least do that.

I like the ideas behind the monk, though.

I think the question was what flavour did you gain from that?

AstralFire
2009-11-03, 05:16 PM
So? That doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that you can play a monk instead of a narmed Swordsage. Care to show how that makes Utility and Flavor at odds?

I want to make a fast-talking, quick-witted, armored spearmaster who frequently wins battles through effective use of solo tactics and bluffing, since he is only physically average. He has a great deal of skill, but due to a frail childhood, is not exceptionally healthy. 28 PB.

Stat him out for me, and keep him as effective as a silent loner sword master, who is physically gifted and additionally uses his insight to keep control of the battle at all levels. Selfless and unassuming, he acts primarily to enforce a philosophy of swift and simple punishment to the wicked. While thoughtful, he is not a complicated man, and he dislikes complicated plans. 28 PB.

Tavar
2009-11-03, 05:16 PM
I think the question was what flavour did you gain from that?

This. They both have pretty much the same fluff, the only difference is that one works.

Saph
2009-11-03, 05:18 PM
If I've got a good character, definitely. Any character with a strong personality will tend to suggest choices which aren't optimal.

Lycan 01
2009-11-03, 05:19 PM
My 4e characters are a Half-Orc Bard, and Kobold Fighter, and a blind Eladrin Wizard. The Wizard doesn't really count, and the Kobold came out okay. But the Half-Orc? Terrible. Bad dice rolls didn't help, either. The game he was going to be in never even started, but I still value him as one of my favorite characters, even though he's terrible mechanically. But there's so much room for roleplaying potential, and he's not broken as much as he's less-good than a non Half-Orc Bard would be...


I mean really, who doesn't love a Half-Orc Bard that squishes people who insult his violin skills with a great axe? :smallbiggrin:


In Shadowrun, my GF gave her Shaman a cybernetic arm and a missing eye at character creation. She has to pay extra BP for the Magic and Essence loss, as well as deal with partial blindness penalties, but she doesn't care. When she has a roleplaying idea, she'll follow it through no matter what the penalty is...

Inhuman Bot
2009-11-03, 05:21 PM
I think the question was what flavour did you gain from that?

I thought of monk as being better for the concept of "A martial arts master who, through years of discipline, mastered the arts of unarmed combat so that he fought as well as an armoured warrior".

Swordsages strike me as being... Well, not like that at all. They feel more like wizards who shank stuff instead of sucking it's soul out.

Tavar
2009-11-03, 05:23 PM
I want to make a fast-talking, quick-witted, armored spearmaster who frequently wins battles through effective use of solo tactics and bluffing, since he is only physically average. He has a great deal of skill, but due to a frail childhood, is not exceptionally healthy. 28 PB.

Stat him out for me, and keep him as effective as a silent loner swordsage, who is physically gifted and additionally uses his insight to keep control of the battle at all levels. Selfless and unassuming, he acts primarily to enforce a philosophy thrust upon him in the heat of war so many years ago. While thoughtful, he is not a complicated man, and he dislikes complicated plans. 28 PB.

Uhhh....How does that relate to what I was asking? Also, are those the same character idea, or different ones? Cause, they seem contradictory.


I thought of monk as being better for the concept of "A martial arts master who, through years of discipline, mastered the arts of unarmed combat so that he fought as well as an armoured warrior".

Swordsages strike me as being... Well, not like that at all. They feel more like wizards who shank stuff instead of sucking it's soul out.
The first one pretty much encapsulates Sword Sages. In fact, in the flavor section it mentions several orders that seem to fit that perception exactly.

Telonius
2009-11-03, 05:23 PM
Two of my favorite characters, actually.

- Vow of Poverty Monk, Lesser Drow, Mordechai. (In fairness, BoED had just come out, and I was seeing how it worked in action).
- Multiclassed-into-oblivion Rogue/Wizard/MasterofMasks/Arcane Trickster Shifter (yes, Shifter), Phido Oswald.

Tengu_temp
2009-11-03, 05:24 PM
I thought of monk as being better for the concept of "A martial arts master who, through years of discipline, mastered the arts of unarmed combat so that he fought as well as an armoured warrior".

Swordsages strike me as being... Well, not like that at all. They feel more like wizards who shank stuff instead of sucking it's soul out.

Actually, that concept is 100% swordsage. There's nothing wizardy about them - they don't even have to choose any supernatural schools (and there's what, three of them total?) and are free to use the completely ordinary ones, basing on superior martial arts training and discipline.

Boci
2009-11-03, 05:25 PM
I thought of monk as being better for the concept of "A martial arts master who, through years of discipline, mastered the arts of unarmed combat so that he fought as well as an armoured warrior".

Swordsages strike me as being... Well, not like that at all. They feel more like wizards who shank stuff instead of sucking it's soul out.

So its fine that a monk can turn ethereal but not that a swordsage can turn incorporeal?

Tavar
2009-11-03, 05:26 PM
Actually, that concept is 100% swordsage. There's nothing wizardy about them - they don't even have to choose any supernatural schools (and there's what, three of them total?) and are free to use the completely ordinary ones, basing on superior martial arts training and discipline.

Also, not everything in the supernatural schools is really supernatural. Some are simply normal attacks.

Oh, and as for sacrificing utility for flavor, I guess so, as I really like Warlock/Clerics/Eldritch Theruges, but that's more because I really like warlocks...

ghashxx
2009-11-03, 05:29 PM
When running a fighter I chose feats that spread out my abilities rather than focusing on one individual plan of attack, such as tripping. The character had been thrown out of his entire civilization and forced to survive on his own for several levels, thereby impressing on him the need to not focus on one type of fighting, or even on a single weapon too much. So I had weapon focus and specialization, but I also had point blank and precise shot, and improved unarmed combat. While it ended up being useful, we got captured way too many times which = no weapons, it certainly wasn't designed to maximize my killing potential.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-03, 05:30 PM
Uhhh....How does that relate to what I was asking? Also, are those the same character idea, or different ones? Cause, they seem contradictory.

They obviously seem different ones. The lesson at hand is to be derived from the creation process - if you create those characters in D&D 3.5 rules with 28 PB, you will most likely (if Astralfire is to be believed) sacrifice utility to retain their flavor.

A)
1) Fast-talking, quick-witted
2) Armored spearmaster
3) Effective solo tactician, good at misleading enemies
4) Relies on skill more than ability; was quite weak as a youth before acquiring said skill

B)
1) Silent loner, selfless and unassuming
2) Swordsage (this is a useless term in-character unless you give us some more context)
3) Physically talented
4) Mentally gifted, controlling
5) Acts to enforce a philosophy, about which we know nothing.

AstralFire
2009-11-03, 05:30 PM
Uhhh....How does that relate to what I was asking? Also, are those the same character idea, or different ones? Cause, they seem contradictory.

Two different character ideas, but both built around being melee duelists.

The second was an interesting character, no doubt, but definitely built to have a concept that easily allows for boosting a good ability score combination - Wis, Con, Dex, dump/ignore Int/Cha. The first one was built with a concept first, using a weapon and a personality and a type of fighting style that I all really like.

Is there any easy way to build it without making the character significantly less powerful than another would be at the same level of optimization? Boosting Int/Cha with some Wis while basically dumping Str/Dex/Con. I don't think there is.

The point of the Stormwind Fallacy is that conflict does not have to exist between Roleplay and Optimization. It does not state that conflict cannot exist between them; there are a rare few builds which are hard to justify in-character, and there are some characters which are hard to justify as viable builds.

Draz74
2009-11-03, 05:30 PM
I played a pacifist Wizard who refused to use any spells that could ever kill a living being.

(And no, for those of you who are about to say that's actually optimal, it's not. Enervation, for example, was on the no-good list.)

Pigkappa
2009-11-03, 05:30 PM
I'm currently playing a character that's inspired on Elan. That means it's a bard (which is quite a weakness IMO :smalltongue:) with low Int and many ranks in Bluff and Disguise, while not having full ranks in Use Magic Device. He's nearly useless in combat, and the master makes only combat-based adventures, so I'm the most useless character at all (which wouldn't have happened if they had let me play a cleric, but "hey, 2 clerics are too many!" =/ ).

Fax Celestis
2009-11-03, 05:31 PM
I want to make a fast-talking, quick-witted, armored spearmaster who frequently wins battles through effective use of solo tactics and bluffing, since he is only physically average. He has a great deal of skill, but due to a frail childhood, is not exceptionally healthy. 28 PB.
Build 1: Swashbuckler/Rogue with Daring Outlaw, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Elven Courtblade), and an Elven Courtblade refluffed to be a shortspear. 10 Str, 10 Dex, 10 Con, 16 Int, 10 Wis, 16 Cha. Take Penetrating Strike rogue ACF (Dungeonscape) and Arcane Stunt swashbuckler ACF (Complete Mage). Wear mithril breastplate.

Build 2: Factotum/Exemplar with a longspear and a lot of Font of Inspiration. 8 Str, 10 Dex, 10 Con, 18 Int, 10 Wis, 14 Cha.


[A] silent loner swordsage, who is physically gifted and additionally uses his insight to keep control of the battle at all levels. Selfless and unassuming, he acts primarily to enforce a philosophy thrust upon him in the heat of war so many years ago. While thoughtful, he is not a complicated man, and he dislikes complicated plans. 28 PB.
Build 1: Swordsage/Eternal Blade, using the Combat Form feats from PHB-II, and primarily Setting Sun and Diamond Mind maneuvers. Might take Assassin's Stance and use the Shadow Hand feat that adds Dex to damage. Otherwise wears light armor. 12 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 14 Wis, 10 Cha.

Myrmex
2009-11-03, 05:31 PM
When running a fighter I chose feats that spread out my abilities rather than focusing on one individual plan of attack, such as tripping. The character had been thrown out of his entire civilization and forced to survive on his own for several levels, thereby impressing on him the need to not focus on one type of fighting, or even on a single weapon too much. So I had weapon focus and specialization, but I also had point blank and precise shot, and improved unarmed combat. While it ended up being useful, we got captured way too many times which = no weapons, it certainly wasn't designed to maximize my killing potential.

The best core only fighter happens to be both archer and melee fighter. He prioritizes dex in the hopes of going first, turns his enemies into pin cushions as they approach, then whips his sword out and finishes them.

Eldan
2009-11-03, 05:31 PM
Does Findelwald Tungsten, the Gnome Archivist/Artificer/Factotum (no, he isn't Gestalt) count?

Saph
2009-11-03, 05:32 PM
The point of the Stormwind Fallacy is that conflict does not have to exist between Roleplay and Optimization. It does not state that conflict cannot exist between them.

Yes.

I think pretty much everyone who's had a character who really 'clicks' will sacrifice utility for flavour, but the thing is, it really doesn't feel like a sacrifice. If doing something a certain way is part of the character concept, then generally it's a lot more satisfying to do it that way.

I usually find that the point at which a character starts suggesting their own choices, actions, etc, is the point at which they really take off and become fun to play.

So I'm usually happy when I find that there's a conflict between utility and flavour; it means I'm doing something right. If the flavour is trivial, it's probably a sign that I don't care very much about the character in the first place.

AstralFire
2009-11-03, 05:37 PM
Build 1: Swashbuckler/Rogue with Daring Outlaw, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Elven Courtblade), and an Elven Courtblade refluffed to be a shortspear. 10 Str, 10 Dex, 10 Con, 16 Int, 10 Wis, 16 Cha. Take Penetrating Strike rogue ACF (Dungeonscape) and Arcane Stunt swashbuckler ACF (Complete Mage). Wear mithril breastplate.

Build 2: Factotum/Exemplar with a longspear and a lot of Font of Inspiration. 8 Str, 10 Dex, 10 Con, 18 Int, 10 Wis, 14 Cha.

Refluffing a sword as a spear can be an iffy point, but I'd allow it. At what level does this become viable? And how many books did you use to make it? As we discussed in chat, I don't find number of books to be 'cheesy', but how many players would be able to think about and access... Complete Warrior, Complete Scoundrel, Races of the Wild, Dungeonscape and Complete Mage? The ease with which a build can be completed shouldn't be discounted for people pursuing a specific concept.

Regarding Build 2, you know how I feel about factotums - spellcasting and mimicry are both not talents I'd ascribe to the character as I saw it, yet they're major abilities for the factotum. For me, this build would pick up additional abilities that detract from the concept's feel.



Build 1: Swordsage/Eternal Blade, using the Combat Form feats from PHB-II, and primarily Setting Sun and Diamond Mind maneuvers. Might take Assassin's Stance and use the Shadow Hand feat that adds Dex to damage. Otherwise wears light armor. 12 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 12 Int, 14 Wis, 10 Cha.

That's about how I was imagining him. But then, I built him to fit the swordsage's strengths. I even inserted Swordsage when I meant to say Sword Master.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-03, 05:38 PM
Build 1: Swashbuckler/Rogue with Daring Outlaw, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Elven Courtblade), and an Elven Courtblade refluffed to be a shortspear. 10 Str, 10 Dex, 10 Con, 16 Int, 10 Wis, 16 Cha.

Build 2: Factotum/Exemplar with a longspear and a lot of Font of Inspiration. 8 Str, 10 Dex, 10 Con, 18 Int, 10 Wis, 14 Cha.

Needs moar Ripper. It's a weapon in Planar Handbook with the stats of a greatsword, except as a spear. That way you don't lose as much utility with a feat tax (EWP) or -2.5 damage.

Utility and flavor are definitely at odds when the flavor is derived from being weak. If you build the character as an optimal build, you'll still get as much flavor, just a different kind. When flavor is directly predicated on weakness, whether past or current, utility must obviously be sacrificied.

Also, I take issue with your second prompt, as it demands that both physical stats and mental insight be high, while also demanding the constraint of 28 PB. A concept predicated on high stats is best used when stats can be high, such as when you roll 4d6 take 3. Trying to fit the concept into a 28 PB build and expecting it to be quite as effective will require cutting something.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-03, 05:38 PM
I want to make a fast-talking, quick-witted, armored spearmaster who frequently wins battles through effective use of solo tactics and bluffing, since he is only physically average. He has a great deal of skill, but due to a frail childhood, is not exceptionally healthy. 28 PB.

Stat him out for me, and keep him as effective as a silent loner swordsage, who is physically gifted and additionally uses his insight to keep control of the battle at all levels. Selfless and unassuming, he acts primarily to enforce a philosophy thrust upon him in the heat of war so many years ago. While thoughtful, he is not a complicated man, and he dislikes complicated plans. 28 PB.
For the record, the best I can come up with is:

Str 12+2 level
Dex 10
Con 12
Int 14
Wis 10
Cha 15

Knight 3/Fighter 6

Feats
Combat Expertise
Improved Feint
Improved Trip
Improved Disarm
Goad
Imperious Command
Skill Focus: Intimidate

Skill trick: Never Outnumbered

Fearful Armor

More reliant on Intimidate than on bluffing, though.

Fax Celestis
2009-11-03, 05:43 PM
Refluffing a sword as a spear can be an iffy point, but I'd allow it. At what level does this become viable? And how many books did you use to make it? As we discussed in chat, I don't find number of books to be 'cheesy', but how many players would be able to think about and access... Complete Warrior, Complete Scoundrel, Races of the Wild, Dungeonscape and Complete Mage? The ease with which a build can be completed shouldn't be discounted for people pursuing a specific concept.

Well, you can drop CMage and the Arcane Stunt if it's an issue: mostly it's just a way to make Grace a little cooler. That makes it CWar, CScn, RotW, and Dungeonscape--one of which is actually excerpted on the WotC website (Swashbuckler) and therefore skippable.

If you drop Arcane Stunts, pick up some skill tricks (CScn) and possibly some levels in Battle Trickster or Uncanny Trickster (both CScn; I prefer the latter, but both are good).

Also: Build 3: Single-classed Knight, with (Improved) Combat Expertise, Deadly Defense, and some skill tricks. Two books (CScn and PHB-II). Wield a spear, wear heavy armor. Str 10 Dex 10 Con 10 Int 14 Wis 10 Cha 16. Drag foes to you with Knight's Challenge, use Combat Expertise to get extra damage from Deadly Defense, and use your skills to buy up Diplomacy.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-03, 05:44 PM
At what level does this become viable?
Always viable, but not always optimal. But as stated before, nothing but Pun-Pun is optimal.


And how many books did you use to make it?
This is why I like sourcebooks. It only really requires two books: Complete Warrior, Complete Scoundrel. CM adds magic, which you don't want, RotW is strictly optional when you can use any mundane refluffed weapon, and Dungeonscape only gives a boost - it's not essential. In fact, I'd question Dungeonscape for this, as the Penetrating Strike ACF activates only against undead-type creatures and only when flanking. I doubt that the character will encounter either in the niche in which its feel is supposed to be shown.


Regarding Build 2, you know how I feel about factotums - spellcasting and mimicry are both not talents I'd ascribe to the character as I saw it, yet they're major abilities for the factotum. For me, this build would pick up additional abilities that detract from the concept's feel.
Pretend you don't have them, or use them very minimally - for example, just use opportunistic piety "invisibly" during off-time to regain abstract lost HP. Sacrificing utility for flavor yes; but not as much as you would should you take a less optimal route.

Regarding feel, if you want him to play in a D&D world, you might to address in-character why he hasn't used his mental abilities to pick up those additional abilities when he easily could. Feel is a good OOC reason, but pursuing a spot of magic would seem reasonable IC.

Closak
2009-11-03, 05:45 PM
Oh yes, i do that all the time.

Screw optimizing, ALL HAIL THE ROLEPLAY AND STAYING IN-CHARACTER!

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-03, 05:47 PM
...
What are your thoughts on Tempest_Stormwind's most famous theory (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40903)?


Optimization, although weakly correlated with lack of roleplay and breaking character, is by no means a sufficient condition for either flaw, as many ardent optimizers will attest (I mean ardent as an adjective, not a class)

Tavar
2009-11-03, 05:48 PM
Oh yes, i do that all the time.

Screw optimizing, ALL HAIL THE ROLEPLAY AND STAYING IN-CHARACTER!

My character is an intelligent wizard whose primary goal is to aid his country in war. Why should I not be God, again?


In truth, at this point I think it's clear that all characters sacrifice utility/power for flavor, it just depends on the degree that you do do. I wouldn't call some of these examples as doing it, though Astral Fire's examples come closest.

Inhuman Bot
2009-11-03, 05:56 PM
Well, I did say I did it because of what *I* thought.

And we weren't going to play to a point where monks would get supernatural abilites.

Kylarra
2009-11-03, 05:59 PM
Well, I did say I did it because of what *I* thought.

And we weren't going to play to a point where monks would get supernatural abilites.So levels 1-3 then? :smalltongue: Ki-strike is a Su ability.

AstralFire
2009-11-03, 06:03 PM
Also: Build 3: Single-classed Knight, with (Improved) Combat Expertise, Deadly Defense, and some skill tricks. Two books (CScn and PHB-II). Wield a spear, wear heavy armor. Str 10 Dex 10 Con 10 Int 14 Wis 10 Cha 16. Drag foes to you with Knight's Challenge, use Combat Expertise to get extra damage from Deadly Defense, and use your skills to buy up Diplomacy.

Build 3 satisfies the requirements of this particular challenge to my satisfaction, as does Pharoah's Fist's entry. The fact that it took three tries, though, is itself notable given the large amount of splat that is devoted towards permutations of the same concept. The more precise and arcane (as in strange, not as in magical) your concept is, the harder it will be to fit a character - archers are notably boned outside of homebrew if you don't like to shoot a bajillion arrows, preferably while skirmishing. There is not a single class out there that viably does what Green Star Adept and Dragon Disciple set out to do - losing arcane ability for mega melee ability. (All later successful gishery worked on the idea of advancing both.)

This issue only becomes more true as rules mastery and rulebook access decreases, which is especially true for people primarily using the print copies of the books.


Pretend you don't have them, or use them very minimally - for example, just use opportunistic piety "invisibly" during off-time to regain abstract lost HP. Sacrificing utility for flavor yes; but not as much as you would should you take a less optimal route.

Regarding feel, if you want him to play in a D&D world, you might to address in-character why he hasn't used his mental abilities to pick up those additional abilities when he easily could. Feel is a good OOC reason, but pursuing a spot of magic would seem reasonable IC.

"He simply never had the opportunity to learn." I don't care for refluffing to the degree of using abilities 'invisibly'; at that point, you're crossing over into homebrew (which I am fine with!) and admitting that there simply are issues which are hard to address without adjusting the system.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-03, 06:12 PM
there simply are issues which are hard to address without adjusting the system.

I thought that was self-evident.

AstralFire
2009-11-03, 06:16 PM
I thought that was self-evident.

We seemed to have some people conflating the Stormwind Fallacy with an inability for flavor and optimization to contradict each other under any foreseeable circumstance. Forcing a homebrew solution pretty much says that the issue can pop up.

Akal Saris
2009-11-03, 06:25 PM
Kudos to the OP for raising an interesting question. I saw a lot of good responses that I wanted to address, actually.


I find that, if you start a character out at level one, using a developed backstory, and you roleplay all the way through, it is rare to actually come up with one of the celebrated ultra-optimized builds that you see bandied about on the boards.

I think this is quite true - often the feats my character takes aren't strongly related to his IC development, because I've already charted out the path that the character will take, but when I start considering feats based on flavor over utility, it's usually a good sign that I've become attached to the character. For that reason, my characters always start with strong feats, and then at the higher levels some odder stuff starts to appear :P

As an example, my gnome swordsage spent all of her gold on an item that granted the Run feat after she wasn't fast enough to reach the party mage before she was killed. Run is hardly an optimal choice, but I felt that it helped fix a hole in my character's abilities and fit the character very well. But I still wasn't willing to take Run as an actual feat over Adaptive Style, which I wanted desperately by 6th level :P


These things aren't necessarily at odds, but they do at times vie with one another. I am hardly advocating that you will necessarily get better or more roleplay if you're a Fighter with a 16 Cha/Int/Wis and an 10 Str/Dex/Con, but there is presently no simple way to get a clever sword-and-board warrior who has a strong sense of self and a silver tongue while remaining mechanically viable. The closest that I can think of off the top of my head is the Crusader or Warblade, and you are definitely weaker in both cases than if you arranged the stats into a different array.

So yes, I have at times 'gimped myself' for flavor.

I played a sword and board fighter with a clever tongue in 3.5 by simply ignoring the part of his character sheet that said cha 8. Some concepts are too much fun to let poor game mechanics hold them back - whenever I failed a bluff or diplomacy check (quite frequently, given the poor mechanics!), I played it off as the character being too sarcastic :P


I thought of monk as being better for the concept of "A martial arts master who, through years of discipline, mastered the arts of unarmed combat so that he fought as well as an armoured warrior".

Swordsages strike me as being... Well, not like that at all. They feel more like wizards who shank stuff instead of sucking it's soul out.

As others have pointed out, you seem to have ignored the swordsage's flavor for your own interpretation of them, effectively trading flavor and utility for flavor without utility. Not that there's anything really wrong with that, but I wouldn't have made that decision.


Yes.

I think pretty much everyone who's had a character who really 'clicks' will sacrifice utility for flavour, but the thing is, it really doesn't feel like a sacrifice. If doing something a certain way is part of the character concept, then generally it's a lot more satisfying to do it that way.

I usually find that the point at which a character starts suggesting their own choices, actions, etc, is the point at which they really take off and become fun to play.

So I'm usually happy when I find that there's a conflict between utility and flavour; it means I'm doing something right. If the flavour is trivial, it's probably a sign that I don't care very much about the character in the first place.

This sums up my thoughts pretty well. I've only had a few characters where I felt this way, but it's a very satisfying feeling when you're able to mechanically represent your character's development on paper as she's developed in-game. Of course, it's even better when the best representation is also the best utility choice :P

Radiun
2009-11-03, 07:08 PM
I also gave up Wild Shape and my Animal Companion for the Shapeshift ACF. I did this partly for simplicity, but mostly because I would lose the benefits of my template if I Wild Shaped. By Shapeshifting I kept my plant-y oddness.

When everyone in the party was offered a free Domain, I took the Plant domain, even though I knew it wasn't very powerful. I also tend to focus on plant related spells.

I just have to say as someone who is playing a Plant Druid (well Druid into Holt Warden) and never uses Wildshape (didn't get anything for it though) that the Plant Domain is just fine thank you very much.

I could eliminate my entire party thanks to the plant domain (Wall of Thorns).

Mind you I am using the Spell Compendium for more fun (Vine Mine) and as my Druid is a northerner, I haven't bared myself from casting such fun things as Call Avalanche [I do abstain from fire spells though].

My character is also squishy (in the sense that I refuse to wear armour or claim magic items for the most part), but I did keep my animal companion and take Natural Bond.

And to kick myself in the teeth it seems, we're currently adventuring in a dead-lands, no plants in sight unless I cast Vine Mine.

My plans for the future?
Awaken a cat and raise it as a druid.
she could have her very own wolf to ride on, or a horse, I'm not sure yet.

Starscream
2009-11-03, 08:12 PM
I just have to say as someone who is playing a Plant Druid (well Druid into Holt Warden) and never uses Wildshape (didn't get anything for it though) that the Plant Domain is just fine thank you very much.

I could eliminate my entire party thanks to the plant domain (Wall of Thorns).

Oh, I should have made myself more clear. We get a domain power of our choice, not the spells.

Rebuking and commanding plants is handy...if you run into plant creatures fairly often. I think I've used it once.

Radiun
2009-11-03, 08:16 PM
Oh, I should have made myself more clear. We get a domain power of our choice, not the spells.

Rebuking and commanding plants is handy...if you run into plant creatures fairly often. I think I've used it once.

Ah, I've rebuked 2 to date.
I don't forsee anymore in the immediate future seeing, well... deadlands

Inhuman Bot
2009-11-03, 08:20 PM
Allright, fine, I was wrong? My interperation was incorrect, so I bow down before you all?


I just have to say as someone who is playing a Plant Druid (well Druid into Holt Warden) and never uses Wildshape (didn't get anything for it though) that the Plant Domain is just fine thank you very much.


Just wondering, but was there a specific reason for that?

Radiun
2009-11-03, 08:22 PM
Just wondering, but was there a specific reason for that?

Sure, I love Wall of Thorns

Akal Saris
2009-11-03, 08:23 PM
Allright, fine, I was wrong? My interperation was incorrect, so I bow down before you all?

A spunky response indeed! :smallbiggrin:

Inhuman Bot
2009-11-03, 08:30 PM
Sure, I love Wall of Thorns

I meant, not using wildshape, but not giving it up for a varient.

Radiun
2009-11-03, 08:39 PM
I meant, not using wildshape, but not giving it up for a varient.

Ooooh...
No, admittedly there isn't.
Mechanically anywho.

I just didn't want this character to be the type who shape-shifts, didn't really seem to meld into his plant-mania. And I do believe mania is the right word as he's gone into the dead-lands [war-torn, undead and construct infected, bla bla bla] to repopulate them with plants in the first place.

Besides, I'm more than happy annoying every enemy the DM throws at us with terrain altering spells instead of biting them.

Inhuman Bot
2009-11-03, 08:45 PM
Well, if this is still going on, you should think about taking a look at the druid varients presented here (http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Classes-Base.pdf).

Radiun
2009-11-03, 08:49 PM
Well, if this is still going on, you should think about taking a look at the druid varients presented here (http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Classes-Base.pdf).

Thank you kindly

EleventhHour
2009-11-03, 09:03 PM
Yes.

Yes, yes, yes.

A blind changling barbarian. The game hasn't started yet, but I'm excited for the roleplay.

( "If you can change your form at will, why don't you grow new eyes?"
"Why don't you shuttheheckup?" *rage, rage, rage* )

AstralFire
2009-11-03, 09:04 PM
Yes.

Yes, yes, yes.

A blind changling barbarian. The game hasn't started yet, but I'm excited for the roleplay.

( "If you can change your form at will, why don't you grow new eyes?"
"Why don't you shuttheheckup?" *rage, rage, rage* )

...

I like you. Here's a package of cookie dough.

ericgrau
2009-11-03, 10:02 PM
The stormwind fallacy fallacy strikes again. Cool stuff.

While I'd agree that it's often possible to optimize and roleplay a cool concept, sometimes you gotta do things for fun at the expense of all else. But what really annoys me is when the conflict isn't necessary, since often you can do what you want or something similar and still be effective. It annoys me when someone claims that you absolutely must do X to play well, vehemently bashes anyone who dares claim another option even comes close and then tells you to just refluff it. No thanks.

Dimers
2009-11-03, 11:32 PM
Because of the way I, personally, play a game, it's actually sometimes the case that mixing appropriate fluff into my crunch makes the character MORE effective, not less. That's because, while the build itself is less optimal, I want to make maximal use of what I've got, so I actively look for opportunities and work harder to sway the GM into accepting my view of reality. My subconscious works a lot harder than my conscious mind does, so if I've got motivation to make a weak build work well, that'll often turn out better than if I'm bored with a munchkin character.

Pun-Pun does too have flavor! Setting aside the argument that he has all the flavors he wants, it's still relatively easy to project Pun-Pun's personality as a benignly disinterested soul, an avid student of personal growth who shares the benefits of enlightenment with those close to him (e.g. his familiar) but largely leaves the rest of the world alone. We know this because we aren't getting slapped all to hell by his infinite-reach-across-all-planes unarmed strike.


But why not just take mana ball and describe it as a blast of sand?

That particular change doesn't work in Shadowrun. The manaball works better and is cheaper because it only affects living things -- the limitation allows it more strength in other areas, basically. And Shadowrun spell creation guidelines are pretty specific about separating "Physical" and "Mana" spells, even more so if there could be side effects like the sand would cause.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-04, 12:23 AM
I want to make a fast-talking, quick-witted, armored spearmaster who frequently wins battles through effective use of solo tactics and bluffing, since he is only physically average. He has a great deal of skill, but due to a frail childhood, is not exceptionally healthy. 28 PB.Factotum. Stealth+SA+Craven+adding Int to attack and damage+another standard action doing all of that again if the first hit fails. Should insta-gib most opponents before they notice him, and his mithral armor keeps him out of the way of any retaliation. He'd be better with another weapon, since I can't find a spear that's both Finessable and doesn't abuse the size rules, but if you don't mind refluffing a Light Pick, Siangham, or Rapier should work as a spear. Or go homebrew, because WotC dropped the ball on weapons.
Stat him out for me, and keep him as effective as a silent loner sword master, who is physically gifted and additionally uses his insight to keep control of the battle at all levels. Selfless and unassuming, he acts primarily to enforce a philosophy of swift and simple punishment to the wicked. While thoughtful, he is not a complicated man, and he dislikes complicated plans. 28 PB.Crusader. The 2 should be comparable, with one being better out of combat and the other being able to take more hits.

AstralFire
2009-11-04, 12:26 AM
Factotum. Stealth+SA+Craven+adding Int to attack and damage+another standard action doing all of that again if the first hit fails. Should insta-gib most opponents before they notice him, and his mithral armor keeps him out of the way of any retaliation. He'd be better with another weapon, since I can't find a spear that's both Finessable and doesn't abuse the size rules, but if you don't mind refluffing a Light Pick, Siangham, or Rapier should work as a spear.

Bzzt, wrong, Factotum is just about never an answer. :smallwink:

I'm of the school of thought that says if you have a major class feature (like the ability to cast spells!), your character should be using it or demonstrate the ability to use it within your concept/backstory. As mentioned, I don't feel its level of mimicry (which can be used for a wide variety of things) and even worse its spellcasting are appropriate fits.

Knight worked, as PF and Fax both eventually hit on, but I feel my point was made for reasons earlier elaborated upon.


Crusader. The 2 should be comparable, with one being better out of combat and the other being able to take more hits.

...Buhwha, I gave the perfect set-up for a swordsage. o.O Actually, I suppose that can be read as Crusader...

I dislike dragons, prepared casters, dungeons, factotums... I suppose I really was destined to be contrarian to mainstream nerdity.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-04, 12:34 AM
Bzzt, wrong, Factotum is just about never an answer. :smallwink:

I'm of the school of thought that says if you have a major class feature (like the ability to cast spells!), your character should be using it or demonstrate the ability to use it within your concept/backstory. As mentioned, I don't feel its level of mimicry (which can be used for a wide variety of things) and even worse its spellcasting are appropriate fits.

Knight worked, as PF and Fax both eventually hit on, but I feel my point was made for reasons earlier elaborated upon.Sorry, missed the fact that this was 2 pages. However, I've never felt the Factotum had much spellcasting. Mine barely used it, primarily as a means of covering stuff my skills couldn't or as an 'oshi' button. I also have to wonder how you plan to have any loner char that doesn't have some source of healing.
...Buhwha, I gave the perfect set-up for a swordsage. o.OYou went into 'cause' too much, and cha and wis are always confusing in the fluff.

AstralFire
2009-11-04, 12:39 AM
Sorry, missed the fact that this was 2 pages. However, I've never felt the Factotum had much spellcasting. Mine barely used it, primarily as a means of covering stuff my skills couldn't or as an 'oshi' button. I also have to wonder how you plan to have any loner char that doesn't have some source of healing.

The old-fashioned way? "I got into the fight of my life and I'm going to sit on death's door on my bed for several weeks recuperating because it was just THAT tough of a fight?"

But then, I dislike magical healing for precisely the reason that it removes such drama and lingering effect from the party, and the world if it's high-magic enough. As a DM, I have more mook fights with the damage slowly racking up on the party over time, with occasional big brawls.

If not dealing with a wide-magic world where magical healing is rather accessible and common, it borders on metagame to me to have lowborn or rough-and-tumble characters who aren't used to going without and getting **** done anyway. In any case, the loner was the sword guy, not spearman.

Doc Roc
2009-11-04, 12:40 AM
It's never come up, so no.

Nerd-o-rama
2009-11-04, 12:43 AM
AstralFire, it might be worth it for you to look into the multitude of games that aren't D&D, and whose (alleged) game balance doesn't assume things like the easy availability of instant healing magic.

As for me, I generally try to squeeze as much utility as I can out of a particular concept, although I have been teaching myself to make suboptimal short-term choices when my character would. It's somewhat of an uphill battle for a powergamer who generally tries to think in strictly pragmatist terms in real life.

AstralFire
2009-11-04, 12:45 AM
AstralFire, it might be worth it for you to look into the multitude of games that aren't D&D, and whose (alleged) game balance doesn't assume things like the easy availability of instant healing magic.

Nerd-o-rama - I have indeed not played D&D 3E (beyond terrible one shots I get invited to) for more than a year. (originally intended to move on to 4E, found I was just tired of D&D period.) I play SW Saga or freeform RP these days, though I'm working on the third edition of my own, semi-gritty, rules-light system for The Anteheroes.

Nerd-o-rama
2009-11-04, 12:47 AM
SW Saga, at least as I recall, renders health and damage in a way that is at least reasonable enough for film, so that's an improvement. I was thinking more along the lines of GURPS, though that's too many numbers for it to be fun to me.

Starscream
2009-11-04, 01:59 AM
SW Saga, at least as I recall, renders health and damage in a way that is at least reasonable enough for film, so that's an improvement. I was thinking more along the lines of GURPS, though that's too many numbers for it to be fun to me.

Mutants & Masterminds is also a good one. It tends to assume non-lethal damage as the default.

It is also good for many different settings and styles. Even though it's designed to be a superhero game, the exaggerated abilities of pretty much any action movie character could be described in terms of being a low-level super. And it uses the d20 system just like SW Saga.

Kantolin
2009-11-04, 03:41 AM
I actually never completely understood making your character as effective as he can be in his given role.

This does not mean that you cannot make a well-roleplayed character who can drop the Tarrasque in one, nor does it mean you must be incapable of defeating level 1 kobolds with shortswords. Nor does it mean anything's particularly wrong with making a powerful character

I mean okay, let's say you have a group of people who generally don't power attack or two-weapon fight or anything - just walk over to things and hit them or use basic fireball-types, maybe weapon specialization. Your whole group is around there, the DM adjusts accordingly, and... well, everyone's happy.

But when you start tweaking things so the party consists of a party of insanely powerful creatures who can do hundreds of damage per attack sequence, or incapacitate enemies instantaneously...

...well, then you generally get that much closer to playing rocket launcher tag, as the DM has to do similarly in order to make the game challenging. So you start fighting hyperoptimized units who are optimized towards taking your hundreds of damage, or people who can drop you before you drop them.

So I dunno. Somewhere in the middle is preferable, since it gets you more options - but I greatly prefer erring on the side that's further away from rocket launcher tag. The only really really bad option is when someone in the group is far stronger/weaker than anyone else, provided everyone's not okay with this. And it has to be distant - one person doing 1d8+3 while the second does 2d6+5 is not a significant enough void to merit someone feeling useless.

Anyway, more to the OP. I come up with a concept, and find a concept that fits it - so yes, I almost always sacrifice utility for flavor. I mean, my favorite race is the half-orc, so I play a lot of them. And generally, I don't dance around picking abilities from here or there - class, prestige (or not), that's usually about it. I'll frequently do things that fit the flavor and not the mechanics - had a fighter become a cleric, for example, despite having a miserable wisdom and charisma (Ended up Fighter 9 / Cleric 3) as it fit the story much better, I frequently take feats and skills that fit the organization I'm focusing on, just now in a campaign started taking animal-focused features to accomodate the effort he's spending learning how to interact with a dire lion...

That stated, however, there's a limit to everything. I probably won't play a sorceror who never casts magic, or a totemist who doesn't shape soulmelds or something. Probably. Being sub-par can be fine, but being useless is generally less fun.

....probably. :P

Dragoa
2009-11-04, 11:00 AM
Yes, my current character is a horrible mis-match of me trying to come up with a stupid base class, then finding something funny and going gun's a blazing for it.

Currently he is a Half Orc 3 Bard/3 Barbarian, who's partakes in Orcish Diplomacy(Intimidate) and he right now has aspirations to become an Animal thrower(that is, Hulking Hurler + Bag of Tricks for ammunition). So far in session he hasn't been viable, since I got the idea for the animal thrower right before last level, but in a fun session he managed to throw a Wolverine at a Troll for a decent chunk of damage.

I just hope I can convince the DM to let me use Pentrating shot with my animals so I can use "Ray of Bear"

I'm so proud of my crazed animal throwing orc. :smallbiggrin:

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-04, 11:00 AM
I'll frequently do things that fit the flavor and not the mechanics - had a fighter become a cleric, for example, despite having a miserable wisdom and charisma (Ended up Fighter 9 / Cleric 3) as it fit the story much better

A dip in Cleric is very beneficial for a fighter. 1-20 levels in cleric will do wonders for your figther's combat abilities.

subject42
2009-11-04, 11:28 AM
That stated, however, there's a limit to everything. I probably won't play a sorceror who never casts magic

Someone on here once told a story about a player who pretended that his character was just a horribly sub-par fighter through just about the entire campaign, right up to the point where they were fighting a demon.

He took his armor off and cast dismissal.

That, right there, is some absolute dedication to a character concept.


On the topic of the original post, I'm currently playing a 10th level PathFinder sorcerer who has burnt his human, level 1, and level 3 feats on Toughness, Endurance, and Die-Hard because it fits his character concept. My DM thought I was insane, but truth to concept has paid off. He hasn't died yet!

Magnor Criol
2009-11-04, 11:40 AM
All the time; I love playing characters with a theme that are fundamentally flawed. It's fun to try and overcome the flaws, I guess, and it's always fun to play up a role.

One of my all-time favorite characters was a bard named Thalm Acamont. He was a traveling scholar, who made his coin by guest-lecturing at universities and the like that he passed by, and adventured to gain knowledge and experience.
The "sacrifice" was that I put ranks - a decent amount of ranks, too, not just one or two - into Profession (Public Speaker), and that I focused on Intelligence as much as - almost more - than Charisma. I think I even blew one of my levelup stat increases on Int! But he was so much fun to play.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-04, 11:55 AM
Put those ranks into Perform: Oratory instead of Profession: Speaker and it's not even a sacrifice...

Fenix_of_Doom
2009-11-04, 01:04 PM
I once made a druid with track as level 1 feat, though that was half for flavour and half for not wanting to be too overpowering.

Rixx
2009-11-04, 02:00 PM
I have a Pathfinder Sorcerer with a level in Fighter who uses his magic primarily to buff himself so he can charge into battle with his greatsword. He's also kind of an idiot - he has Int 8 and Wis 8. (Used to be Int 7, but I put my level 4 point in it just so he wouldn't be THAT stupid). He's just a blast to play as!

Maryring
2009-11-04, 02:17 PM
I have a Cleric (regular, not cloistered) whom doesn't wear armour, a Wizard who has lots of strength and a Psion with higher charisma than intelligence. It's fun as they all have their reasons for these choices.

Sliver
2009-11-04, 02:55 PM
I have a Pathfinder Sorcerer with a level in Fighter who uses his magic primarily to buff himself so he can charge into battle with his greatsword. He's also kind of an idiot - he has Int 8 and Wis 8. (Used to be Int 7, but I put my level 4 point in it just so he wouldn't be THAT stupid). He's just a blast to play as!

8, or 7 for that matter, Int and Wis isn't really dumb.. Just kinda dull. You won't start stupid speak with party no reason for..

Radiun
2009-11-04, 02:59 PM
8, or 7 for that matter, Int and Wis isn't really dumb.. Just kinda dull. You won't start stupid speak with party no reason for..

I've always like the idea that points of int = ~5 points of IQ with 10 int being set as 100.
So 18 is IQ 140 and 7 would have been 85.

Rixx
2009-11-04, 03:07 PM
He doesn't have trouble speaking clearly (indeed, he has 20 Charisma!), and is an all around likable and optimistic guy - he just makes pretty poor decisions, and as a running gag, confuses words for other words often.

Example: There's a dark cloud of negative energy swirling over the center of his city, and the citizens are going crazy - so he decides to climb atop the walls, where guards are posted, to bypass the crowds - automatically assuming that the guards will let him through to the center of the city because he's only trying to help.

People are often confounded and frustrated by his dim wit, though - especially our poor Necromancer, whom he thinks is a "Necrophiliac", because he keeps mixing the two words up.

Dimers
2009-11-04, 05:41 PM
... there's a limit to everything. I probably won't play a sorceror who never casts magic, or a totemist who doesn't shape soulmelds or something. Probably. Being sub-par can be fine, but being useless is generally less fun.

....probably. :P

Once I ran a character who was entirely based on alcohol (her name was Sherry, of course). I gave her no useful abilities, unless drinking people under the table is useful in your game. I spent character points on a trait to always have alcohol at hand and another trait that basically gave me a walking potted (no pun intended) plant familiar that ALSO had no useful abilities. She was a blast to play. Wouldn't work so well in D&D, I think. :smallsmile:

Boci
2009-11-04, 05:43 PM
Once I ran a character who was entirely based on alcohol (her name was Sherry, of course). I gave her no useful abilities, unless drinking people under the table is useful in your game. I spent character points on a trait to always have alcohol at hand and another trait that basically gave me a walking potted (no pun intended) plant familiar that ALSO had no useful abilities. She was a blast to play. Wouldn't work so well in D&D, I think. :smallsmile:

Drunken master? Although you do have some semi-useful abilities then.


Someone on here once told a story about a player who pretended that his character was just a horribly sub-par fighter through just about the entire campaign, right up to the point where they were fighting a demon.

He took his armor off and cast dismissal.

That, right there, is some absolute dedication to a character concept.

I probably would have attempted to kill such a character around session 3.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-04, 05:45 PM
Once I ran a character who was entirely based on alcohol (her name was Sherry, of course). I gave her no useful abilities, unless drinking people under the table is useful in your game. I spent character points on a trait to always have alcohol at hand and another trait that basically gave me a walking potted (no pun intended) plant familiar that ALSO had no useful abilities. She was a blast to play. Wouldn't work so well in D&D, I think. :smallsmile:

That is where you are wrong.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-11-04, 05:59 PM
Travis d'Amerila, my Half-Elf bard, sacrificed Bardic Music and spellcasting for the Skill tree of the Ultimate Rogue. Already a big hit. Then...

...well, let's just say that most of those went to Profession (journalist) and Profession (Photographer).

Lycar
2009-11-04, 06:41 PM
I want to make a fast-talking, quick-witted, armored spearmaster who frequently wins battles through effective use of solo tactics and bluffing, since he is only physically average. He has a great deal of skill, but due to a frail childhood, is not exceptionally healthy. 28 PB.

Stat him out for me, and keep him as effective as a silent loner sword master, who is physically gifted and additionally uses his insight to keep control of the battle at all levels. Selfless and unassuming, he acts primarily to enforce a philosophy of swift and simple punishment to the wicked. While thoughtful, he is not a complicated man, and he dislikes complicated plans. 28 PB.

Ohh... let's see what we can do when we only have the PHB available, shall we? Theoretically this would be 3.0, even before Sword & Fist came out but I only have the 3.5 PHB, so...

Spear fighter:

Stats, 28 PB. The most optimal spread is 14,14,14,14,10,10 or 14,14,14,14,12,8 of course.

Since he is frail, CON gets an 8. Physically average suggests STR & DEX to be about 10. Let us use the points to bump INT to 16 and CHA to 15. Maybe drop WIS to 12 and raise CHA to 16 too. Ain't no good WIS based feats in PHB I after all.

Okay, this guy needs armour badly to live, but at first level there is no such thing as Plate Mail for you. Also, the description pretty much fits a Rogue. Or Bard maybe.

Both should take a dip into Fighter for the armour proficiencies at some point, although a Bard would hate the ASF issue. Plus shield proficiency since he can't take advantage of THF anyway. That also makes his weapon of choice a shortspear.

But starting with a Rogue, we take Impr. Feint to be able to use Sneak Attack even without a flanking buddy. Weapon Focus would help with hitting stuff, Skill Focus (Bluff) would help him to actually get those extra 1d6 damage. Then again, Run would help him to evade those fights he would raher not fight (a very clever solo tactic if you ask me :smalltongue:). Would pretty much mean he is stuck with light armour though. Improved Initiative on the other hand means he will get to SA a flat-footed opponent more often, on lower levels this is more likely one less enemy to deal with right from the start. *sigh* Decisions, decisions...

Hm yes, stick with a Rogue (and maybe a Fighter dip for armour & shield use) and he can cleverly sneak attack foes, using his quick wit and skill to poke the enemy where it really hurts.

Lone Sword Master:

So this guy is, like, not very social, eh? Right then, CHA is the dump stat of choice for fightery types anyway. Oh and we did mention there are no WIS-related feats for fighters, so this is the next traditional dump stat. But hey, this guy is supposed to keep his cool. This really does warrant some extra WIS. Especially since he likes his plans 'working' rather then 'flashy'.

Hmm... 14 in all physical stats, 8 in CHA, 10 INT, allows for WIS 14 and one 14er stat to be boosted to 15. STR maybe, traditional fighty stat after all.

So this guy is probably going to be wearing armour, heaviest he can get. Since he likes his plans simple, a two-handed weapon should fit the bill ->

More kill = less hurt.

Also: Swift & simple punishment.

Okay, so this guy keeps his cool about him. No Barbarian then. Fighter has no Listen & Spot as class skills, plus we are a wee bit point shy for skills. Still, with Alertness and his WIS boost, we could at least have basic competence at lower levels, even without putting any skill points into Listen or Spot!

Then again, pursuing a personal philosophy with such zeal would make a good Cleric. Of a cause. His cause. Yeah, that works.

Destruction domain gives Smite (whatever) once a day. Swift and simple. Oh, and add the Strength domain to give that one smite that extra 'ooomph'.

Although Law or Protection would also fit, though the granted abilities are less fun.

As a weapon, use a heavy mace or, better yet, a morning star two-handed. Or use a feat to get Martial Wpn. Prof (Heavy Flail/Greatclub). Blunt guy, blunt weapon. :smallamused:

But wait! He was a Swordmaster! So Greatsword it is!

Feats... the one we didn't use to learn Greatsword if he is human. Ah well, Power Attack fits the concept too well to ignore. A zealot like him could well have an Iron Will. Maybe add Power Attack at lv. 3 or something... Except we kinda want him to be perceptive. Soo... Alertness at lv 1 it was, right?

As for spells... since the Strength Domain gives Enlarge Person, this adds to the swift & simple 'let us hit one thing really hard 1/day' concept. Inflict Wounds, not so terribly much, although some divine wrath would not be amiss for a zealot. Still, Enlarge is just more impressive.

As for the rest: He wants to strike fear into the heart of the wicked? Prepare Cause Fear. Oh, you'd rather you get to smite them? Divine Favour. Which you basically grant yourself. Talk about self-buffs. :smallbiggrin:

Doom: Your enemies are doomed, right? Could as well make it official.

Protection from X: Yeah well, let's face it, smiting stuff is all well and good (or evil as the case may be) but a little protection goes a long way. Good Will save nonewithstanding.

Obscuring Mist: No Sneak Attack for you! Plus, if he ever finds himself beset by archers, this gives instant relief. Also, makes for a dramatic entry or exit. Personally I would just buy smoke sticks though. Has his left hand free, what with using no shield anyway.

Shield of Faith & Magic Weapon help with the smiting and not being counter-smitten. But Divine Favour and Protection from X are better.

##
There, that is what a lone PHB I can do at lv. 1. Take them from there.

Serpentine
2009-11-04, 10:27 PM
I have a (3/4 elf) tiefling (succubus) Ranger. First, we (being my DM and I) custom-made the tiefling part to suit the whole succubus thing. We gave her the default tiefling ability modifiers, I think they were (+2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Cha, maybe not the Dex bonus) then realised that she should have gotten +2 Cha instead of Int. However, I had her Charisma where I wanted it (can't remember exactly, 14-16 - 18 Cha appearance, but much less for self esteem and self confidence), so I didn't worry about it. Also I chose the non-caster Ranger, but didn't really like the still magicy substitution abilities, so I've pretty much just ignored them until I can come up with something else.

I also have a riding-focused Knight whose horse I (as DM) drowned. But that was mostly to further reduce the spotlightiness of my DMPC rather than flavour reasons.

Also I also have a half-orc Rogue/Catlord (Shea (is the cat's mother)). I don't know how underpowered she is, but I don't think she's terribly optimised. In fact, I specifically want to play her at low levels (so far I've only played her at about 15) so that I can properly roleplay her well-developed sense of self-preservation (low Intelligence, high Wisdom).


It's pretty much a requirement in my game: Flavour, character and roleplaying first, optimisation second at best.

dragonfan6490
2009-11-04, 11:06 PM
I've got a Sorcerer in my head, it was made in the spirit of the Traditional Celtic Druid, other than my own creation: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126289. But he's a Bard/1 Sorcerer/x. Not too far from being unoptimized, but he has a very particular spell list.

Stompy
2009-11-05, 12:24 AM
When have you folks made suboptimal decisions in the name of character concept?

Tiefling Two-Weapon-Fighting Ranger.

It was worse because it was Planescape and everything had DR. :smallfurious: I was also partying with a optimized swordsage and a optimized cleric (minus DMM) at the time.

Livor
2009-11-05, 12:54 AM
Never intentionally. I'd rather have an alive and flavorful character than a dead and flavorful character. My party, as a whole, is inept. We blunder from encounter to encounter with the tactical understanding of Leeroy Jenkins. So, anything I can do to prevent everyone from dying a horrible death is a plus, in my book.

Cogwheel
2009-11-05, 06:32 AM
Yes.

Yes, yes, yes.

A blind changling barbarian. The game hasn't started yet, but I'm excited for the roleplay.

( "If you can change your form at will, why don't you grow new eyes?"
"Why don't you shuttheheckup?" *rage, rage, rage* )

*raises hand* That'd be my game. As for me, sidestepping the whole "mutually exclusive" debate for a second... definitely, yes. I've played any number of kobolds and charisma-based warforged classes (warlock, among others). Most of these kobolds were not casters or dex-based classes, and none of them took advantage of kobold-only feats and so forth. One was actually a melee fighter-type, though admittedly a speed-based melee/psionics mix.

Also played a Death Knight paladin once. Still not sure if the LA was worth it, but that may count. For the record, said paladin was very much Lawful Good.

Oh, and I have a couple characters that I played as undead, purely for the flavour. The easiest way of doing so meant taking the Necropolitan template - effectively losing a level and a bit (never caught up in the course of the game) for a bundle of benefits and drawbacks that I likely break even on.

Can't think of any more specific examples at the moment, but they're out there. So in summary, yes. Though admittedly, I do try to optimize very slightly within that character's framework, to get what power I can without sacrificing any flavour (basically, enough to not be a dead weight/actually dead).



EDIT: Djinn's post reminded me. I take some fairly useless skills for flavour's sake. Profession (cook), profession (fishing), profession (shepherd), a bunch of craft skills I'd never need, and so forth. The first three were all on the aforementioned paladin, by the way, the last skill on the list being Heal. Frivolous feat choices are sometimes made too, but to a lesser extent.

Person_Man
2009-11-05, 09:56 AM
It's really not necessary to sacrifice utility for fluff. They're not mutually exclusive in any way. Having said that, I will almost always tone down the power level of my build so that it fits the general power level of the group. But that's just so that the mechanics of the game are more fun for everyone, not because of any fluff consideration. Similarly, if the group has one or more newbs in it, I will sometimes purposefully play a weak class (Scout, Monk, etc) to give them more of a spotlight.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-11-05, 10:27 AM
I'll play weak classes but I don't see the appeal in assigning skill points to necessary professions, or taking poor feats.

Thespianus
2009-11-06, 03:00 AM
If the character background calls for a lot of non-combat oriented knowledge, I'll gladly put skill points in Profession(actor) and Perform(acting) even if that will reduce my number of skillpoints for more "useful" skills. If a Rogue doesn't like magic or is repulsed by its use, he shouldn't take ranks in UMD, etc.

Ofcourse that means sacrifying utility for flavor, and I'm cool with that.

However, it would obviously be boring if the character never ever got the chance to use his ranks in Perform(acting). That would be "unfun" of the DM, and being an "unfun" DM is indeed a sin. :smalltongue:

If a player only picks feats and skills that will maximize his damage output in combat, even though the background story speaks of a peaceful shoemaker's apprentice who never quarreled with anyone in his life, it gets kinda silly too.

Friend Computer
2009-11-08, 08:13 AM
Not as extreme as some of the people here, but...
An elf focussed social enchanter, who's first feats were Endurance and Fey Heritage. Bared schools: Conjuration, Evocation, Illusion. Took UMD in order to use a wand of Tenser's Floating Disk to SIT IN...

Later I made a similar character, chosing instead the feats Weapon Finesse and Skill Focus: Dance. She pretended to be a fencer, so that no one would ask about her magical abilities, using her dance abilities to show off sword-dancing...

Another time, I made a human cleric with domain spontaneity, and the Domination and Charm domains... Her first level feat nabbed her the ability to use a longsword...

I love enchantment spells. ^_^

Sintanan
2009-11-08, 06:33 PM
My current character is a Dreamsight Shifter Monk 1/Soulknife 5.

Yeah... let that sink in for a moment. :smallbiggrin:

Leon
2009-11-10, 02:46 AM
My current character is a Dreamsight Shifter Monk 1/Soulknife 5.

Yeah... let that sink in for a moment. :smallbiggrin:

Sounds fine

(i however have no issue with monks or soul knives - in fact have seen a number of good characters of both classes over time)

I sacrificed 2 levels of Archivist for two flavor-some levels of Barbarian

bosssmiley
2009-11-10, 10:45 AM
I play B/X D&D (http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html), not 3E or 4E.

Yeah... let that sacrifice of utility for the sake of flavour sink in for a moment. :smallwink:

(with apologies to Sintanan)

FerhagoRosewood
2009-11-11, 05:17 AM
Almost everything I do is for flavor. Even when one of my group, who's the hardest DM of us all, has made two "one offs" that are supposed to be HARD I've subconsciously done so. I have two dead characters to show for it.

:smallfrown:

But then the first time he had a 12th level party in a CR 20 something fight. So then that's really not my fault. The second time was a character flaw of concern for a fallen deranged cleric that ended up getting him killed.

Strangely I always find myself as one of the weakest characters when it comes time to battle, yet my characters tend to be the de facto party leaders. I think it's because of my overall love of Swashbuckler type fighters and that I enjoy being the healer.

Though it would be nice, just once, to make a character that is the "OMG" awesome person in the party... Without using ToB.

Kiero
2009-11-11, 05:49 AM
I don't believe in "dumping" stats, so yes. My 4e Ranger character has Intelligence and Charisma 10, even though he doesn't need either of those attributes, and his highest starting stat originated at 16, not 18 as a result.

I also chose to play a melee Ranger, rather than the more effective (but frankly boring) archery Ranger.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-11, 11:07 AM
I'm right now making a meleer that uses a level of Monk to fight unarmed.

Granted I'm a Raptoran Dungeoncrasher/Warhulk, fighting by falling on people from the sky, but I'm still taking a Monk level and going unarmed.

The Rose Dragon
2009-11-11, 11:16 AM
Well, in Exalted I did once get Linguistics as a favored ability just for the sheer hilarity of learning new languages in a single second.

In M&M? Never. Flavor often does come with utility, and any flavor that doesn't have utility doesn't require game stats.

Neo Black
2009-11-11, 11:34 AM
I do not think that I have ever made a character with no regard to his abilities but again I have never made a whole character sheet without even thinking why he had this abilities.

I have spent long periods of time thinking about what the character should be like before even pulling out a sheet. However I also find that every once in a while you find a concept that first occured to you because of a class. For example your first idea for a character might not have been a clumsy dumb barbarian but after thinking about and putting rules into consideration you see that it would make for a fun experience.

Neo

SmartAlec
2009-11-11, 11:49 AM
One of my favourite characters was a wizard who was also a magical pacifist. He refused to use any spell, item or anything else that had a chance of directly killing another being, claiming that to do so was sullying the art that was magic. He'd only use disabling spells like Sleep or Hold Person if asked, and if the party intended to take the target alive. If he had to defend himself, he either used a sword, or used some means of avoiding and escaping.

He still had a whole bunch of tricks at his disposal, but that self-imposed code of conduct stopped him from verging into gamebreaker territory, at least.