PDA

View Full Version : Sacrificing power for flavor



blackjack217
2010-10-31, 10:04 PM
No really this thread is actually about sacrificing power for flavor, or just sacrificing power. What builds or class combinations have you heard of or witnessed that seemed to make no sense whatsoever?
I'll get the ball rolling with the Duskblade/Eldrich night. Why? because this combination is the definition of pointless you get absolutely no benefit from the eldrich knight prc as a duskblade.

Squally!
2010-10-31, 10:10 PM
well, my bard/pally i am currently playing in a 3.5 steampunk game isnt exactly a powerhouse, but hes a lot of fun to play, and sure, i could do what he does better w/ other classes, but its always fun to say that singing dancing fool over there is our paladin :P

Innis Cabal
2010-10-31, 10:15 PM
Lack of power=/=flavor or vice versa

Keld Denar
2010-10-31, 10:17 PM
Everything that isn't Pun-Pun sacrifices power. Its not some absolute with a sliding scale. In general though, you sacrifice power for balance and the ability to be challenged in encounters, rather than simply pressing the "I WIN" button over and over and over.

That said, there is no reason to make some choices. Just because your character is an accomplished blacksmith doesn't mean you have to take Skill Focus: Blacksmithing when he could be taking Power Attack instead. PCs are first and foremost adventurers, afterall, and adventuring is DANGEROUS. Your example is similar. Do you gain any new RP prespectives from being an EK over a straight Duskblade? None that I can think of, simply because EK is a relatively bland PrC without any RP attached to it. Now, if you left Duskblade to do...Abjurant Champion, a PrC with a lot more abilities to it, that would be believable, or for something like Sacred Exorcist or other PrC that makes more sense.

So, personally speaking, I wouldn't sacrifice anything for "flavor" or whatever. I would sacrifice things for balance though. I'd never take Shocktrooper, for example, because I think its a bit too strong for my tastes. Its not because I don't like the idea of a heedless charger, its purely a mechanical preference.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-31, 10:17 PM
you get absolutely no benefit from the eldrich knight prc as a duskblade.

Not even the benefit of flavor!

So... :smallconfused:

blackjack217
2010-10-31, 10:20 PM
well, my bard/pally i am currently playing in a 3.5 steampunk game isnt exactly a powerhouse, but hes a lot of fun to play, and sure, i could do what he does better w/ other classes, but its always fun to say that singing dancing fool over there is our paladin :P

pally x / dashing swordsmen 3 you get cha to hit and damage and you make puns constantly. The only good character more likely to get murdered by his own party members than the paladin.
link: http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Dashing_Swordsman

ericgrau
2010-10-31, 10:22 PM
A recent half-troll of mine loves to eat and used to make his living as a fisherman. He gave up his scent racial ability to carry around a pack of smelly dried fish (by RAW strong smells negate scent). Livestock is under constant attack and thus is rare in this campaign, except for fish. At one point this dialog arose:

Commander: Why did you join the military
Me: To protect the livestock
Other PC: To protect the innocent
Me: Ooh, that's a good answer too.
Other PC: Wait, you joined the military to protect livestock?
Me: Yes, it gives us food to eat. But protecting the innocent is good too.
Other PC: Seriously, livestock?!

Squally!
2010-10-31, 10:24 PM
pally x / dashing swordsmen 3 you get cha to hit and damage and you make puns constantly. The only good character more likely to get murdered by his own party members than the paladin.
link: http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Dashing_Swordsman

oh, i make enough in and out of char puns at the table as it is!

and yeah, adding cha to my damage would be great, but theres no need for it, he sings and dances and buffs the party, he already does enough damage on his own w/ TWF, power attack, snowflake wardance and crystalsong blades. almost too much for what i want him to do really :P

Serpentine
2010-10-31, 10:25 PM
Anytime anyone "roleplays to their disadvantage", I am happy. That goes for character design, too, although as I've said elsewhere that I prefer my players aim around tier 3 - but I'll take steps to even them out if they don't manage it.

I have a low-Int TWF half-orc Rogue/Catlord. I'm working on making her better, but even as good as I can get her she'll still be sub-par power-wise. Flavour-wise, I wuvs her :3

Boci
2010-10-31, 10:25 PM
Not even the benefit of flavor!

So... :smallconfused:

Pretty much. An EK mixes martial abilities and magic, but so does a duskblade. It would be like someone dual business and psycology to drop some business courses to do some more psycology courses which they had already done.

blackjack217
2010-10-31, 10:28 PM
Pretty much. An EK mixes martial abilities and magic, but so does a duskblade. It would be like someone dual business and psycology to drop some business courses to do some more psycology courses which they had already done.

Did I ever say the build makes any mechanical sense? That's the point

Serpentine
2010-10-31, 10:29 PM
He was agreeing with you :smallconfused:

Halae
2010-10-31, 10:29 PM
How many times have you said you want to play something fairly wild to a DM and he says "Give a good RP reason". you can attach flavor to almost anything with the right way of thinking. Personally, I like to make an even balance of things - Can I justify that my Half-Ogre character took power attack? Yes, he is a warrior, and sometimes power is better than precision. Can I justify him not taking ranks in craft (Weaponsmithing)? No, he needs to maintain his weapon, I think. Can I justify him taking Mage Slayer? probably not, since he doesn't deal with magic all that much, and what he does deal with is his friends...

and so on. Really, think about why your character would take training in something and how they think, and answers should be self-explanatory.

Toptomcat
2010-10-31, 10:30 PM
This whole thread: 'Tell us about builds that sacrifice power for flavor. Here is my example: a really terrible build with as much flavor as a saltine cracker.'

The assumption you seem to be making is that any sacrifice in power automagically makes your character correspondingly more flavorful, which is completely laughable.

Boci
2010-10-31, 10:31 PM
Did I ever say the build makes any mechanical sense? That's the point

Yes but what flavour did you get out of that decision? Was your character feeling guilty that they were too powerful? Did he have a really limited grasp of how effective certain fighting techniques would be for him?

Dr Bwaa
2010-10-31, 10:32 PM
I had a dread necro who I gave 8 con because his background justification for necromancy was that he was always sickly and eventually learned that his soul belonged to a Devil as a result of a contract his father made. This Devil would come claim him at any time (and had in fact attempted it once (with the obvious illness), narrowly staved-off by the Mysterious Old Crone™), so Isra had decided to do whatever was necessary to put his soul out of reach.

I have a character who is Fighter 10/Devoted Defender 5 :smalleek: He always wields his plot-centric sword that only deals nonlethal, even when we're fighting undead and constructs (he has another sword; it's like +2 ghost touch shocking burst or something...). He also wears a breastplate and a heavy steel shield, despite ostensibly being the "tank." Again, this is because those are his special items (that's more the DM's fault for being dumb and making my unique items really sub-par though).

I also have a halfling Chaos Mage (really cool concept with really poor execution from Mongoose) who, as soon as he stepped onto the Path of Bloody Rage, began multiclassing into Barbarian. :smallbiggrin:

Serpentine
2010-10-31, 10:32 PM
The assumption you seem to be making is that any sacrifice in power automagically makes your character correspondingly more flavorful, which is completely laughable.With the apparent added bonus of "and this is a terrible thing", although that could be a wording issue.

Boci
2010-10-31, 10:33 PM
Can I justify him not taking ranks in craft (Weaponsmithing)?

He buys weapons since he never had the patience to make his own.


No, he needs to maintain his weapon, I think. Can I justify him taking Mage Slayer?

A mage burnt his face with scorching ray so he tried to find a way to prevent that from happening again.

Halae
2010-10-31, 10:40 PM
He buys weapons since he never had the patience to make his own.



A mage burnt his face with scorching ray so he tried to find a way to prevent that from happening again.

This is exactly what I mean. anything you do, from killing a king to poisoning a well, to rescuing a child can have enormous differences based on your intentions.

Example 1) the king is a despot. kill him for the good of the kingdom. OR The king is benevolent and fair, and you've been hired by an evil baron to make sure the next king, who isn't so kind and fair, gets his succession a few years quicker OR He attacked you and, despite not wanting to fight him, the king has ordered your exocution and you need to get out.

Example 2) You wish to harness the liquid pain from the dying villagers to power your spells, regardless of who you kill OR the town is occupied by an invading army. poisoning the well may kill a few villagers, but a warning to them and their oppressors will soon be no more

Example 3) the child is destined to destroy the world, but only if saved from paladins now OR the orphanage is burning and you won't leave a life behind.

Everything has alternate interpretations, especially if you take it out of context. That's what I love about RP

wayfare
2010-10-31, 11:07 PM
Not a D&D thing, but may favorite character ever is a Obsidiman Weaponsmith with low Dexterity in a long-running Earthdawn game. He's not really great at combat, but is excellent at forging weapons...

Unfortunately for my party, he is has forged more weapons for NPCs than for PCs. He is somewhat interested in magic, and has designed a cool elemental warship and has discovered a way to create elemental firebombs of perilous power. He is trying to establish trade routes between peaceful nations before a war breaks out, and is using his warship design to unite scholars across national borders.

He is also a questor of Lochost (read: priest of the god of freedom), and has infiltrated the largest den of slavery in his country to end a plot to magically enforce slavery at the behest of his deity.

So he's only a moderate help to his party, but his legend (a big part of earthdawn) includes him forging weapons for several heroes, working to establish peace to a war-torn land, creating a demon-slaying sword, working to end slavery, converting a group of slavers to a band of wandering heroes, inventing the magical equivalent of nukes, and going on personal god quests -- all in addition to the regular demon slaying that my party does.

essentially, he is a character MADE of flavor.

Gralamin
2010-11-01, 01:58 AM
Because no one has done it yet:

The Lightning Warrior (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126747) sacrifices power for flavor. It doesn't even have a familiar!

true_shinken
2010-11-01, 02:04 AM
Because no one has done it yet:

The Lightning Warrior (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126747) sacrifices power for flavor. It doesn't even have a familiar!

Darn, you beat me to it.
I had a Dervish in my game that started taking levels of Knight of the Inner Circle for story reasons... does it count?

Prime32
2010-11-01, 04:09 AM
A mage burnt his face with scorching ray so he tried to find a way to prevent that from happening again.I don't see why you need a reason to take Mage Slayer other than "mages are hax and everyone knows it".

Rixx
2010-11-01, 04:39 AM
One-weapon fighting rogue (pictured in avatar). Didn't want another TWF character, since I played a TWF ranger in another game. Eventually had her PrC into (PF) Duelist. She was fun!

ShadowFighter15
2010-11-01, 04:48 AM
One-weapon fighting rogue (pictured in avatar). Didn't want another TWF character, since I played a TWF ranger in another game. Eventually had her PrC into (PF) Duelist. She was fun!

As the stories of her on TV Tropes prove.

One idea I've been toying with (and I don't know if this would be sub-optimal or not) is a silver half-dragon swashbuckler who only wielded a rapier. Wouldn't even use his claws for a follow-up after the rapier and would only use his breath weapon for more creative uses - like knocking over water barrels and then using his cold breath weapon once the bad guys are all standing in the spilt water. It'd only be a thin layer of ice, but it is rather annoying to keep making balance checks, isn't it?

EDIT: Well bugger; seems the Crowning Moment of Awesome page for DnD's been nuked.

Mastikator
2010-11-01, 04:59 AM
I once made a charismatic warrior. The charisma did in no way help in combat, but I chose it because he was supposed to be a popular ladiesman. Which he totally was. It became a little ridiculous when another PC fell in love with him.
Good times.

Psyx
2010-11-01, 05:36 AM
What builds or class combinations have you heard of or witnessed that seemed to make no sense whatsoever?

Well... not many, because there's normally a concept behind them. I guess the goblin frenzied berserker with a flail in one of our games seems to make no sense mechanically until you realise the flail is a huge ball and chain and she's a GW-style night goblin fanatic.

Eldariel
2010-11-01, 05:43 AM
Usually I find it more rewarding to find a solid way to make a concept happen, than play a bad class combination for a concept. I'm of the school that believes there's always a way to make whatever you want work within the system.

prufock
2010-11-01, 07:40 AM
I try to build characters from concept up. Start with "What kind of character (as opposed to build) do I want to play?" Then build the character with the mechanics. Pretty well all my characters have some weakness. However, working within that, the weakness is often psychological more than physical/mechanical.

That said, there's nothing wrong with playing against racial type, either. Yes, I want to play a well-spoken, intelligent half-orc wizard. I realize I will take penalties to intelligence (mechanical weakness) and charisma (non-mechanical weakness - you can play well-spoken without high charisma), and have a bonus to strength (mostly useless bonus for class type). I don't think there's anything wrong with that. When creating a character, there are two criteria I expect to meet, in regard to power:
1. Be effective in your chosen role such that you are a benefit to your party. You need not be optimized, however you can't be a hindrance to the party.
2. Don't overshadow other party members. With certain classes, it's easy to do this, but it's important to make sure everyone has a role to fill, and everyone has fun.
Essentially, you want to be on par with the other party members. You want the Goldilocks treatment: not too strong, not too weak, but juuuuuust right.

This sort of plays into my philosophy on "power" in games in general. The DM is your power ceiling. If your party is too weak, the DM will lower CR and make challenges slightly easier. If your party is too strong, the DM will increase CR to balance. If you build a character that can "do everything," the DM will throw something at you that you can't do. If you have +50 to attacks and do ten thousand damage a hit, the DM will give you a creature with DR 9990/-. That's his job.

And sometimes I just want to play a monk.

Duke of URL
2010-11-01, 07:53 AM
Yeah, I can't say I've ever really worked the "let me take a powerful build and gimp it to make it more 'colorful'" angle. I generally work in reverse, creating a character with a particular focus and personality, and then finding a workable race/class/feat/skill combination that makes the concept work.

This doesn't always (or even often) wind up as being an "optimal" build, so in that respect, I've sacrificed power for flavor, but I'm not doing it int he way it's presented. I'm building a character the best way that makes sense for that character.

Heliomance
2010-11-01, 07:58 AM
Because no one has done it yet:

The Lightning Warrior (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126747) sacrifices power for flavor. It doesn't even have a familiar!

Curse you, Swordsages!

SamsDisciple
2010-11-01, 08:25 AM
I agree with all the hate messages that less power =/= flavor but sometimes you make a build decision purely for flavor not for mechanics like my wu jen/mindbender. Mind bender is only an effective class if the dm tweaks it in your favor (which after several sessions he did) but wu jen are not necessarily known for charisma nor social skills but the flavor was wonderful when I had an exotic asian lady that toyed with peoples minds and started the spice trade from scratch (corporations are the best way to use lvl 1/2 followers, make money and can't die in battle) or also when using the telepathy to bluff an entire mob of ogres/orcs into believing that the black tentacles were actually a demon being summoned from another plane.

jiriku
2010-11-01, 08:29 AM
I see this a lot with a certain player in my play group. He envisioned one character as a knight in an immensely powerful suit of armor, nigh-impregnable, and produced a character with unassailable AC...but little in the way of offensive capability, since every character option had been invested in defense. His next character was a fighter who was a peerless archer who could strike a target from a mile away...and that was about it. In both cases, the player envisioned his character as mundane but skillful, and so he steered away from casting classes. While he optimized heavily, the thing he optimized wasn't especially useful to the party, and he min/maxed so thoroughly that he could do little else.

I've done a similar thing, in a way. I enjoy playing casters, and when I played in a campaign in which casters were banned but creatures from Savage Species were allowed, I played a succubus. Succubi are darn fun to play, and their suite of spell-like abilities was the closest I could get to an arcane caster, but well...the SS succubus class leaves a lot to be desired. I consoled myself by keepign in mind that the caster ban removed all T1 and T2 options, and most of T3.

Psyx
2010-11-01, 08:42 AM
I try to build characters from concept up. Start with "What kind of character (as opposed to build) do I want to play?" Then build the character with the mechanics.

This. A thousand times.

My initial concept might obviously be somewhat class based ('I fancy playing a traditional robe-wearing old wizard' or 'well, I guess we need a character who has 'trapfinding'), but from then on it's a concept-build. I then look at the mechanics and start trying to beat the 3.5 rules with a stick until I can figure out how to make the character mechanically viable and hopefully quite good at what they do, within the perimeters of my concept. Sometimes that's not really possible and the concept has to be binned for the sake of having a character who's not pretty much useless.

It's part of why I dislike 3.5: You have to work hard to make a build match a concept sometimes. The system only has flexibility due to the sheer number of rules, classes and PrCs, instead of inherently possessing it. It means that it's far easier to write down a bunch of numbers first and then build a character concept - which I despise.

mcv
2010-11-01, 08:47 AM
Commander: Why did you join the military
Me: To protect the livestock
Other PC: To protect the innocent
Me: Ooh, that's a good answer too.
Other PC: Wait, you joined the military to protect livestock?
Me: Yes, it gives us food to eat. But protecting the innocent is good too.
Other PC: Seriously, livestock?!
Best motivation ever!

Unrest
2010-11-01, 08:49 AM
Ted "Yogi" Ursus, the bear-riding bare-handed half-bear bear-blooded werebear Bear Totem Bearbearian Bearserker with an Unbearably Grisly Pandamonium In His Head. Wildshaped into a bear and with a bear animal companion. With a Bear's Paw-Amulet of Summon Nature's Ally.

I mean, I don't know how much power you sacrifice here, but that's flavor that sacrificing all firstborns in Egypt could bearly give you.

Earthwalker
2010-11-01, 09:17 AM
How to sacrifice power for flavour.

For 3.5 I own the PHB and DMG only. My group uses the points buy stat allocation system.

I want to play a charismatic, intellegent fighter. I don’t like playing any kind of spell caster and would idealy like to go sword and board as I like the AC.
I create my fighter with
14 str,10 dex,12 con,10 wis,14 int,14 cha
This fits my concept perfectly. It also vastly lowers his combat power.
Of course this is only a reduction in combat power maybe not in terms of character power. You never know that +2 on diplomacy and having the diplomancy skill might save his life one day.

Mongoose87
2010-11-01, 09:24 AM
You want to talk about sacrificing power for flavor, in my D20 Modern group, there's a character who eschews firearms, even the powerful alien ones we get to play with from time to time, in favor of throwing knifes, because she doesn't believe in killing. This is in a military campaign.

Dralnu
2010-11-01, 09:46 AM
I'll usually pick a non-optimal race or weapon style for flavor reasons. I don't think little things like that drastically changes things in the long run, except for very specific types of builds. I can slap on any +0 LA race on my cleric and not care whatsoever because I'm a friggin' cleric. Similarly, my dual-wielding whip warblade will still rock stuff because he's a warblade.

My biggest rule is to be balanced with respects to the rest of the group. I don't want to outshine anybody or make the DM's challenges trivial. If I'm in an unoptimized group and an unarmed swordsage would be too strong, I don't mind busting out a regular PHB monk.

DrWeird
2010-11-01, 09:52 AM
I don't really know if this is terribly relevant, but most of my characters use Cha as a dump stat (Automatically dropping Cha to 8 on a stat calculator, anyone?) yet still play them as decent visibly and socially.

Which, really, brings up an interesting point; limiting yourself by what you perceive your stat numbers to be is a terrible practice, unless you're abiding by some personal dedication to roleplaying by rollplaying, as it can severely limit your character design. Despite the 8 Cha my fighters and barbarians so very much feature, I never necessarily make them ugly or antisocial - most of the time I play stalwart characters with grim features and solid personalities. They're no Han Solos, but the idea is not to let your rolls determine how you play unless you really like doing that. Generally, I don't believe the flipside of the topic should be a reality except under special conditions.

Psyx
2010-11-01, 10:08 AM
most of my characters use Cha as a dump stat (Automatically dropping Cha to 8 on a stat calculator, anyone?) yet still play them as decent visibly and socially.

Which, really, brings up an interesting point; limiting yourself by what you perceive your stat numbers to be is a terrible practice

Say what? It's rollplaying and poor roleplaying to roleplay your actual characteristics?

So - hypothetically- in Pendragon, you'd completely ignore your Virtues because to roleplay according to them would be rollplaying?!

Or have I missed something?

The Glyphstone
2010-11-01, 10:20 AM
Well, I've just finished rolling a Warmage for an Ebberon game on another forum. We were allowed 2 Flaws, and I decided to break away from my standard package of Noncombatant/Vulnerable (bland and low-impact on a ranged character). So I took Slow and Poor Reflexes instead, combining them to decide that he has a badly crippled leg from a battle he fought in the Last War, one that never healed properly and was resistant to curative magic (a Mournlands construct did it). Sure, it's a deliberate gimp (no pun intended) of the character, but I liked simply breaking my default mold, because it inspired me to write different fluff. (Admittedly, a bum leg could also be represented by -2 melee/-1 AC, but it'd be less fun).

Mr.Smashy
2010-11-01, 10:28 AM
Totally played a halfling who started out a completely social rogue with negatives in 4 of his 6 stats (Str, Con, Wis, Int) and literally had to be dragged on all of the party adventures. He was a home-body that never liked to venture out of the house unless he really needed to. After the first adventure he had more locks placed on the door of his house, but the half-orc came in through the window and dragged him out again. Good times those were. Lots of flavor and num nums. I enjoy flavor over power any day of the week.

dsmiles
2010-11-01, 10:52 AM
Yeah, I can't say I've ever really worked the "let me take a powerful build and gimp it to make it more 'colorful'" angle. I generally work in reverse, creating a character with a particular focus and personality, and then finding a workable race/class/feat/skill combination that makes the concept work.

This doesn't always (or even often) wind up as being an "optimal" build, so in that respect, I've sacrificed power for flavor, but I'm not doing it int he way it's presented. I'm building a character the best way that makes sense for that character.

I'd say ditto, except it would be too short for the post. :smallbiggrin:

Tengu_temp
2010-11-01, 10:55 AM
I don't really know if this is terribly relevant, but most of my characters use Cha as a dump stat (Automatically dropping Cha to 8 on a stat calculator, anyone?) yet still play them as decent visibly and socially.

Which, really, brings up an interesting point; limiting yourself by what you perceive your stat numbers to be is a terrible practice, unless you're abiding by some personal dedication to roleplaying by rollplaying, as it can severely limit your character design.

So if I play a Warforged ubercharger with 8 intelligence and 6 charisma, but roleplay my character as a fair elven maiden whose beauty, wits and charm make no man capable of resisting her, and who has never held a weapon in her life, then I'm an awesome roleplayer because I don't let any mechanical aspects of my character limit my roleplaying?

Xiander
2010-11-01, 10:55 AM
Which, really, brings up an interesting point; limiting yourself by what you perceive your stat numbers to be is a terrible practice, unless you're abiding by some personal dedication to roleplaying by rollplaying, as it can severely limit your character design.

If i understand this correctly, you are saying that it is bad to modulate your characters social abillities according to his charisma. If that is what you were trying to say, i disagree.
A character shaould always be played with his abillty scores in mind. A charisma 8 character should be portrayed as less charismatic than a charisma 10 character (though not necesatily as completely socially inept).



Despite the 8 Cha my fighters and barbarians so very much feature, I never necessarily make them ugly or antisocial - most of the time I play stalwart characters with grim features and solid personalities. They're no Han Solos, but the idea is not to let your rolls determine how you play unless you really like doing that. Generally, I don't believe the flipside of the topic should be a reality except under special conditions.

Here i partly agree with you. There is no reason to necesarily make a low charisma character ugly or anti social. I do however think that a player should always considder how that low stat affects the characters way of being.

A charisma 8 barbarian could be a lump of a man with a couple of ugly scars marring his general apearance, but he might as well just be a normal looking man with an angry voice that makes people think he might be liable to snap, or he could be the type of person who is very talkative and does not catch that other people might not want to listen to him all the time. Or he could be a whole lot of other things, but ideally he should not be a charisma 10 person with -1 on charisma based rolls.


On a side note, how would one portray a low charisma character with maxed diplomacy and bluff?

The Glyphstone
2010-11-01, 10:57 AM
On a side note, how would one portray a low charisma character with maxed diplomacy and bluff?

Someone akin to Hannibal Lector, maybe. Physically unimposing or even repulsive, but an absolute mastery of language and talking to people, to the point where psychology turns into almost magic.

DrWeird
2010-11-01, 10:57 AM
Giving him the unsettling characteristic of an average-looking fellow who hides great charisma in his words. Sort of Buddha-like fellow, I'd think - he's not pretty, but his words are.

Xiander
2010-11-01, 11:21 AM
Can it be done without resorting to making him ugly or physically unatractive?

I´m picturing someone who will talk in a grim voice with a sneer, but say exactly the right thing. But would that be enough to represent the low charisma?

Keld Denar
2010-11-01, 11:21 AM
Totally played a halfling who started out a completely social rogue with negatives in 4 of his 6 stats (Str, Con, Wis, Int) and literally had to be dragged on all of the party adventures. He was a home-body that never liked to venture out of the house unless he really needed to. After the first adventure he had more locks placed on the door of his house, but the half-orc came in through the window and dragged him out again. Good times those were. Lots of flavor and num nums. I enjoy flavor over power any day of the week.

So...the question is, did being completely inept at anything that involved combat make this character more enjoyable? Or did your awesome roleplaying skills make this character more enjoyable? Would it have wrecked the character if he would have been decent in combat, and simply been reluctant to adventure?

See, I'm seeing a lot of people post "I played x, which was suboptimial, but I still had fun", but I'm not seeing any coralation between x being suboptimal and x being that much fun to play. About the closest I've seen is Glyphstone's taking of flaws that aren't shakey/vulnerable, and still, Slow as a caster isn't crippling and generally Ref is the save you don't mind being lower since 99% of all Ref saves just result in HP damage rather than immediate death, dismemberment, or domination.

This leads me to ask, does the mechanical limitations of a character make him more fun to play? Or can you have your RP fun and STILL be able to contribute to encounters? I mean, D&D is primarily an adventuring based combat engine. If you want an RP intensive game, something like a White Wolf system or a rules-lite game like Fudge/Fate might be more your style. D&D characters are adventurers first, whatever second. Adventuring is a dangerous career. Being good at adventuring might mean the difference between your combat-lite, RP-focused character surviving the night or not.

Zeofar
2010-11-01, 11:45 AM
D&D characters are adventurers first, whatever second. Adventuring is a dangerous career. Being good at adventuring might mean the difference between your combat-lite, RP-focused character surviving the night or not.

And here we have what you aren't getting: D&D characters do not have to be adventurers first. All characters in D&D are supposed to be able to be statted; are you suggesting that commoners are adventurers first? I presume that you aren't, but it comes out like that if you decree that a non-combat character is not material for a decent character. Take a look at Bilbo Baggins; at the start of his adventure, he was most certainly NOT an adventurer first, whatever second. He survived because he had certain abilities and characteristics which were not focused on beating down enemies, covertly or overtly. Nobody would argue that a classic fantasy protagonist archetype would make a bad D&D character from a roleplaying perspective.

And, yes, being poor at combat does play a role in roleplaying; if you are good at beating monsters, it does not, not, not make sense that you would never consider doing so as a viable option unless you came up with some trait that changes your character into something that it wasn't in the beginning. There is a big difference between a weak, simpering coward who avoids combat like the plague even though he wishes he were strong and a reluctant but sturdy fighter who doesn't like to fight, just because. It means that you aren't going to take certain routes to a goal, not because you are deciding not to do so, but because you can't. It means that you have to think of other options, and that there isn't a the fallback "if the monster wakes up, we'll just kill it anyways." And, yes indeed, if your definition of fun isn't "winning an encounter," "defeating the BBEG and ending this part of the campaign," or "always being on top," but rather "experiencing life from a character's perspective," any twist and turn can be fun. It may indeed be not-fun if your character dies, but that doesn't have to happen just because you can't go toe-to-toe with the enemy.

Toptomcat
2010-11-01, 11:46 AM
You want to talk about sacrificing power for flavor, in my D20 Modern group, there's a character who eschews firearms, even the powerful alien ones we get to play with from time to time, in favor of throwing knifes, because she doesn't believe in killing. This is in a military campaign.

...so you toss sharpened hunks of metal into your enemies' precious, precious organs because you're a pacifist?

Killer Angel
2010-11-01, 11:48 AM
Lack of power=/=flavor or vice versa

To be fair, the OP wasn't saying this.
It was more 'bout "making a suboptimal choice, because you likes it more"

dsmiles
2010-11-01, 11:50 AM
So...the question is, did being completely inept at anything that involved combat make this character more enjoyable? Or did your awesome roleplaying skills make this character more enjoyable? Would it have wrecked the character if he would have been decent in combat, and simply been reluctant to adventure?
As someone who doesn't particularly optimize, I'd personally answer (in order):
No. Yes. No.

See, I'm seeing a lot of people post "I played x, which was suboptimial, but I still had fun", but I'm not seeing any coralation between x being suboptimal and x being that much fun to play. About the closest I've seen is Glyphstone's taking of flaws that aren't shakey/vulnerable, and still, Slow as a caster isn't crippling and generally Ref is the save you don't mind being lower since 99% of all Ref saves just result in HP damage rather than immediate death, dismemberment, or domination.
I've seen no correlation between "sub-optimal" and "fun." Most people could have just as much fun with an optimal character, but some can't seem to. Of course, I've seen no correlation between "optimal" and "fun," either. I can have just as much fun either way, some people have to optimise to have fun, though. I, personally (as a casual gamer), don't understand either one of those ideas.

This leads me to ask, does the mechanical limitations of a character make him more fun to play? Or can you have your RP fun and STILL be able to contribute to encounters? I mean, D&D is primarily an adventuring based combat engine. If you want an RP intensive game, something like a White Wolf system or a rules-lite game like Fudge/Fate might be more your style. D&D characters are adventurers first, whatever second. Adventuring is a dangerous career. Being good at adventuring might mean the difference between your combat-lite, RP-focused character surviving the night or not.
This all depends on the optimization level of the group. For instance, I play in a low-op group. Mechanically sub-optimal characters can still contribute meaningfully. A person trying to play a high-op character in the group I game with would only be contributing to everyone else not having fun, unless they toned down their character to the rest of the group's power level.
And why does everything have to be combat-focused? How much good will a combat-focused character's combat abilities be in a political intrigue campaign? Probably won't do much good, will they. Everything having to deal with optimization comes down to a few simple questions:
1. Is the group I'm in high-op, medium-op, or low-op?
2. Is the campaign going to allow me to use my uber-powers in a constructive way?
Unless you answered 'high-op' and 'yes,' a great deal of optimization isn't necessary. Instead of poring over books for hours optimizing your character, go outside and get some fresh air while everybody else agonizes over making their characters.
If you did answer 'high-op' and 'yes,' however, time to get cracking. Open those books and go to town, you'll need it just to survive.
I play characters that are probably a little above my group's optimization level. This is my natural level of optimization. If I was invited into a group, sat at the table for a session, and found out that they were high-op, I probably wouldn't come back. I'm not comfortable in an environment where everyone has to do a bazillion damage every round to keep up. I don't find it entertaining, and wouldn't have fun. If I were invited to a game, sat at the table for a session, and found out that they were a no-op group, I'd probaly tone my character down a few notches to not overshadow the other characters, and come back again.
It's all about your comfort level, and the group.
Again, I do not consider myself to be an optimizer, and am most definitely a casual gamer. Take it with a grain of salt.

Zeofar
2010-11-01, 12:00 PM
To be fair, the OP wasn't saying this.
It was more 'bout "making a suboptimal choice, because you likes it more"

It was pretty much implied by his example being absolutely senseless, by saying that he wants us to tell about builds or classes that made absolutely no sense, and by, in the first sentence, going from sacrificing flavor for power to just sacrificing power. In my mind, it at least indicates that the OP doesn't really get the point of sacrificing power for flavor. As written, the Duskblade/ED mix makes zero sense whatsoever because the ED has no flavor; however, if the Eldritch Knights were an organization, or some sort of recognized class in the campaign, it would be sacrificing power for flavor. Here, though, only power is sacrificed.

LordBlades
2010-11-01, 12:01 PM
To some point or another, we all sacrifice power for different reasons. Otherwise we'd all be playing in partys of x identical copies of the most powerful build you could make with the materials/house rules of the given campaign.

On the topic of this thread: sacrificing power for flavor. I am both an optimizer and a roleplayer, so I usually understand wanting to make a certain somewhat suboptimal choice for story reasons. When I start having a problem with it is when said choice brings you so far below the average power level of the party that your char becomes a liability. I consider courtesy to the other players to bring a char that fits in and contributes and an attitude like 'my char is going to suck for story reasons' really pisses me off.

I've had something like that happen in a campaign a while ago. Party consisted of Druid, Artificer, Wizard, Beguiler/SCM and DMM Persist Chameleon. And then a (pretty stubborn)friend joins and makes a CAdv ninja because 'he has a cool ninja story'. What followed were a few months of encounters going like 'ok, we'll do this, this and this, and ninja boy do whatever you want and try not to get yourself killed'. Mechanically, the char was worthless. In combat the enemy attacks and AC's were way out of his league (in line with what the rest of the party had, but for him, he would get hit on 2-3 and only land a hit on natural 20s) and out of combat he couldn't hope to match the chameleon's skill modifiers. The ninja story was pretty epic though, and roleplaying with him was awesome fun, but he could have done all that with an unarmed swordsage or something else useful.

Psyx
2010-11-01, 12:05 PM
Can it be done without resorting to making him ugly or physically unatractive?

Easy: Some people just hit you straight off as 'creepy' for one reason or another - even something very non-specific. Then when you talk to them, you find out that they're charming... it's just the initial non-verbal communication is in some manner unsettling. Or someone with a speech impediment. Your first impression could be a bad one, until you learn to get past that. Oh: Or someone who sprays spit everywhere when they speak!


I'm not seeing any coralation between x being suboptimal and x being that much fun to play.

I do. Very much. For example: If sat at a table full of 'non-optimal' gamers. You could play Batman, but over-shadowing your friends and solving every problem without really having to put much effort in is as dull as ditchwater.
Better to play something that doesn't annoy people OOC and has to work for his dinner.

Additionally, flaws in background are 'suboptimal'. Having come from a family of criminals and being a wanted felon is 'suboptimal' in that the GM can screw you over... but that's personal plot and character development, and the reason why a lot of people game. Conversely, an orphan with no family ties is more 'optimal' in that the GM has less hold over you, but means less in the way of easily worked personal plot.


does the mechanical limitations of a character make him more fun to play?

Sure. Once again: Anything easily done is less satisfying. If I had a character who could resolve any encounter by spending a standard action to roll a d20 and destroy my foes on a 2+ roll, is that fun? Would you play it if it was offered to you? I wouldn't, because it stops me having to think and removes risk. Risk is fun and harder goals to reach are more satisfying in the end.

If I have a character with one leg then that immediately removes a large number of answers to any given problem and often raises new ones where there wouldn't normally be a problem. If you enjoy problem solving, or find yourself overshadowing others, it's great fun.

MarkusWolfe
2010-11-01, 12:08 PM
(Looks at title)

Don't do it.

Believe me, there is a way to add any flavor to something without making it weaker....unless you want it to be weak period, in which case I question your competence.

(Reads rest of thread)

Oh....

dsmiles
2010-11-01, 12:09 PM
Oh: Or someone who sprays spit everywhere when they speak!

This, however, is not just a first impression. This impression will last a lifetime! :smalltongue:

Psyx
2010-11-01, 12:17 PM
When I start having a problem with it is when said choice brings you so far below the average power level of the party that your char becomes a liability. I consider courtesy to the other players to bring a char that fits in and contributes ...

I kind of agree. Concept first, then mechanics, but I don't want to play something dreadful and utterly worthless. Frankly: I can break most systems over my knee if I want to, but there's not fun in doing so, it's poor form, and overly optimised characters are 'unrealistic' due to the number of hoops one has to jump through to create them. I'd rather come up with something less than ideal and optimise the proverbial monk. That way I win all-round: the min-maxxer in me is satisfied, the problem-solver in me is suitable handy-capped, and the social aware side of me is satisfied because I'm not annoying the GM and my friends with an overly blaggy character. There's also a large degree of pride in NOT taking 'obvious' power options just because everyone else does.


I used to know a great role-player who always elected to play complete liabilities who contributed nothing, normally died quickly due to role-play-stupidity and often took others with them. We just didn't like gaming with him. There's a difference between 'sub-optimal' and 'useless'.

Psyx
2010-11-01, 12:19 PM
(Looks at title)

Don't do it.
Believe me, there is a way to add any flavor to something without making it weaker....unless you want it to be weak period, in which case I question your competence.


I'd go the other way, and probably question the competence of anyone who constantly rolled-out over-powered Batman builds or Druids, straight off the Internet.

Zeofar
2010-11-01, 12:22 PM
(Looks at title)

Don't do it.

Believe me, there is a way to add any flavor to something without making it weaker....unless you want it to be weak period, in which case I question your competence.

(Reads rest of thread)

Oh....

What if I want to play an Elf Ranger with a thing against aberrations, that, for some reason, begins to evolve into one, but the abilities he gains don't mesh with the way he fights? What if I want him to gain specific traits that are as visible as possible, but those traits don't help him very much in the end? What if I give him the most powerful aberrant feats available the character, but he refuses to ever take advantage of them because he despises aberrations? How would you add this flavor without making the character weaker? What about a character who is a master forgery artist? This ability might come up infrequently in an average D&D game, especially not in combat, but it is still flavor and has a large impact on the character itself. Also, keep in mind that there are certain choices that will always be sub-optimal even if they aren't weak per se, but because there are certain feats and classes that are just broken good and not taking them makes you weaker.

Awnetu
2010-11-01, 12:30 PM
What if I want to play an Elf Ranger with a thing against aberrations, that, for some reason, begins to evolve into one, but the abilities he gains don't mesh with the way he fights? What if I want him to gain specific traits that are as visible as possible, but those traits don't help him very much in the end? What if I give him the most powerful aberrant feats available the character, but he refuses to ever take advantage of them because he despises aberrations? How would you add this flavor without making the character weaker? What about a character who is a master forgery artist? This ability might come up infrequently in an average D&D game, especially not in combat, but it is still flavor and has a large impact on the character itself. Also, keep in mind that there are certain choices that will always be sub-optimal even if they aren't weak per se, but because there are certain feats and classes that are just broken good and not taking them makes you weaker.


I have a crazy idea, talk to the gm.

Zeofar
2010-11-01, 12:34 PM
I have a crazy idea, talk to the gm.

Well, obviously, but that basically solves every single issue with power in a game. Its like saying "get a job" if someone need money; it is typically assumed that people are asking for other angles for consideration. There are a bunch of threads that need this same insight if you really feel inclined to give it. Like, over half of the roleplaying subforum. Pretty much every issue here from "make my character better" to "how does this rule work" can be solved by DM intervention.

Mongoose87
2010-11-01, 12:37 PM
...so you toss sharpened hunks of metal into your enemies' precious, precious organs because you're a pacifist?

I pointed out that knife stabbings are typically more slow and painful a death than shootings. She was not amused.

DarkEternal
2010-11-01, 01:49 PM
Honestly, I dislike and prevent my players for making powerful characters that make no sense what so ever. I don't say that's the right way to do it, but if they want a different DM, then by all means, they can replace me any day, being a player is fun anyway.

Anyway, a player made a dwarf cleric who is pretty much a munchkin with that Divine Metamagic-persist crap all day long. I banned Nightsticks as an item from the game, but still, he chose a deity(Gond) because he offered various domains that fitted the path to power.

However, Gond is the God of inventors, crafters and so on. This cleric didn't have a single rank in "Craft" of any sort, nor a single item creation feat due to it getting in the way of making the ubermensch character he wanted. So I said, "alright, you can make said character, it's your choice, but you sure as hell won't get favor from the sodding God of inventors whose cleric you are if you can't do anything what so ever as a tribute to said deity". So, the first time he levelled, he sacrificed his skill points into craft, and also took a "Craft Wondrous Item". Now it makes sense and all is right with the world.

Mongoose87
2010-11-01, 02:16 PM
Honestly, I dislike and prevent my players for making powerful characters that make no sense what so ever. I don't say that's the right way to do it, but if they want a different DM, then by all means, they can replace me any day, being a player is fun anyway.

Anyway, a player made a dwarf cleric who is pretty much a munchkin with that Divine Metamagic-persist crap all day long. I banned Nightsticks as an item from the game, but still, he chose a deity(Gond) because he offered various domains that fitted the path to power.

However, Gond is the God of inventors, crafters and so on. This cleric didn't have a single rank in "Craft" of any sort, nor a single item creation feat due to it getting in the way of making the ubermensch character he wanted. So I said, "alright, you can make said character, it's your choice, but you sure as hell won't get favor from the sodding God of inventors whose cleric you are if you can't do anything what so ever as a tribute to said deity". So, the first time he levelled, he sacrificed his skill points into craft, and also took a "Craft Wondrous Item". Now it makes sense and all is right with the world.

If he presented a character to you that worshiped Gond, but was inept as an inventor for flavor reasons, would you force him to accept your feat and skill points choices fro him then, as well?

DarkEternal
2010-11-01, 02:49 PM
Of course I would. If there was something in the back story, basially, a good roleplaying reason why the character is as such, I would do my best to accept it, though like I said, being a very powerful cleric of Gond without really showing any aptitude towards what makes this deity well...a deity, is sort off base to me.

Zeofar
2010-11-01, 02:56 PM
If he presented a character to you that worshiped Gond, but was inept as an inventor for flavor reasons, would you force him to accept your feat and skill points choices fro him then, as well?

The guy's second post isn't doing much for him, but there is a big difference between a worshiper and a Cleric. I wouldn't necessarily ever force someone to get feats and skill ranks, but it makes quite a bit of sense that you can't be exactly a favored devotee if you had no abilities that tied in the with god. I mean, would you think that a Neutral Good Cleric of Heironeous who was a cautious pacifist who believed that you should always forgive people who do bad things to you and surrender if you cannot run away from combat, are you thinking that he is about to get "Cleric of the Year." Divine magic doesn't come from nowhere, and if you get your powers from a specific deity, it can be cut off. The DM is allowed to change, at will, what benefits you really get from your worship because, for all intents and purposes, he is the god in question.

Keld Denar
2010-11-01, 03:11 PM
What if I want to play an Elf Ranger with a thing against aberrations, that, for some reason, begins to evolve into one, but the abilities he gains don't mesh with the way he fights? What if I want him to gain specific traits that are as visible as possible, but those traits don't help him very much in the end? What if I give him the most powerful aberrant feats available the character, but he refuses to ever take advantage of them because he despises aberrations? How would you add this flavor without making the character weaker? What about a character who is a master forgery artist? This ability might come up infrequently in an average D&D game, especially not in combat, but it is still flavor and has a large impact on the character itself. Also, keep in mind that there are certain choices that will always be sub-optimal even if they aren't weak per se, but because there are certain feats and classes that are just broken good and not taking them makes you weaker.

If he has a bunch of vestigal aberration traits that he isn't or won't use? Total fluff. Just add it. As long as he's not gaining mechanical advantage from it, its no different from saying the character has a wierd tattoo or strange scar. Its all just roleplay material. In fact, I'd ENCOURAGE non-mechanical aspects. Now, if the player then at some point wants to actually USE that roleplay material for mechanical advantage, he would have to figure out some way to immediately pay that cost. Whether thats morgaging his next few feats, immediately taking on a couple flaws, or taking some kind of DM arbitrated drawback to counteract a bunch of free feats, something would have to be done.

Now, I as a player would never take a feat like, say...Shocktrooper, simply because I don't think its balanced. Using it would make me feel like I'm cheating in a way, similarly to using the Incantatrix PrC or DMM Persist. Thats a personal standard that has NOTHING to do with fluff OR mechanics. Is it a strong feat? Yes. Is it optimal? Probably. Oh well. I won't use it for the same reason I'd never bring Pun-Pun to the table...its TOO strong and it doesn't make things fun. That, and I'd rather not have a DM bring shocktrooping leap attackers against me, because that escalates things to the proverbial rocket tag people always talk about.

Again, let me reiterate this so its clear. This has NOTHING to do with fluff or flavor of the character. Its purely a PLAYER preference based on the power level I'd prefer to play at. That said, I'd still take Power Attack over Skill Focus(Underwater Basketweaving) because Power Attack is a good, optimal feat that falls within the deadband of power that I generally aim to play at.


So, the first time he levelled, he sacrificed his skill points into craft, and also took a "Craft Wondrous Item". Now it makes sense and all is right with the world.

I'm sorry, but this is crappy, and IMO bad DMing. Just because you can't craft, doesn't mean you can't follow Gond. There is more to following the god of crafting than just churning out items. There is also protecting the craftsmen, facilitating the inflow and outflow of goods, materials, maintenance, and other services that allow for production. Not everyone who works in a paper mill is a papermaker. You have TONS of support from hunderds of different avenues of support, from managers to purchasing and human resources, to janators, and maintenance personel to safety advocates and first responders. And thats not including specialty contractors!

Another example is a coach for a sports team. Not every coach was a quarterback. That doesn't mean he doesn't have advice or insight or support for a young quarterback who's jumpy in the pocket. He could also have advice for a lineman who is having trouble making his blocks or a receiver who's a half-step off on his routes. Just because a Gondsman is was cursed with clumsy hands doesn't mean he'd ignore the calling of Gond to help others in their trade in a number of different ways. Pigeonholing the playing into being required to craft is a poor fix for a problem better solved through roleplaying rather than mechanics.

Ramza1987
2010-11-01, 03:26 PM
I have seen a lot of interesting characters, in m roleplaying years, like a Frenzied Berserker Petal (a small flower of death :smallbiggrin:), a Velociraptor ranger, and i even talked to a fellow party member about doing the Puss in boots, and it was something like an awakened cat, with fighter/duelist lvls, maybe they weren´t the best characters, for they were a hell of fun, that petal barbarian was hilarious.

Boci
2010-11-01, 03:28 PM
I'd go the other way, and probably question the competence of anyone who constantly rolled-out over-powered Batman builds or Druids, straight off the Internet.

But what if someone's character concept is powerful mage (obviously it would be a bit more detailed) but they cannot optimize themselves. If you're using your own flavour and roleplaying well, then surely using builds from the internet should only be a problem if they start to overhsadow the other players.


The guy's second post isn't doing much for him, but there is a big difference between a worshiper and a Cleric. I wouldn't necessarily ever force someone to get feats and skill ranks, but it makes quite a bit of sense that you can't be exactly a favored devotee if you had no abilities that tied in the with god. I mean, would you think that a Neutral Good Cleric of Heironeous who was a cautious pacifist who believed that you should always forgive people who do bad things to you and surrender if you cannot run away from combat, are you thinking that he is about to get "Cleric of the Year." Divine magic doesn't come from nowhere, and if you get your powers from a specific deity, it can be cut off. The DM is allowed to change, at will, what benefits you really get from your worship because, for all intents and purposes, he is the god in question.

But as long as the claeric isn't working against Gond (hence your pascifist example is flawed), why would he cut off one of his more powerful followers just because they do not have the skills to make magical items?

As Keld Denar said, there are many ways you can indirectly assist the construction of magical items. Are all clerics of the gods of magic mystic thurges? Can you have a cleric of the god of war who doesn't have the war domain?

Mongoose87
2010-11-01, 04:04 PM
But as long as the claeric isn't working against Gond (hence your pascifist example is flawed), why would he cut off one of his more powerful just because they do not have the skills to make magical items?


Exactly! One could have a cleric who appreciates nothing more than artifice and invention, yet lacks any talent or aptitude. In some ways, that would make him appreciate it more.

Psyx
2010-11-02, 05:37 AM
But what if someone's character concept is powerful mage (obviously it would be a bit more detailed)

I would hope so.

"My character concept is to be leet and uber! Except I can't figure out how to do it myself, so here's 20 pre-planned levels the internet gave me."

I did state 'constantly', though. So yeah: I would doubt the competence of someone whose every character concept was 'I'm going to be really powerful'.

Earthwalker
2010-11-02, 05:49 AM
Exactly! One could have a cleric who appreciates nothing more than artifice and invention, yet lacks any talent or aptitude. In some ways, that would make him appreciate it more.

Of course the DM can tell the young cleric that a higher ranking member of the church has offered to give him training in crafting, he will also show him the ropes for picking up an item creation feat or two.

Does that mean the character should get some crafting skill and an item creation feat, or should the player just decide nope that still doesn't fit my character concept.

Prime32
2010-11-02, 06:00 AM
He's always sucked at crafting, so he prays to Gond so that he can become better. There are spells which improve your ability to craft things, which he could prepare use in his off-time.

Or maybe someone cursed him to lose his talent.

Psyx
2010-11-02, 06:18 AM
If he wanted to improve his talent with spells, he'd at least learn how to hold a hammer (buy 1 rank) first...

C'mon... We can all tell when players are just min-maxxing with no thought of characterisation. Sometimes the carrot just doesn't work.

Mongoose87
2010-11-02, 08:09 AM
Of course the DM can tell the young cleric that a higher ranking member of the church has offered to give him training in crafting, he will also show him the ropes for picking up an item creation feat or two.

Does that mean the character should get some crafting skill and an item creation feat, or should the player just decide nope that still doesn't fit my character concept.

Some people simply have low ceilings, regardless of training. The stumpy-legged guy will never be much of a sprinter. The shaky-handed guy will never be a good painter. I will never be a [insert anything that requires hand-eye coordination here].

Personally, I'm just not a fan of being told what to do, especially with my character. It's one thing to ask someone not to optimize to a certain level, it's something else to force feat and skill point allocation on a guy.

Earthwalker
2010-11-02, 08:47 AM
Some people simply have low ceilings, regardless of training. The stumpy-legged guy will never be much of a sprinter. The shaky-handed guy will never be a good painter. I will never be a [insert anything that requires hand-eye coordination here].

Personally, I'm just not a fan of being told what to do, especially with my character. It's one thing to ask someone not to optimize to a certain level, it's something else to force feat and skill point allocation on a guy.

I can certainly see what you are saying about having control over your own character. I am just entertained by the argument for once being that I choose not to take a skill or feat becuase my character can't learn it, which is so I don't have to waste skill points on craft becuase I need them all to get into PRC x as early as possible.

I mean the poor at craft skills might just be a natural penalty to crafting skill use of -2, meaning you can train the skill just aren't as good at it. If the DM ruled this to be the case would you be more happy, this would be perfect you could still keep the concept of poor at craft skills, and also spend skill points on craft.

This thread is devoted to flavour reason that might limit power. Like I want my character to only be able to cast fire related spells. He is a full wizard but only uses spells with fire, he just hasn't got a handle on any spells that don't play with fire. I feel in alot of group I would be told that I have access to all spells why am I only choosing to cast fire spells, I should learn some better spells.

Starbuck_II
2010-11-02, 08:55 AM
...so you toss sharpened hunks of metal into your enemies' precious, precious organs because you're a pacifist?

Pacifist don't like to kill. Doesn't mean they won't. Don't ever anger a pacifist.

Ernir
2010-11-02, 08:57 AM
I just want to say...

If reflavoring existing abilities is allowed, "sacrificing power for flavor" makes about as much sense to me as cutting off your finger in order to grow an extra eye.

Like I want my character to only be able to cast fire related spells. He is a full wizard but only uses spells with fire, he just hasn't got a handle on any spells that don't play with fire. I feel in alot of group I would be told that I have access to all spells why am I only choosing to cast fire spells, I should learn some better spells.

I think in this case the best solution would be to cast the good spells, and reflavor them as Fire spells (if your DM insists you can't do that with everything, pick up Spell Thematics: Fire). Your summoned wolves are now creatures of pure fire. Your Glitterdust is now burning ashes that gets in peoples' eyes. And so on. You can have a pure fire mage within the rules, and you don't have to gimp yourself.

Zeofar
2010-11-02, 09:11 AM
The thing is, not putting any skill points into crafting shows not only a lack of natural talent (which is realized by low attributes and flaws) but a direct opposition to learning anything about crafting. Then, unless the DM wants the game to have a focus on Cleric's need to help trade (and thus crafting via the flow of goods), the cleric has no real connection to crafting. Stopping bandit raids on caravans, negotiating commerce with the dwarves, and doing fetch quests for the final, rare material that an inventor needs is probably going to get a little boring for all involved if it comes up too often. And, again, I don't necessarily think a person would lose their cleric powers for not having any ability to make things (but it is at the DM's discretion), but they aren't about to be chosen as the recipient of special powers or random divine aid.

Jayabalard
2010-11-02, 09:17 AM
See, I'm seeing a lot of people post "I played x, which was suboptimial, but I still had fun", but I'm not seeing any coralation between x being suboptimal and x being that much fun to play.The street performer I played in a GURPS game (set in Treydoy) was nearly useless in a fight, but was far more fun to play than any character that I've played that was optimized for combat. I wouldn't really say that he was optimized for anything; he was kind of a generalist.

For a lot of people, the fun comes from roleplaying the character's limitations... if you don't have limitations, it's not as much fun. So the character that has to avoid fights as much as possible, and then be really careful if they get into a fight is more fun than the combat brute that just muscles through, or the mage that casts deathtouch each round.

There's nothing wrong with feeling joy when you say "I hit it with my axe!" or in stenciling your kills on the edge of your character sheet, but you can't assume that's what everyone enjoys the most in roleplaying games.


D&D characters are adventurers first, whatever second. Adventuring is a dangerous career. Being good at adventuring might mean the difference between your combat-lite, RP-focused character surviving the night or not.Not at all; many D&D characters aren't even adventurers third, let alone first. Nor is this topic something specific to D&D (optimization is something that happens in most game systems, and in many of those cases you have to sacrifice power for certain types of flavor), so there's no reason to limit discussion to strictly D&D characters.

bokodasu
2010-11-02, 09:20 AM
I used to know a great role-player who always elected to play complete liabilities who contributed nothing, normally died quickly due to role-play-stupidity and often took others with them. We just didn't like gaming with him. There's a difference between 'sub-optimal' and 'useless'.

Hey, I think I've played with that guy too. He would purposely build bad characters and then, when the DM would set up situations where his abilities were relevant, he'd refuse to use them and do something worse than useless. Also, he liked to monopolize every encounter with HIS roleplaying 'cause he was the most awesomest bestest roleplayer ever and the rest of us could lump it, HE WAS TALKING.

I mean, I've got a fondness for playing half-orcs in classes where being a half-orc is a liability, and I love a good gnomish barbarian beyond all reason, but I still contribute to the group. Being someone who insists that everyone else sacrifices *their* power for *your* flavor is just as bad as being batman in a low-op group.

Boci
2010-11-02, 09:21 AM
"My character concept is to be leet and uber! Except I can't figure out how to do it myself, so here's 20 pre-planned levels the internet gave me."

Or how about "Here's a background story that briefly covers my early life and the major events that made him who he was. There is also a section detailing my characters personality and motivations. Oh an by the way, I built my character using the online handbook for X class," Thats what I did when I played a swordmage in 4E.

Psyx
2010-11-02, 10:54 AM
Some people simply have low ceilings, regardless of training.

So they have a -4 stat modifier, despite having several ranks in the skill. 'Not being good at' isn't the same as 'not being at all trained', remember. the character is has simply not even made an attempt at learn any crafts. Heck: You could easily argue that you'd need to buy a rank in the skill and potter around on the... erm... potters wheel or whatever... to realise that you were poor in it.

PrCs are optional, and open to GM fiat. That goes for crunch as well as fluff. I don't think that adding a rank or two of any craft skill to the Gondsman PrC is at all unreasonable. Especially when dealing with a player who is purely there for the crunch and being a bit obstinate about it.


Hey, I think I've played with that guy too.

This one mostly played insane characters who did nothing but actively hamper the party in most cases by going hat-stand and some critical point and throwing dynamite at the party / jumping in front of the truck loaded with explosives that was being driven towards Godzilla / attempting to gun down Gandhi. I don't think that I ever say any of his characters even interact in a role-play sense in any useful manner.


Oh an by the way, I built my character using the online handbook for X class

And that's why I don't like D&D much. No other RPG requires such painful character planning.

If *anyone* rolled up at a game with a character straight off the net, I'd be wanting to take a look to make sure it doesn't employ the proverbial nightsticks! But that's aside the point.

I'd be rather disappointed that a player wanted to mould their character development throughout their entire adventuring career based on what someone else on the Internet has decided is 'best' and 'most powerful', rather than based on their own choices and in-character experiences.

Boci
2010-11-02, 10:59 AM
I'd be rather disappointed that a player wanted to mould their character development throughout their entire adventuring career based on what someone else on the Internet has decided is 'best' and 'most powerful', rather than based on their own choices and in-character experiences.

Meh, fluff is fluff, mechanics are mechanics. It was never an issue for my swordmage.

true_shinken
2010-11-02, 11:25 AM
Meh, fluff is fluff, mechanics are mechanics. It was never an issue for my swordmage.

That's not how a lot of people see the game, as this thread so rightfully points.

Boci
2010-11-02, 11:29 AM
That's not how a lot of people see the game, as this thread so rightfully points.

You do realize that wasn't me saying "just refluff"? It was me saying "my character has a personality, a history and motivation and where I choose my powers and feats, whether from reading the books or checking online handbooks, does not influence any of that".

true_shinken
2010-11-02, 11:35 AM
You do realize that wasn't me saying "just refluff"? It was me saying "my character has a personality, a history and motivation and where I choose my powers and feats, whether from reading the books or checking online handbooks, does not influence any of that".

...and that has got nothing at all to do with fluff, so I don't understand your statement.

Boci
2010-11-02, 11:43 AM
...and that has got nothing at all to do with fluff, so I don't understand your statement.

Fluff is fluff (personality, motivations), mechanics is mechanics (feats, skills). The did not over lap. for my swordmage. Just because I janked a powerful build off the internet doesn't mean I didn't roleplay it.

true_shinken
2010-11-02, 11:47 AM
Fluff is fluff (personality, motivations), mechanics is mechanics (feats, skills). The did not over lap. for my swordmage. Just because I janked a powerful build off the internet doesn't mean I didn't roleplay it.

The thing is roleplaying accordingly to your character sheet, I believe. Is there a justification for, I dunno, your multiclass feat to enable feycharging or was it just handwaved away as 'useless fluff'?
Well, it's useless arguing about that in 4e anyway, where the mechanics don't mirror the world your characters are at. 3.5 uses the mechanics to craft a world you adventure in; 4e is a boardgame.

Boci
2010-11-02, 12:07 PM
The thing is roleplaying accordingly to your character sheet, I believe. Is there a justification for, I dunno, your multiclass feat to enable feycharging or was it just handwaved away as 'useless fluff'?
Well, it's useless arguing about that in 4e anyway, where the mechanics don't mirror the world your characters are at. 3.5 uses the mechanics to craft a world you adventure in; 4e is a boardgame.

I was addressing Psyx, saying that taking a build straight off the internet doesn't say much about the player's roleplaying skills as a person, it wasn't relating to the thread as a whole, in which case I wulud just say reflavour it, as it suggests in core, which the rice paddy walk and everything.

gbprime
2010-11-02, 12:19 PM
I don't mind players dipping into PrC's left and right so long as - A - all the PC's are different, - B - the PC's from game to game are different, and - C - all the players have something meaningful to contribute to combat.

B is important. I don't want the players getting together and saying "okay, who plays Overpowered Cleric Build Number 116 this game? I had it last time, so Chad gets it now. Who gets Maxxed Out Crusader Build Number 4 this game?"

Psyx
2010-11-02, 12:22 PM
But a 'fixed' build is... I don't want to use the word 'unrealistic'... so I'll settle for 'utterly divorced from the reality that the character is in'. Our environment makes us what we are and moulds and changes us. A character who has their entire life planned out in advance is not 'taking' anything from their surroundings. Their nurture is having no effect on their skill-set. I -personally- wouldn't be comfortable with that. I like my PCs to pick up skills and abilities based on what they do and experience.

If my character spends a year in the Arctic, then a few dots of survival are in order. If I'm in a kingdom that burns magic users, I won't be hopping into an Arcane casting class because there is no way I could pick that kind of thing up or practice it there. Essentially, I find a pre-planned character dull and pointless. It's as though I'm walking along a straight road, with no forks or turnings.

I appreciate that the reality of the situation is that it's 4e's fault: For encouraging and rewarding 'planned' characters and for lacking a skill system that allows one to pick up a bit here and there. In almost any other game you'd get your XP for the session and spend it on whatever took your fancy. Saying 'Stuff buying my Killing skill up this game, that bit on the boat was fun, and I think I've learned from it... I'm buying a dot of profession: Sailor.'

gbprime
2010-11-02, 12:27 PM
that bit on the boat was fun, and I think I've learned from it... I'm buying a dot of profession: Sailor.'

Agreed. That's why it's important not to have every feat and every skill point planned out ahead of time. IMO, the best builds are one where you have a plan but are open to some flexibility later.

And for the rest, there's always retraining rules. Freedom from having to plan 10 levels in advance for that surprise you didn't know the GM was going to drop in your lap!

dsmiles
2010-11-02, 12:27 PM
If my character spends a year in the Arctic, then a few dots of survival are in order.

I'm buying a dot of profession: Sailor.'

psssst...your storyteller system is showing...:smalltongue:

The Glyphstone
2010-11-02, 12:30 PM
But a 'fixed' build is... I don't want to use the word 'unrealistic'... so I'll settle for 'utterly divorced from the reality that the character is in'. Our environment makes us what we are and moulds and changes us. A character who has their entire life planned out in advance is not 'taking' anything from their surroundings. Their nurture is having no effect on their skill-set. I -personally- wouldn't be comfortable with that. I like my PCs to pick up skills and abilities based on what they do and experience.

If my character spends a year in the Arctic, then a few dots of survival are in order. If I'm in a kingdom that burns magic users, I won't be hopping into an Arcane casting class because there is no way I could pick that kind of thing up or practice it there. Essentially, I find a pre-planned character dull and pointless. It's as though I'm walking along a straight road, with no forks or turnings.

I appreciate that the reality of the situation is that it's 4e's fault: For encouraging and rewarding 'planned' characters and for lacking a skill system that allows one to pick up a bit here and there. In almost any other game you'd get your XP for the session and spend it on whatever took your fancy. Saying 'Stuff buying my Killing skill up this game, that bit on the boat was fun, and I think I've learned from it... I'm buying a dot of profession: Sailor.'

That's just a failing of D&D in general, as a level-based system. If you don't hyperspecialize and focus all your resources, you'll end up crippled, or at least hamstrung, and unable to contribute meaningfully to level-appropriate encounters. See also: the "classic" mystic theurge, and how difficult it is to build a proper gish.

Boci
2010-11-02, 12:34 PM
But a 'fixed' build is... I don't want to use the word 'unrealistic'... so I'll settle for 'utterly divorced from the reality that the character is in'. Our environment makes us what we are and moulds and changes us. A character who has their entire life planned out in advance is not 'taking' anything from their surroundings. Their nurture is having no effect on their skill-set. I -personally- wouldn't be comfortable with that. I like my PCs to pick up skills and abilities based on what they do and experience.

If my character spends a year in the Arctic, then a few dots of survival are in order. If I'm in a kingdom that burns magic users, I won't be hopping into an Arcane casting class because there is no way I could pick that kind of thing up or practice it there. Essentially, I find a pre-planned character dull and pointless. It's as though I'm walking along a straight road, with no forks or turnings.

There's nothing saying a planned out character cannot change. Someone who takes a build directly off the internet may just be a lazy munchkin, but they could be a roleplayer who cannot optimize but wants a powerful build. If its the latter they may very well change certain choices based on what happens in game.


I appreciate that the reality of the situation is that it's 4e's fault: For encouraging and rewarding 'planned' characters and for lacking a skill system that allows one to pick up a bit here and there. In almost any other game you'd get your XP for the session and spend it on whatever took your fancy. Saying 'Stuff buying my Killing skill up this game, that bit on the boat was fun, and I think I've learned from it... I'm buying a dot of profession: Sailor.'

I used the example of 4E because in 3E by the time I realized it was important that I optimize my characters I already had a fair level of system mastery.

Reverent-One
2010-11-02, 12:35 PM
Well, it's useless arguing about that in 4e anyway, where the mechanics don't mirror the world your characters are at. 3.5 uses the mechanics to craft a world you adventure in; 4e is a boardgame.

While 4e does not attempt to simulate the world of the PCs to the painstaking degree 3.5 attempted to, to say that the mechanics don't mirror the world at all and that 4e is just a boardgame is a vast overstatement.


I appreciate that the reality of the situation is that it's 4e's fault: For encouraging and rewarding 'planned' characters and for lacking a skill system that allows one to pick up a bit here and there. In almost any other game you'd get your XP for the session and spend it on whatever took your fancy. Saying 'Stuff buying my Killing skill up this game, that bit on the boat was fun, and I think I've learned from it... I'm buying a dot of profession: Sailor.'

It's little different in 3.5. In order to meet the prerequisites of a PrC, feat, or whatever it is you're aiming for in your character, you'd need to grab the right feats and assign skill points correctly in the levels previous to getting whatever your goal is.

Boci
2010-11-02, 12:43 PM
It's little different in 3.5. In order to meet the prerequisites of a PrC, feat, or whatever it is you're aiming for in your character, you'd need to grab the right feats and assign skill points correctly in the levels previous to getting whatever your goal is.

I think he's just bothered about not always being able to add mechanics to his character choices. Compare:

4th ed: "Hey DM, we just spent 2 months on a boat, and my character was paying pretty close attention to how everything was run, so would it be okay if I'm now considered to have a smuttering of knowledge in sailing"

3rd ed: Hey DM, we just spent 2 months on a boat, and my character was paying pretty close attention to how everything was run, so would it be okay if I spent 2 skill points on profession: sailor next level?"

I personally do not mind doing the former, but some do, hence we have these threads.

gbprime
2010-11-02, 12:46 PM
It's little different in 3.5. In order to meet the prerequisites of a PrC, feat, or whatever it is you're aiming for in your character, you'd need to grab the right feats and assign skill points correctly in the levels previous to getting whatever your goal is.

Again, this is what retraining rules are all about. You can take things like Precocious Apprentice (Scorching Ray) and Fiery Burst at level 1 and have unlimited battery life, then reassign both feats by retraining at level 6 when you're ready for your Prestige class.

What you DON'T want to do is to base your character concept off of a feat and then just scrap it. That's either a feat you stick with, or you ROLEPLAY your way out of that concept and into another. Call it an origin story. :smallamused:

Reverent-One
2010-11-02, 12:50 PM
I think he's just bothered about not always being able to add mechanics to his character choices. Compare:

4th ed: "Hey DM, we just spent 2 months on a boat, and my character was paying pretty close attention to how everything was run, so would it be okay if I'm now considered to have a smuttering of knowledge in sailing"

3rd ed: Hey DM, we just spent 2 months on a boat, and my character was paying pretty close attention to how everything was run, so would it be okay if I spent 2 skill points on profession: sailor next level?"

I personally do not mind doing the former, but some do, hence we have these threads.

He seemed to have as much problem with planned builds, which are very common in level-based systems as a whole, as The Glyphstone said. But on that point specificly, you can add mechanics to your character based on your adventures in 4e as well, Skill Training and Skill Focus can represent your character learning about X or learning more about X much like skill points can. Learning new fighting styles, spells, and abilties can also be added to your characrer through multi-classing and various feats. Is it more limited than in non-level based systems? Yes, but again, that's not something new with 4e, but D&D and level-based systems.


Again, this is what retraining rules are all about. You can take things like Precocious Apprentice (Scorching Ray) and Fiery Burst at level 1 and have unlimited battery life, then reassign both feats by retraining at level 6 when you're ready for your Prestige class.

What you DON'T want to do is to base your character concept off of a feat and then just scrap it. That's either a feat you stick with, or you ROLEPLAY your way out of that concept and into another. Call it an origin story. :smallamused:

This is also true in 4e. And where are the retraining rules in 3.5? I haven't seen them.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-02, 12:50 PM
Lightning Warrior sacrifices the power of a familiar for the flavor of perfect two weapon fighting and the combining of the wizard and sorcerer spell abilities :smallcool:

But honestly, a lot of the time I think sacrificing power actually decreases flavor. If you pick up Vigilante your going to lose power for flavor, except oops no one believes that someone that weak can actually be a Vigilante that deals with CR appropriate threats. Needless to say, hilarity ensues.

On the other hand, I have a problem with the belief that not having fluff makes a Prc boring. MT leaves open your character to a lot of options, such as which religion (and domains/specialties) your character is going to have.

If there is one that I think gives up strength for flavor its the Blood Magus, just because flying into someone and exploding them is awesome.

gbprime
2010-11-02, 12:54 PM
And where are the retraining rules in 3.5? I haven't seen them.

Players Handbook II, Chapter 8.

senrath
2010-11-02, 12:54 PM
This is also true in 4e. And where are the retraining rules in 3.5? I haven't seen them.

Player's Handbook II.

Edit: Ninja'd.

Skjaldbakka
2010-11-02, 12:55 PM
My thoughts on the various subjects:

Original Topic:

I have a tendency not to dump Int or Cha. My last two tabletop characters were a Sorceror with a 16 Int (and naturally sky-high Cha), and a cleric with a 15 Cha/15 Wis at chargen. Granted, he uses divine spell power, so optimizing for a high turn undead check was important. The decision to take divine spell power was made because of the high cha, though.

The Sorceror went into Loremaster from Sorcerer, which was a sub-optimal choice. The party eventually became gestalt, and I went with bard as my second class, but took the bard half into loremaster to keep my sorc familiar progression.

So yes, I make sub-optimal choices for flavor reasons, but then I make them work with the character. If I play a full caster, I almost feel obligated to hold back on the optimization a bit, and work some flavor into it.

Another example of doing something sub optimal for flavor was that I didn't have any ranks in spellcraft at character creation for Mordreth, because he'd never done any magic in the field, and had always had plenty of time to consult his books, which annoyed my fellow players/characters a bit until we levelled.

That character was perhaps rife with sub-optimal choices in terms of skills. I took craft: magic auras at some point as well, and spent resources on non-combat NPCs (read - love interest).

Cleric of Gorn:

The guys seems like he picked Gorn because of his power set, not because of the concept, and that would steam me a bit too. Sure, you can justify a cleric of Gorn with no crafting skills/feats, but it doesn't sound like the player bothered.

I would (generally*) not force a cleric to spend skill points on something though, cut them some slack, they get 2+int skill points, and no class based bonus to knowledge religion (which a cleric is kind of expected to know about). Once you have concentration and knowledge religion, you're pretty much done, unless you have a good int. And then you kinda want spellcraft as a caster as well... clerics don't have it easy with skills.

* I flat would not allow a player in one of my games to play a cleric of Wee Jas with no knowedge: arcana or spellcraft, but that is because Wee Jas is one of my favorite core deities, so I am a bit biased. If you want to play a cleric of Wee Jas who has no knowledge of magic, I know you aren't gonna play a cleric of Wee Jas properly.

Boci
2010-11-02, 12:57 PM
But on that point specificly, you can add mechanics to your character based on your adventures in 4e as well, Skill Training and Skill Focus can represent your character learning about X or learning more about X much like skill points can.

Even though you get more of them feats in 4E aren't as common as skill points in 3E are.

Reverent-One
2010-11-02, 12:58 PM
Players Handbook II, Chapter 8.

Ah, that would be why.


Even though you get more of them feats in 4E aren't as common as skill points in 3E are.

True, but if you want to actually be able to do something with the skill, you'll probably need to invest a number of skill points into the skill.

Boci
2010-11-02, 01:04 PM
True, but if you want to actually be able to do something with the skill, you'll probably need to invest a number of skill points into the skill.

But that is not Psyx's intent. His intent is to have a mechanical representation of his character being on the ship for 3 months and taking an interest in how everything was run. He won't mind if he never has to make a sailor check, but to just say his character now knows about sailing would feel empty to him

Delwugor
2010-11-02, 02:42 PM
For me there is no relationship between "power" and "flavor".
I create a character with personality and background. His actions are determined by who he is and how he approaches things. Then I look at the modifiers for the roll to determine outcome of his actions.


That's just a failing of D&D in general, as a level-based system. If you don't hyperspecialize and focus all your resources, you'll end up crippled, or at least hamstrung, and unable to contribute meaningfully to level-appropriate encounters.
In 25 years of playing D&D (including 3.5) I have never had this problem. Sorry I can never resist the chance to dispute the optimize or be useless theory of D&D. :smallsmile:

Roderick_BR
2010-11-02, 03:29 PM
One char I made for Shadowrun once, was a musician guy, that used some sort of gatling gun. The catch is that he didn't had a single point in artillery, that the weapon required. He hit more people with critical misses than a normal hit. He was nice enough to warn his companions (and everyone else in the room), that was going to start shooting.

The Glyphstone
2010-11-02, 03:41 PM
In 25 years of playing D&D (including 3.5) I have never had this problem. Sorry I can never resist the chance to dispute the optimize or be useless theory of D&D. :smallsmile:

Well, I consider the need to optimize and D&D's need to hyperspecialize to be two completely different issues.:smalltongue: Optimizing is making an ubercharger, or a mailman, or a batman wizard, or at the very least, taking Power Attack with a greatsword instead of Weapon Focus on a Longsword+Tower Shield combo.

The sort of problem I'm talking about is when a character wants to be, say, a sneaky and charismatic spellcaster, but because of the leveling system, has to be either a sneaky character who's bad at spellcasting (Rogue/Sorcerer), a spellcaster who's bad at sneaking (Sorcerer/Rogue), or a character who's mediocre at both (Rogue/Sorcerer/Arcane Trickster). Contrast to, say, NWoD, where spending your session XP on a dot in Stealth instead of Weaponry Specialization: Katana only delays when you get your specialization, instead of both delaying it and making it cost more when you do (increasing XP totals to level-up).


OOTS actually referenced it, with Jenny the multiclass Rogue/Sorcerer/Bard. "What's your BAB up to now?" A character like that played seriously would be severely underpowered because they tried to be a multi-threat or at least jack-of-all-trades, something D&D discourages with levels.

Delwugor
2010-11-02, 05:06 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

The sort of problem I'm talking about is when a character wants to be, say, a sneaky and charismatic spellcaster, but because of the leveling system, has to be either a sneaky character who's bad at spellcasting (Rogue/Sorcerer), a spellcaster who's bad at sneaking (Sorcerer/Rogue), or a character who's mediocre at both (Rogue/Sorcerer/Arcane Trickster). Contrast to, say, NWoD, where spending your session XP on a dot in Stealth instead of Weaponry Specialization: Katana only delays when you get your specialization, instead of both delaying it and making it cost more when you do (increasing XP totals to level-up).
That doesn't seem to be a problem with levels but in the flexibility of the D&D class system. True20 handles this very easily with a lighter featured class system that avoids the point build difficulties of other flexible character creations (M&M, GURPS, Heroes...).


OOTS actually referenced it, with Jenny the multiclass Rogue/Sorcerer/Bard. "What's your BAB up to now?" A character like that played seriously would be severely underpowered because they tried to be a multi-threat or at least jack-of-all-trades, something D&D discourages with levels.
If you're looking for flexibility and power together then I'd suggest the Gestalt rules.

true_shinken
2010-11-02, 07:58 PM
But honestly, a lot of the time I think sacrificing power actually decreases flavor. If you pick up Vigilante your going to lose power for flavor, except oops no one believes that someone that weak can actually be a Vigilante that deals with CR appropriate threats. Needless to say, hilarity ensues.


Just check Iron Chef XIII. Lots of good Vigilante builds there. One even gets 9th level spells.

The Glyphstone
2010-11-02, 08:15 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

That doesn't seem to be a problem with levels but in the flexibility of the D&D class system. True20 handles this very easily with a lighter featured class system that avoids the point build difficulties of other flexible character creations (M&M, GURPS, Heroes...).

Never seen TrueD20, so I couldn't say either way.



If you're looking for flexibility and power together then I'd suggest the Gestalt rules.

Gestalt is awesome.

awa
2010-11-02, 10:03 PM
while it all depends on the power level of the game
a party that is mechanical weaker
say because a player wanted to play a greek hopolite analogue and is running around with a shield and weapon focus short spear is going to be pretty weak but it wont matter if the entire party is at that power level and the dm accounts for it. our hopolite friend wont seem preposterously weak because the entire party is equally weak and a level appropriate threat is maby a cr or 2 behind the parties actual level.

whats broken/overpowered/just right/underpowered will be different in every game.

on a slightly separate topic different groups view mechanics in different ways
in one group if you want to have grown up on a farm you just say and i grew up on a farm. in another group you would need to actually have spent points to represent that with skills and maybe even feats and both methods are equally valid.

Psyx
2010-11-03, 07:16 AM
psssst...your storyteller system is showing...:smalltongue:

(Actually...my home-brew one is. We tend to use it for most things, based on the fact that nobody's managed to break it yet, and it doesn't suck.)



I used the example of 4E because in 3E by the time I realized it was important that I optimize my characters I already had a fair level of system mastery.


3e is nearly as bad for it. You get a few more points to spray around skills, but so few skills and so many pre-reqs for things that it can be worse at times.

Indeed: I do have 'issues' with all planned builds. There's nothing wrong with looking forward to certain abilities, but painstakingly planning every point is dull, dull, dull.


but to just say his character now knows about sailing would feel empty to him

Eh? Would it?
No it wouldn't.

If the game was one where there was a mechanical representation for the skill, then I'd want the skill because you can't simply say 'Yes, I know that I'm supposed to have the skill, but I've not spent any XP on it, not got any ranks in it, but I'm saying that I can do it. Oh? You want me to ROLL on my profession: Sailor skill? Erm....'
That's a bit like saying 'I know I've only got a BAB of 1, but my character has spent a lot more time than that fighting so is better'. If you want the skill: Spend the XP.

In systems that lack a comprehensive mechanic for such skills, one does just have to note 'can sail a bit' somewhere on the sheet.

My point was nothing to do with feeling desolate and empty inside just because I don't get to write '+1' on my sheet, but was directed as an admonishment towards systems that hamper organic character skill-growth.

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 07:31 AM
(Actually...my home-brew one is. We tend to use it for most things, based on the fact that nobody's managed to break it yet, and it doesn't suck.)

Is it posted in HB? I like things that don't suck. Er...that sounds bad, but you know what I mean...:smalleek:

Psyx
2010-11-03, 07:47 AM
^Nope.

My players have been badgering me to turn it into something publishable for about the last 6 years!

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 07:53 AM
^Nope.

My players have been badgering me to turn it into something publishable for about the last 6 years!

Perhaps you should take their advice. You never know, you might get published by a company, and make a few bucks. :smallsmile:
I've been trying to get a campaign world finished enough to publish for years, every time I get close, they change editions on me! :smallfurious:

true_shinken
2010-11-03, 08:27 AM
Perhaps you should take their advice. You never know, you might get published by a company, and make a few bucks. :smallsmile:
I've been trying to get a campaign world finished enough to publish for years, every time I get close, they change editions on me! :smallfurious:

Agreed. Ganbare!

Psyx
2010-11-03, 08:39 AM
Perhaps you should take their advice. You never know, you might get published by a company, and make a few bucks. :smallsmile:
I've been trying to get a campaign world finished enough to publish for years, every time I get close, they change editions on me! :smallfurious:

I don't think that there's any money in the gaming industry, unless you're WoTC. And besides: I'd have to write a 'what is roleplaying' chapter...

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 08:54 AM
I don't think that there's any money in the gaming industry, unless you're WoTC. And besides: I'd have to write a 'what is roleplaying' chapter...

Not true. White Wolf does well.

Jayabalard
2010-11-03, 09:57 AM
Not true. White Wolf does well.
I'd imagine that SJ Games and Palladium are doing ok as well, since they keep publishing stuff.

Ramza1987
2010-11-03, 11:02 AM
A friend of mine, worked a lot of years, with another friend, and made (at least i think) a good setting that we are currently using with D&D 3.5 rules; it has a a wolrld, kingdoms, a large list of important people, some important villains, a lot of background story (it really has a VERY nice story behind), and we are working in some things made specially to that setting, like some custom races, and prestige classes (an example, is a dragon-like race, that is watched closely, by the avatar/god od power; and a monk-like prestige class for them, that uses, ki blasts, and some ki flavored powers).

true_shinken
2010-11-03, 12:20 PM
Not true. White Wolf does well.

So does Green Ronin. SJG and Palladium were already mentioned.

Psyx
2010-11-03, 12:33 PM
And FASA, WEG, ICE, R Talsorian and a whole bunch more didn't.
Generally speaking there isn't much money to be had in the industry. Not unless you like living on noodles and tuna for fifteen years in the hope of somehow making it 'big'. Look at the number of indy games published that are never seen again. Most of those involved don't even cover their own costs.
One does not get rich in the gaming industry.


I do ok professionally. I can't afford a Ferrari, but I can pay the bills.
I write for a few music magazines and a few other bits and bobs as a hobby. I've never had a penny for it, and the industry is insanely difficult to get into professionally due to the sheer amount of butt that needs kissing to do so. I'm not willing to network to that degree.
I used to enjoy SCUBA diving, right up to the point where I started teaching. Turning my hobby into a job completely ruined my enjoyment of it.
With all that in mind, there is no way that I fancy writing up my game into a publishable format, doing the rounds to try to get it published and putting my own money up for the project, all to end up completely sick of the whole thing and broke.

Tyndmyr
2010-11-03, 12:44 PM
Not true. White Wolf does well.

Steve jackson games also does pretty well, I believe. I don't like Gurps myself, but I'd be dishonest if I claimed it was an unpopular system.

Publishing isn't terribly hard any more...you've got options like lulu for extremely small runs(playtest copies, etc), and local print shops are more willing to do small runs nowadays. You don't have to do thousands of copies.

However, the work of properly formatting everything into a book is definitely not to be overlooked. It's a bit of a pain. Still, if you do that step, the rest is fairly easily dealt with. It'll likely never be a smash hit, but selling a coupla hundred copies of a game is still a few bucks, and it's always cool to see something you published.

true_shinken
2010-11-03, 12:45 PM
And FASA, WEG, ICE, R Talsorian and a whole bunch more didn't.
Generally speaking there isn't much money to be had in the industry. Not unless you like living on noodles and tuna for fifteen years in the hope of somehow making it 'big'. Look at the number of indy games published that are never seen again. Most of those involved don't even cover their own costs.
One does not get rich in the gaming industry.

Is there a problem in not being rich? I'm not rich and I'm quite happy, thank you.


I used to enjoy SCUBA diving, right up to the point where I started teaching. Turning my hobby into a job completely ruined my enjoyment of it.
That I agree with.
I've actually worked on a gaming magazine in my country, back when I was fifteen. It was very fun.

Boci
2010-11-03, 02:25 PM
3e is nearly as bad for it. You get a few more points to spray around skills, but so few skills and so many pre-reqs for things that it can be worse at times.

Indeed: I do have 'issues' with all planned builds. There's nothing wrong with looking forward to certain abilities, but painstakingly planning every point is dull, dull, dull.

No one says you cannot change your planned build based on what happens in game. The plan it just there to follow incase it doesn't.


Eh? Would it?
No it wouldn't.

If the game was one where there was a mechanical representation for the skill, then I'd want the skill because you can't simply say 'Yes, I know that I'm supposed to have the skill, but I've not spent any XP on it, not got any ranks in it, but I'm saying that I can do it. Oh? You want me to ROLL on my profession: Sailor skill? Erm....'
That's a bit like saying 'I know I've only got a BAB of 1, but my character has spent a lot more time than that fighting so is better'. If you want the skill: Spend the XP.

In systems that lack a comprehensive mechanic for such skills, one does just have to note 'can sail a bit' somewhere on the sheet.

My point was nothing to do with feeling desolate and empty inside just because I don't get to write '+1' on my sheet, but was directed as an admonishment towards systems that hamper organic character skill-growth.

So exactly what I said, minus the tongue-in-cheeck emotive word? I'm sorry, I should have used "not right" or something.

Psyx
2010-11-04, 09:03 AM
Publishing isn't terribly hard any more...you've got options like lulu for extremely small runs(playtest copies, etc), and local print shops are more willing to do small runs nowadays. You don't have to do thousands of copies.

However; successful publishing -rather than vanity press, or working your ass off writing for free except for a few CDs here and there* (as I currently do)- is a rather different matter.


... the rest is fairly easily dealt with. It'll likely never be a smash hit, but selling a coupla hundred copies of a game is still a few bucks, and it's always cool to see something you published.

Like I said: There's really no money in it, and I'm already published. I'd rather carry on focusing on that work (in the vague hope of work in more mainstream media) than sickening myself of my hobby in a small market that is scattered with a thousand failures.

And I really can't handle a 'how to roleplay' chapter...


Is there a problem in not being rich? I'm not rich and I'm quite happy, thank you.

There's a problem with my house being repossessed if I threw my all into making money in the gaming industry.



So exactly what I said

No, not exactly. It's more that I don't like being told what would 'feel empty' to me by someone else, to be honest.



*This is a lie. I don't even get free CDs. Album reviewers get sent links to download new releases. So all I get are a bunch of MP3s - mostly from bands whom I despise!

Boci
2010-11-04, 09:32 AM
No, not exactly. It's more that I don't like being told what would 'feel empty' to me by someone else, to be honest.

You're really taking my use of that word too seriously. If I offended you I'm sorry.

Jayabalard
2010-11-04, 09:51 AM
Like I said: There's really no money in it, and I'm already published. I'd rather carry on focusing on that work (in the vague hope of work in more mainstream media) than sickening myself of my hobby in a small market that is scattered with a thousand failures.There's a big difference between "Psyx can't make money in the gaming industry" and "there's no money in the gaming industry" ... the latter is strictly false, since there's millions of dollars being made. I hold no opinion on whether the former is true or not.