Quote Originally Posted by Xetheral View Post
Despite your distaste, I would argue that a character concept is just as legitimate when it's mechanics-focused as when it's thematics-focused, at least so long as by the end of character creation both are sufficiently present to meet the standards of the table in question.

On top of that, the two approaches aren't mutually exclusive: I personally prefer an iterative process where thematic choices inform new mechanics choices which then suggest new thematics choices, ad nauseum. Either a mechanical choice or a thematic choice can be the launching off point, and sometimes even that original spark is abandoned midway through. (It can take me a *long* time to make a character this way, but I enjoy the process and like the tightly-woven results.)
That's fair to a degree, so long as the end result in an actual character and not a laundry list of contreivances explaining how you were born with so many templates or something.

I was more stating I tend to me more flexible rules-wise with thematic characters than mechanics ones... for example: I'm more likely to switch the element on a few spells to poison damage type for your yuan-ti poison master than I would switch them to thunder for your sweet tempest Cleric/storm sorcerer interactions