Have you ever sacrificed utility for flavor?

[Rixx]

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

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

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

[Tyndmyr]

I disagree that utility and flavor are at odds, unless you make them to be.

[Sinfire Titan]

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

[Merk]

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

[t_catt11]

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

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

[Oracle_Hunter]

Yup.

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

It does make for a bitchin' backstory though

[Kylarra]

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



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

[DragoonWraith]

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

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

[The Dark Fiddler]

I once considered taking levels in Dragon Disciple because it fit my Halfling Sorcerer's goal of tapping into his draconic heritage.

[KillianHawkeye]

I disagree that utility and flavor are at odds, unless you make them to be.

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

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

[Rixx]

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

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

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

[Myrmex]

I disagree that utility and flavor are at odds, unless you make them to be.

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

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

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

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

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

[Paulus]

I love fighting unarmed. That is all. Do not turn this into a monk war, please and thank you.

[AstralFire]

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

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

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

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

[Starscream]

I did this with one character I'm currently playing. We're all Gestalt characters with Ninja on one side, and whatever we want on the other.

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

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

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

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

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

[MOLOKH]

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

[Poil]

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

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

[Boci]

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

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

[Pharaoh's Fist]

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

Such as Druid/Planar Shepard?

[Superglucose]

I disagree that utility and flavor are at odds, unless you make them to be.

For example: my current wizard character is training to be a teacher at the arcane university. To this end, he's pushing his ranks in a few Knowledge skills as high as possible. He is also busily trying to figure out which spells are the most useful in an adventuring career and how to best use them, since invariably some of the students are going to want that information.

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

[Poil]

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

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

[Inhuman Bot]

I disagree that utility and flavor are at odds, unless you make them to be.

I played a monk instead of an unarmed Swordsage.

[Severus]

This isn't sub-optimizing a character. It's making a choice.

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

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

The difference between optimal and borked, however does.

[Tavar]

I played a monk instead of an unarmed Swordsage.

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

[arguskos]

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

[Tengu_temp]

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

[BRC]

In a way, anybody who isn't playing a Batman style wizard, DMM cleric, or Druidzilla is sacrificing utility for flavor.

[Tavar]

In a way, anybody who isn't playing a Batman style wizard, DMM cleric, or Druidzilla is sacrificing utility for flavor.

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

[Myou]

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

[Inhuman Bot]

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

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

I like the ideas behind the monk, though.