Traits you buy just for the Coolness Factor / Pure Awesomeness

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

Inspired vaguely by the 4½ spec thread. What traits did you, or other players you know, buy just for the coolness, as opposed to practical consideration? Primarily GURPS examples, though it doesn't hurt to throw in the occasional case from another system. Here are some of mine:

• An aerospace fleet as a Patron just to be able to call in an airstrike exactly once (it made sense in context).
• Move! and Instant Improvised Morph in order to make a warrior-priest whose method of sacrificing enemies is by providing a flashy fight as a show to its deity. (Ended up mostly acting as support with Bindings and stuff, alas.)
• (Equipment.) A glove granting the Stretching (Force Extension, one arm) trait, in order to mimic the Sword-and-Armoured-Gauntlet style from the 7th Sea. This was a space operah game with force swords and stuff.
• If I even get to play in a low-Powers fantasy game: Strikers (Limbs, Arms) for a monk of some sort.
• Manul once bought the ability to summon Cue balls for his character, mostly as a projectile for Innate Attacks. He also fought with a cue 'staff'. The game was anything-goes 300ish points.
• My ex once considered letting her character learn a modified version of the Bodice Cutting Technique. Seems like it was worthy of a rules discussion.

So . . . what are your stories?
Thanks in advance!

[Figleaf23]

I've bought a lot of Sig Gear over the years that wound up being pure eye-candy when the campaign played out.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Greetings, all!

Inspired vaguely by the 4½ spec thread. What traits did you, or other players you know, buy just for the coolness, as opposed to practical consideration? !

Well, if we were to consider impractical traits I think the winner in my experience is Secret:4 Arms.

I once gave a pregen for a player who couldn't make the chargen session Delusion;I'm Not as Dumb as I Look.

I could list Perk:Always Has String but that turned out to be practical.

[sir_pudding]

Referencing the source, I've found Dodge and it's chain to be extremely useful in D&D 3.x/Pathfinder. I'm not sure what ErhamDJ is even on about. I'm playing a Gunslinger in Pathfinder now with Leaping Shot Deed and it's ridiculous cool.

[gilbertocarlos]

I have a player that EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER have handsome and sex-appeal, just to be sure his character is good with the ladies. Even if it is a fighter, an assassin or a sniper that never talks to no one.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

I have a player that EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER have handsome and sex-appeal, just to be sure his character is good with the ladies. Even if it is a fighter, an assassin or a sniper that never talks to no one.

Oh, many (but not all) of my characters have those traits (though I don't think I ever took more than Attractive in GURPS). But those traits usually just lay there, because romance turns out to not be considered an appreciated part of the campaign (there were some notable exceptions, but I still think romance is out of place in most campaigns I've personally took part of).

[panton41]

Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos

I have a player that EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER have handsome and sex-appeal, just to be sure his character is good with the ladies. Even if it is a fighter, an assassin or a sniper that never talks to no one.

I often do that, but less out of practicality and more due to characterization. If a player describes the character as attractive - even if they have no use for that fact - I think it should be included.

I'll often give characters a well-rounded set of skill, even if a certain skill might never come up during play. The knight in armor might never use "Housekeeping" but you never know.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by ciaran_skye

I often do that, but less out of practicality and more due to characterization. If a player describes the character as attractive - even if they have no use for that fact - I think it should be included.

For what it's worth, I think another reason might be pre-emptive:
The player expects that if romance comes up at some point in the campaign, the GM will look at those traits when in doubt. Some GMs might think that lacking those traits basically closes some of the possible narrative lines (hopefully not too many).

Originally Posted by ciaran_skye

I'll often give characters a well-rounded set of skill, even if a certain skill might never come up during play. The knight in armor might never use "Housekeeping" but you never know.

NPC example: a character who is Klutz from neural damage, and thus is unlikely to ever drive, but has Driving at a competent level to account for a short 'career' in racing in teen years. (It probably should actually be a lot higher, but combined with some sort of extra penalty; not like it matters at this point.)

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by ciaran_skye

I often do that, but less out of practicality and more due to characterization. If a player describes the character as attractive - even if they have no use for that fact - I think it should be included.

Oh definitely. But if it isn't going to be an advantage, it shouldn't cost points.


Hans

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Referencing the source, I've found Dodge and it's chain to be extremely useful in D&D 3.x/Pathfinder. I'm not sure what ErhamDJ is even on about. I'm playing a Gunslinger in Pathfinder now with Leaping Shot Deed and it's ridiculous cool.

Uh, Dodge, in 3.5? +1 AC against one opponent at a time? As a prerequisite, it leads to some potentially interesting things, but on its own it's not much of a feat.