For a Pathfinder campaign I am contemplating, I would like to encourage PCs to be human, but allow nonhuman PCs IF they are rare and can be justified.
So I am considering the following rules for the campaign, and wanted to get feedback on what people think:
1. Any nonhuman PC has to be justified on a case by case basis for whether it makes sense for the character to be in this campaign.
2. Nonhuman PCs start out at one level below the level that a human PC would start at.
3. To make up for this, nonhuman PCs get an additional +2 to the ability score of the player's choice, in addition to the regular ability score adjustments.
Thoughts? Comments? Cries of outrage?
I would just go with the first rule. After that, it seems like #2 is a punishment for someone who wants to roleplay, and #3 doesn't really make up for a lost level over time, so it's a punishment as well.
Maybe encourage humans a bit more instead rather than discouraging other options ?
A human could have a single D20 reroll per day for example, or get both the additional skill point and hit point for their favored class.
Maybe making human subtypes makes them a bit more interesting to your players, these might be reflected by an additional trait or two from a preselected list, fixed ability score increase, possibly their own favored class options and some nice roleplaying mojo.
I would just go with the first rule. After that, it seems like #2 is a punishment for someone who wants to roleplay, and #3 doesn't really make up for a lost level over time, so it's a punishment as well.
What if I made it a +4 bonus?
I would just go with the first rule. After that, it seems like #2 is a punishment for someone who wants to roleplay, and #3 doesn't really make up for a lost level over time, so it's a punishment as well.What if I made it a +4 bonus?
Punishment is still punishment. A +4 bonus is nice, but they'll still be behind a full level in class features, which really can sting. Sure, the elf sorcerer may have great save DCs for his spells, but now he's a full spell behind the human wizard. And at higher levels, that +4 won't mean as much, as PCs will have access to magic to compensate. Also, think about your world. Does that mean you have 0th-level elves, gnomes, dwarves, etc.?
I'm going to go with cries of outrage. I played with a DM who did not let you choose your race, you had a 75% chance of being human and the remaining 25% was divided up between the remaining races (or you could just go with human). I HATE playing humans, and I know a lot who agree. Make them justify, don't punish them.
We did a point buy system that resulted in everyone being human...
Essentially, every score starts at 14, and you can add and subtract points on a one for one basis....but no score was allowed to be above 18, even after racial modifiers. The end result was that everyone chose human.
Basically, there is no reason aside from roleplaying....which is what you want....to choose anything except human. It was still an open choice though. Plus the characters were very powerful.....but not overpowered. We have a lot of high scores, but nothing so high that it makes our characters MAXED at something.
I tend to have trouble getting players to select anything but humans, but perhaps your mileage is different.
Its strange, towards the end of AD&D, I became humancentric. Almost all of my characters from 2nd and 3.x were humans. Now, I still love humans best, but I play other races just for some diversity at our gaming tables. In Pathfinder, for the groups I game with, humans are a majority.
@original poster- like Kierato, I say don't punish them for having a great concept that the player had to justify. Instead, give a token reward to encourage humans in your games. Perhaps, an additional starting Trait. Or give them an exotic weapon considered martial for all humans. Or ones are considered twos if you roll hp. Something small and non-game breaking that encourages.
Encourage with kindness...Do not discourage with the rod. :P
Greg
EDIT: I, got, comma, crazy, on, the, keyboard.
So I suppose as an alternative, I could say "You have to either play a human or have a great concept. I have to agree with whether or not your concept is great."
I could allow for human types that perhaps have characteristics of some of the races, such as perhaps being slender and elfin, but they are still human and have to come from human culture. For example, perhaps a PC is big and ugly, I might allow the player to use the Half-Orc stats, but the PC is still a human. I'd have to decide this on a case by case basis.
I tend to prefer objective ways to make decisions, so I suppose if a player really wanted to play a nonhuman concept that I did not think was great, I could offer the "punishment" option.
I do hope the intent, especially given the nature of the campaign, is not to punish however, but to provide an option. The nature of the campaign is that everybody is human, but there is a potential for explaining certain nonhuman characters.
For example, if somebody wanted to play a warforged PC, perhaps she was created as a golem or an automaton.
So I think I'll rescind the consideration of imposing a cost to nonhuman characters. Any player who would need a penalty to be discouraged from playing a concept that I didn't think fit into the campaign, probably wouldn't last very long in the campaign anyway. If I can find a way to make it fit, I can find a way to make it fit without penalty. If I can't find a way to make it fit, it won't get in.
3. To make up for this, nonhuman PCs get an additional +2 to the ability score of the player's choice, in addition to the regular ability score adjustments.
I would increase there point buy or have them roll seven times and pick the best six rolls for there stats.
Most of my players play humans anyway, an extra feat can't be beat.
If the extra feat for humans is "too good to pass up", you can give everyone the extra feat, and give the Human extra Traits or some other "more specific" bonus.
Regarding losing a level and then making it up. The Monster Advancement rules have the Advanced Template giving +2 to all rolls and ability DCs and hp/HD, and +4 to AC and CMD... all for a +1 CR.
Now, I'll be the first to say that CR /= PC levels, but it gives a good idea on where they sit with an encounter. All those bonuses are the equivalent of having one more class level when faced as an encounter.
A single +2 or even +4 to one stat is simply not going to compare to having that class level.
What I might suggest is that instead of being a level behind, the non-Human character has to choose an NPC class as their first level class. This means they have level appropriate stuff (ranks, HD, BAB/Saves, etc), but they are one level behind in abilities.
It also gives a nice way to tie in some special "racial" stuff. Elves are magical, so an elven character might start with a level of Adept (gaining some magical talent), even though he intends to go with rogue or ranger levels, etc.
Just heavily communicate that you really want humans in the group, and I think you will find that most players will do such. If anything, give the human players something temporary and minor, rather than take away something from the non humans. It could be something as simple as granting an additional hero point or two at the start of the campaign, if you use such rules. You make the players that did what you asked feel good about helping you to your party dynamic goal, and they get a tiny advantage to show for it.
Maybe I should not even mention it in the campaign write up, since saying that they are in historical Europe implies that everybody is going to be human.
If anybody wants to not be human, then I have a right to ask "Well, where did you come from then?"
Maybe I should not even mention it in the campaign write up, since saying that they are in historical Europe implies that everybody is going to be human.
If anybody wants to not be human, then I have a right to ask "Well, where did you come from then?"
You're best bet is too include it in the campaign writeup anyway. It may be logical to assume your players would understand that historical Europe means an all-human game, but what is logical is not always factual. You're using a game system that, by default, embraces multiple fantasy races. If you don't state it clearly, you're asking for misunderstanding. Or worse.
For a Pathfinder campaign I am contemplating, I would like to encourage PCs to be human, but allow nonhuman PCs IF they are rare and can be justified.
I'd suggest "For a Pathfinder campaign I am contemplating, I would like to ask my players what they would like to play before I decide what and how I will run it."
I thoroughly believe a DM should enjoy running a game. You're a player too. But you're outnumbered. You should be starting by polling your players to find out what they see in a game as fun. The beautiful thing is that if your players are interested in a human-based campaign (I'm guessing you just got done watching LotR or something) then you don't need rules. If they aren't... your rules will just chafe.
I tend to have trouble getting players to select anything but humans, but perhaps your mileage is different.
I've luckily never had this problem. Everyone I play with other than the rare except typically avoid humans for other choices. We like our high fantasy to be diverse :p
Honestly if you're wanting to go with them actually being in historical Europe you might be best off eliminating other races as choices. You can leave it at that, but my recommendation then would be to create 'sub-races' of humans. Just give them all slightly different abilities that way your players still get a bit of choice racially.
For a Pathfinder campaign I am contemplating, I would like to encourage PCs to be human, but allow nonhuman PCs IF they are rare and can be justified.
So I am considering the following rules for the campaign, and wanted to get feedback on what people think:
1. Any nonhuman PC has to be justified on a case by case basis for whether it makes sense for the character to be in this campaign.
2. Nonhuman PCs start out at one level below the level that a human PC would start at.
3. To make up for this, nonhuman PCs get an additional +2 to the ability score of the player's choice, in addition to the regular ability score adjustments.
Thoughts? Comments? Cries of outrage?
Or give Human stats to everyone. Apply appropriate mod for size.
Everything else is fluff...
|
If I wanted people to play humans i would just give humans more bonuses. Maybe a extra +2 stat, another feat and more skill points, just something more where Humans where better. Then let it be known non humans may not fit in well. In that there is not a lot of them, so people would remember them and not trust them etc.
Trust me I get the whole, have a vision of a campaign and want to play out that vision. But you also have to meet the players in the middle sometimes as well.
I often feel a majority of non-humans in a party feels a bit too high fantasy for an indebt roleplay experience, an odd mixture of elves, dwarves, gnomes and halflings go off on adventure, killing and looting all that stands in their way.. in a human dominated world in particular it is often just weird from a DM perspective.
Often I find the high fantasy interferes with a good story telling, a simple base is usually just better and let it evolve from there.
If you want humans though just make them more attractive options, inspire them and make the players feel like it is their choice rather than you forcing something on them, that is likely to kill your campaign before it even started.
I'd try this.
Sit down and ask the players "Hey guys, I have this idea for a new campaign but I'd really like you all to be human as that would mesh better with the idea, what do you think?"
Then explain the idea and concept behind your campaign and why you want it to be "human only" and go from there. If most of them agree and one or two don't then you can talk to them about Why they dun wanna be human. You can work with them- maybe one can be a halfling with those feats from the APG that make them appear human. (maybe even for free- since the feats have so little "actual" effect aside from making them appear to be a different race) or some such.
Sit down with the players and discuss your wants and your whys. I'd 100% go with that over "I am going to penalize you because what you want doesn't fit the theme of my campaign". They are players in the game just as much as you are- be up front about it and it'll probably go alot more smoothly for you. Even someone who usually plays "other things" may get on board a good solid campaign idea that revolves around something else- just involve them in the decision making process too.
-S
If on the other hand most or all of them say "we don't want to all be human" or "we don't like that idea" then it may be better to scrap it for now, work on it on the down low and pitch it again later :)
-S
I have only once restricted which race a player could choose, and that was because the main plot line of the world was that one race had been exterminated from the planet and the job of the heroes was to find out why, who and how to reverse the genocide.
I don't like the entire concept of telling players what they can or can't play, so long as they are playing within the rules I am allowing, which for Pathfinder right now is core plus APG.
I am playing in a 4e game now where the DM restricted the races and I ended up taking a less viable race than the one that would have worked best for my concept. I can live with that and am still having fun, but I didn't like it.
I have only once restricted which race a player could choose, and that was because the main plot line of the world was that one race had been exterminated from the planet and the job of the heroes was to find out why, who and how to reverse the genocide.
I don't like the entire concept of telling players what they can or can't play, so long as they are playing within the rules I am allowing, which for Pathfinder right now is core plus APG.
I am playing in a 4e game now where the DM restricted the races and I ended up taking a less viable race than the one that would have worked best for my concept. I can live with that and am still having fun, but I didn't like it.
I guess that would depend on what sort of concept you have.
If your concept is one that comes out of the world, like "I am an African who joined the Musketeers", then I don't see these race restrictions as restricting anything, because the race concept came out of the world."
If your concept is one like "I have absolutely the best possible armor class by level 5", then I'd say "I don't have to support your concept. This is a role-playing game, not a roll-playing game. Certainly, if you're playing a thief-acrobat, I would expect you to make a competent thief-acrobat character. But there is no reason why I need to support your desire for a 47 AC.
If your concept is one like "I am a golem granted awareness", then perhaps a warforged character may be a possibility. The idea comes out of the world, specifically the Jewish folklore in the world, and a warforged is one way to make sense of the concept.
If your concept is one like "I am a drow outcast who dual-wields scimitars, constantly persecuted by my former kith and kin" then I'd say that does not fit because there are no drow known in this world to be outcast from, and no drow kith and kin to persecute you.
I have only once restricted which race a player could choose, and that was because the main plot line of the world was that one race had been exterminated from the planet and the job of the heroes was to find out why, who and how to reverse the genocide.
I don't like the entire concept of telling players what they can or can't play, so long as they are playing within the rules I am allowing, which for Pathfinder right now is core plus APG.
I am playing in a 4e game now where the DM restricted the races and I ended up taking a less viable race than the one that would have worked best for my concept. I can live with that and am still having fun, but I didn't like it.
I guess that would depend on what sort of concept you have.
If your concept is one that comes out of the world, like "I am an African who joined the Musketeers", then I don't see these race restrictions as restricting anything, because the race concept came out of the world."
If your concept is one like "I have absolutely the best possible armor class by level 5", then I'd say "I don't have to support your concept. This is a role-playing game, not a roll-playing game. Certainly, if you're playing a thief-acrobat, I would expect you to make a competent thief-acrobat character. But there is no reason why I need to support your desire for a 47 AC.
If your concept is one like "I am a golem granted awareness", then perhaps a warforged character may be a possibility. The idea comes out of the world, specifically the Jewish folklore in the world, and a warforged is one way to make sense of the concept.
If your concept is one like "I am a drow outcast who dual-wields scimitars, constantly persecuted by my former kith and kin" then I'd say that does not fit because there are no drow known in this world to be outcast from, and no drow kith and kin to persecute you.
Geez, Louise....
The concept was "I want to play a dex/str balanced character who can be effective in melee and ranged, therefore I would like to play a race with a bonus to dex and str since the very idea of advancing two stats for one character essentially nerfs that character compared to a single stat focused character. Furthermore, I'd like the character to be a viable skill-monkey who gets appropriate racial modifiers to skills like stealth or thievery." There was a race which was a perfect fit, but was disallowed, so I had to make do.
I'm OK with it, but I wouldn't do that to my own players, unless there were seriously extenuating circumstances. The DM's reason was "I don't like race X."
So, don't describe it that way.
Go ahead and write up the history and story of the character and include several things in it that don't work if your PC isn't of the "race" the DM has decided to railroad you into.
"Well I've wanted to play a Whatsit from Wherever for awhile because their longevity and skill with the bow plays right into the history of my character who..."
rather than "man that +2 to X and +2 to Y really beef my guy out"
Thinking about it, maybe I could fit the Drow guy with two scimitars in....
What I decided to go with is the following:
"Characters need to fit in with the setting. That means they'll be human, unless you have a really good nonhuman concept, which I must approve on a case by case basis."
Unfortunately, there seems to be two schools of thought on what consitutes a "good" concept...
So, don't describe it that way.
Go ahead and write up the history and story of the character and include several things in it that don't work if your PC isn't of the "race" the DM has decided to railroad you into.
"Well I've wanted to play a Whatsit from Wherever for awhile because their longevity and skill with the bow plays right into the history of my character who..."
rather than "man that +2 to X and +2 to Y really beef my guy out"
I repeat myself.
Geez Louise.
If you really consider "Hey, I think I should be a race that has some racial bonuses that are helpful to my concept" as some sort of munchkiny power-game roll-playing....
Well.... all I can say is LOLLOLLOLLOLLLOL!!!!
Thinking about it, maybe I could fit the Drow guy with two scimitars in....
What I decided to go with is the following:
"Characters need to fit in with the setting. That means they'll be human, unless you have a really good nonhuman concept, which I must approve on a case by case basis."
Unfortunately, there seems to be two schools of thought on what consitutes a "good" concept...
Firstly: no snark or sarcasm or rudeness intended.
Secondly: Why not just sit down and ask if they mind doing a human only campaign? Why the need to heavy-hand it?
I think you, and they, will all enjoy it alot more of you discuss it with them rather than "I've decided that this campaign is human only and it Will be human only unless you can convince me otherwise".
And if the majority of them *do not want* a human only campaign then you may need to revise your original idea.. at least- with that particular group.
-S
I don't have players yet, so I can't sit down with them. I thought I'd come here and see what potential players might think. And I think this has been helpful.
I know there are players out there who might complain about not being able to play a lizardman Barbarian, but I guess I can't please everybody.
I think most of the people who are actually likely players would have no problems with a human only campaign. If I wanted to put my food down, I could insist on it. I just think maybe I'll keep the door at least unlocked toward alternatives, just in case a good concept comes along.
Yeah, I'd approach it as you've stated. Tell people that this is a campaign based more on real world stuff. You might be inclined to let a mythos-based race as a player character, depending on how it would fit in a European mythos.
If you tell people they aren't playing Golarian or even "standard" D&D fare, then for the most part people will understand where you are coming from.
If you have the chance to detail the world a bit, explain character creation that race isn't really the focus here (since it'll primarily be human), but rather where you come from. Are you Roman? A Celt? etc.
If someone still wants to play an Elf in that world, and they've got a good mythos to back up the fey background, then there you go. But describing it by region instead of race tends to shift the gears for the players, and this might even become a non-issue.
The player would have to think in terms of "I want to play a Fey outsider, what's a good race to represent this", as opposed to "I want to play an Elf vs a Human".
I don't have players yet, so I can't sit down with them. I thought I'd come here and see what potential players might think. And I think this has been helpful.
I know there are players out there who might complain about not being able to play a lizardman Barbarian, but I guess I can't please everybody.
I think most of the people who are actually likely players would have no problems with a human only campaign. If I wanted to put my food down, I could insist on it. I just think maybe I'll keep the door at least unlocked toward alternatives, just in case a good concept comes along.
There is a difference between playing a "lizardman barbarian" and a "dwarf cleric." Dwarves are core races. Lizardmen are not. Nobody is proposing allowing players to play any monster or made up race they can conceive of. We are saying that telling players "you have to play a human" is generally something that I personally consider far too restrictive in a fantasy role playing game, which derives a great deal of its charm from letting people be NOT human for a few hours a week.
My advice: help create those explanations. In historical europe there were regions that were commonly thought the realm of the fey. A demihuman from the proper tradition will fit well in your setting if you let it.
Elves: The druids and celts of brittania match the elves well, and well into the middle ages their remanents were thought to dwell in the wild greenwood. Sounds like elves.
Gnomes: The Black Forest in Germany has always been thought the home of fey creatures. Gnomes were derived in part from these traditions.
Id put the halflings to the Irish wee folk and dwarves to the inhospitible parts of Russia.
Half-orc can be a wild-man human, half-elf could be another human variant or left alone.
My suggestion would be to discuss the game world rationale of "human only" with the potential players before the game starts. If a player has a very good and logical reason for his or her character to be non-human, then you should let them do so. However, both the player and the DM should be aware that,in a game world which is 99plus percent human, being non-human can have role playing/game consequences. For example, the humans might be prejudiced against non-humans or, in extreme cases, consider them as monsters. Or, on the other hand, humans might consider the non-humans as curiosities to be befriended or religiously converted.
I learned that DMs need to be receptive to their players expectations.
I ran a campaign for several years where humans were the only allowed race. It was fun for me but some of the other players struggled to have as good a time. I got a lot of moaning, groaning and aloof players which really detracted from the game, and as a result made it not so much fun for me either.
I would discuss it with your players and only proceed if everybody is on board. In my opinion, the DM is the one who needs to satisfy the players not the other way around.
Id put the halflings to the Irish wee folk and dwarves to the inhospitible parts of Russia.
Eaters of the Dead had a description of "Dwarves" that sounded almost exactly like D&D Dwarves.
- Short (but not extremely short)
- Old looking, and believed to live a longer time than humans
- Bearded, and even the women had a little bit of hair on the face
- They crafted superior weapons that were considered "powerful" in the sense of killing strange/fey enemies (to the point of putting down a sword to use one of their daggers)
- The elder dwarf had the ability to know things (divination effects and possibly precognition, although that might just be a smart person making accurate conclusions after having a lot of info).
They existed in Viking regions, and they were born of humans (the aged look and hairy face on the newborn indicated they were a dwarf).
Definitely a ready-made mythos for adding dwarves into the game.
Note: Ibn Falim (I think is his name) was trying to visit a ruler or baron of Rus when he was sidetracked by the vikings, and in fact went past the city he was supposed to go to. So this was likely right in the region near Russia, and touches on their myths.