Classes that make your group go UGH!


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

I only have one class that ALWAYS makes me cringe. Ninja. There is something about each and every person I've DMed or played with who has played a ninja that is so twinkerbell it's not even funny. I have hated every concept, every "I'm a NINJA so I'm good at (blah)" statement, every way they are played, just about everything about the class (no matter what system I've seen them in), and as a DM there's something that makes my inner evil cackle everytime one is killed (PC or NPC).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

female-elf-bard, perhaps I play with the wrong crowd but I've seen far too much of these darn hippies who think that life is a love poem.


Our group has some of these tendencies. My last group had it is spades, we had a player will skill point addiction. He had to have a lot of skill points, both from class and from race (human) and from INT.

Then, he wondered why he didn't do as much damage in melee as the 8 INT fighter.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
We may try to fix it though for our next campaign. We've debated writing the main party roles on pieces of paper, and then drawing randomly.

I think it will be a good challenge, and push us to be better as players.

Silver Crusade

Especially since I play a lot of games other than D&D/PF (I do also play PF, and did play D&D/AD&D too), I see more of a problem with archetypes some players keep returning to over and over again, and some particular threads that seem to show up in certain players' characters (even though the characters are otherwise different). Speaking here almost entirely of people I still game with (rather than the legions of players I once knew from all the past groups I gamed with over the years):

Got 1 player (my brother, unfortunately) who, every time he plays a female character (which is well over the half the time), she's always some sort of Stevie Nicks clone. Without fail... and he's been doing this for over 30 years. The worst part is, it started in an early AD&D/1 game that I was running, where I had made an NPC who was loosely based on a Stevie Nicks type, that my brother then took over as a PC sometime shortly thereafter... He is quite good at role-playing a character, will often take a step back from being in the action if his character logically should do so, and is obsessed with making his character in game exactly match the art he's creating for the character.

Got another player who insists on playing the Anime ditzy airhead archetype, damn near every time... flighty, unstable, manic... gets annoying (especially annoying to the genuine female player whenever he does this with a female character). On the rare exceptions when he's not playing the Anime ditz, he's playing the Anime geeky boy archetype that gets a nosebleed at the sight of a pretty female even slightly uncovered.

We have our own sleeper in the group. Fortunately he's good-natured, mellow, and easy to point in the right direction-- and doesn't mind being the punchline of a lot of jokes, so we're okay with him in the group.

We also have the player who likes anti-social, brooding loners and misfits-- Her characters are always given enough hooks and background requirements to keep them with the party, but she's the one always running the 'outsider' hovering at the back of the group. Her characters are also usually pretty effective, but she keeps having the self-perception that her characters are more useless/less effective than they actually are.

Then, although all of my characters are acknowledged as being different and somewhat unique from each other, there's a growing trend in my play that I'm sure sometimes annoys my group-- I keep running characters who, while they are brave and willing to fight when necessary, generally despise unnecessary violence, like to find solutions that avoid the need for combat, and who have negotiated or otherwise steered the party around many circumstances and challenges that would otherwise have resulted in a nasty fight if I hadn't intervened... the more "combat-oriented" players have been getting annoyed with me lately (it doesn't help their mood that when a fight in game does break out, my characters are not necessarily the best combat monsters, but I'm almost certainly the best tactician among the players I game with. I'm also usually the one most guilty of wanting to play 'skill monkeys' and/or magically-powered characters in every system.

One thing that I don't see with the groups I currently game with, that apparently is a problem from many of the posts I've seen on this board, is the issue with Rogues who tend to be light-fingered and overly interested in loot at the expense of the rest of the party. We usually have rogue-ish (or at least highly skilled sneak-scout) characters in every campaign (and very often I'm the one playing them), but they are always team-players, given good background reasons to stick with and be loyal to the group-- and they are never the sorts of characters who would screw over the party on anything. I don't think the group I'm currently gaming with would put up with a rogue that constantly got slippery with the party's money and/or did anything else that could be seen as some sort of betrayal of the party's interest.

Liberty's Edge

While I can't speak for what makes my group(s) go "Ugh!", where are some of my personal dislikes:

* Strength-based TWF human rogues -- useless and die like mice.

* 2hPA barbarians with 5' reach weapons -- effective or not, they're usually cookie-cutter boring and without any personality. Big damage when they connect, but low AC means they're frequently mauled to neg and become an impediment rather than a reliable asset.

*


redliska wrote:

Clerics: almost always end up with more than one and they tend to have trouble resolving combat quickly.

Druids: again end up with too many and the players generally get bogged down with the complexity of the class. Druids tend to appeal to my less organized and rules savvy players.

Rangers: They always seem to suck at whatever they do and I am not sure why.

Because players are afraid to put that 18 in strength and switch hit with a glaive and compound long bow. You always end up with these 13-14 in all six stat characters with more points devoted to tracking than hitting something.

My ranger was AWESOME.

As far as characters that make me go ugh, I have to say the sorcerer. All the sorcerer is for is ruining one kind of encounter so that it is basically unplayable, and being half useless the rest of the time.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
cranewings wrote:
As far as characters that make me go ugh, I have to say the sorcerer. All the sorcerer is for is ruining one kind of encounter so that it is basically unplayable, and being half useless the rest of the time.

What exactly about the sorcerer makes you feel this way?


CW does not like casters that all that much.


Ravingdork wrote:
cranewings wrote:
As far as characters that make me go ugh, I have to say the sorcerer. All the sorcerer is for is ruining one kind of encounter so that it is basically unplayable, and being half useless the rest of the time.
What exactly about the sorcerer makes you feel this way?

Whatever one spell she has of her highest level is the only thing she is going to do, and she's going to do it 13 or 14 times a day. If it is Deeper Slumber, than every party of low Will save creatures be them human rogues or orc raiders, is basically hosed. When she comes up against things that don't sleep or single strong creatures, she is useless.

Or maybe she has Dispel Magic for her third level spell. Hope there is some magic to dispel. Come up against a wizard or a set of magical traps? Awesome. Dispel Dispel Dispel. Finished. Great.

There is nothing to pick. Nothing to decide on. No strategy. Nothing to over come. If she is wondering around with the win button, then great. If not, sit it out.

You could pick some general purpose spells or buffs, but people almost never do it with a sorcerer. Most players, in my experience, do themed sorcerers, usually enchanters, invokers, or illusionists. Anyone that wants a balanced load of spells just plays a wizard.


That is not how a sorcerer is normally played. The problem is not the class. It is the way they are played, but that is another discussion for another thread. Where is LilithsThrall when you need her?


First off how are they getting 13-14 casting of their highest level spell and second some one in your group needs to know how to use lower level spells.

As for picking you have a finite number of spells known ever even if you dump all your feats you still are limited that requires as much fore thought as prepping any day of the week.


I'll do you one better. I played the same *character* (drow fighter/wizard) over three campaigns. The DM gave us the option of importing old characters; I accepted every time. On a more general level, I like having some type of charismatic arcane gish (bard, fighter/wizard). Currently I'm playing an eldritch knight. ; )

I've played cleric with some success. I also had great fun with a rogue under a different DM.

Which begs the question, do you see players picking the same archetypes even under different DMs or rule systems?


If there are any classes that I tend to groan when I see a player decide to pick one, they are probably more due to role-play issues than class mechanics issues. Paladins might be at the top of that list. Rogues might be too. Lawful stupid paladins and morally ambiguous rogues who try to pickpocket party members do make me roll my eyes I admit.

I am always amazed by how many players willingly and enthusiastically play a completely predictable caricature when they could instead do something interesting and unique.

But, heck, if that's what they enjoy doing...

Dark Archive

Finn K wrote:
Got 1 player (my brother, unfortunately) who, every time he plays a female character (which is well over the half the time), she's always some sort of Stevie Nicks clone. Without fail... and he's been doing this for over 30 years. The worst part is, it started in an early AD&D/1 game that I was running, where I had made an NPC who was loosely based on a Stevie Nicks type, that my brother then took over as a PC sometime shortly thereafter... He is quite good at role-playing a character, will often take a step back from being in the action if his character logically should do so, and is obsessed with making his character in game exactly match the art he's creating for the character.

Now that is just plain Funny... lol

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Adamantine Dragon, Cranewings--

Sounds like the problems with Paladins and Rogues in your game (AD) and Sorcerers in yours (CW) have more to do with the people playing them than the actual classes involved.

A Paladin has to be Lawful Good, but Lawful Good does not have to be "Lawful Stupid". Rogues do not have to be "morally ambiguous", and even "morally ambiguous" Rogues can be smart enough to not screw around with the people in their own party (i.e., "Don't s*** where you live")-- the expert scout and the elite spy, both of whom are thoroughly loyal to the friends they're adventuring with, are perfectly reasonable 'Rogue' character types. And, Sorcerers do not have to be built and played as 'one-trick ponies'. AD-- I see you already made a point of observing that this is more a role-play than mechanical issue. :)

I think the players the two of you have in your games who keep doing this would probably piss me off after a while.

Whipshire--

:D


@Finn, I'm not saying that I have any players currently doing this, just that I find stereotypes unsatisfying and I have never understood why people play them when they can play something unique and interesting instead. Lawful stupid paladins and morally ambiguous rogues just seem to be the most common examples. But I suppose pencil-necked, bookworm wizards who cringe from combat might be almost as common.

I've been lucky with my players mostly, but I've had my share of such characters to deal with...


I have a rogue player in my old group. And of course he fought like a fighter, but was a rogue. every... time... sigh...

I'm sure I have my own UGH worthy characters though. I think I have a bit too much star wars on the brain. Not because I need lightsabers or the "force" but because I really like sword weilding melee style characters that have a smattering of arcane/magic/supernatural power. This gets me into trouble because I tend to muddy the waters of my characters a bit, multi-classing to fit the role I want to be, even if it's a touch impracticle.

Example: for one game I played a warlock (thank god for that class) and it was roughly based on an anime character named Vaan that was an accomplished sword fighter and had some minor magical powers (maybe major, depending on your view of the character). So I took the warlock option that let me use my eldritch blast with melee attacks and I could fire them off and the DM and I made up some custome invocations to make the character like what I envisioned.

But other times I'd be playign a fighter, then slide into PSion, or wilder, or sorcerer. I'd probably end up playing a magus quite a bit if I liked the fluff more.

But I've been trying to branch out and expand lately. Time will tell.

and lord knows many of my characters have a sort of dispassionate chaotic view of the world around them, making the reactions of many of my characters seem the same, even if they are different. that and my intense personal need to make marginally funny jokes.


Our group purposely tries out new classes so that we don't fall back into previous characters. I generally GM, but my last three characters were a 3.5 human druid, a PF gestalt halfling fighter/rogue, and a PF human bard (arcane duelist archetype).

Our characters tend to be long-lived with fairly rich backgrounds, so we play a single character concept for quite some time. When we switch campaigns, though, everyone does a pretty good job of switching roles, classes, races, etc.

Still, my personal Ugh! class/concept is the strong 2hander with power attack. Whether it's a barbarian or a fighter or something similar, I just cringe a little when I hear someone is playing one. Thinking back over the past 10 years of gaming I can't think of one party where we didn't have the strong 2handed weapon person in some form or fashion.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a popcorn post.


We have the Rogue guy in our group. He also tends to speak in a British accent when trying to be polite and civil in character....even when playing in an Asian samurai setting.

I have a tendency to play nothing but Human (I like feats and skills) and usually some sort of military background (the rest of my group can't tell a pincer movement vs. a retreating trap so it aggravates me when I try to play a non tactical RP character and our tactical guy leads us into an OBVIOUS trap).

Another issue is we have been gaming together now long enough that we know the RP style of each player even if they are trying something new.

Dark Archive

I don't have anyone like this in my game, but I will admit that I *hate* having a crap Will save no matter what I play. I always take Traits that increase it (PF or UA) and I wince if I'm forced to have a Wisdom score less than 12. If 3.5 material is allowed, I usually try to cram Steadfast Determination into my melee builds.

Hell, my Ranger is currently using the 3.5 Zen Archery feat so I can hit everything in the game, have a great Will save, and have as many spells as possible.


Things that make you go Ugh

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Maps, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

We don't have a problem class in my group. Instead, we have 2 players:
One always plays either halflings or gnomes - then complains about the low damage.
Another play, his characters will always be teenagers. Or minimum age.


Mac likes rogues. Tyler likes bards. Tanner likes melee characters. I like deceptive characters that are mentally unstable.

Liberty's Edge

My only ugh characters really revolve around characters who are typically useless. Characters who, because of the player behind them, could be fully optimised on paper and still be the worst in the group.

Aside from that, our group has a good group of people who in each campaign tends to choose something different.

For myself, im the guy that, prior to Pathfinder and Archetypes, would do my best to build a crazy theme out of existing classes. Not always being successful at it, I can definitely say that.

One of my latest experiments is a trying to create a Prince of Persia...honorable, acrobatic, crafty, and has a silver tongue. Im using Monk and Ninja.


I've been accused of playing Paladins too much more than once.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
I've been accused of playing Paladins too much more than once.

Same here. Favorite class.

Dark Archive

Robespierre wrote:
Mac likes rogues. Tyler likes bards. Tanner likes melee characters. I like deceptive characters that are mentally unstable.

I played a Rogue addicted to temporary magic effects. He drank potions all the time, must of which he didn't know what they were. We had an old 3.5 chart that showed effect of cross potion/multiple potions usage. I had not thought about that chart in years.

Shadow Lodge

WhipShire wrote:
Robespierre wrote:
Mac likes rogues. Tyler likes bards. Tanner likes melee characters. I like deceptive characters that are mentally unstable.
I played a Rogue addicted to temporary magic effects. He drank potions all the time, must of which he didn't know what they were. We had an old 3.5 chart that showed effect of cross potion/multiple potions usage. I had not thought about that chart in years.

You would have loved the 1e Potion Miscibility table. It could turn into poison and kill you, it could render one of both potions inert, or it could cause one potion to affect you permanently. Much fun to be had on that table!

In the past, I played gnomes more than anything, but I've tried to keep myself branching out. Although I find myself playing oracles more and more. In the past year, I've played:

Human bard/ranger
Half-orc sorcerer/oracle
Merfolk oracle
Halfling summoner
Thri-kreen monk
Half-elf witch
Half-orc ranger
Human sorcerer
Half-orc fighter/oracle
Human wizard
Half-elf oracle/ninja
Human fighter
Gnome alchemist
Human bard
Human rogue

(Note: only the first PC has been in a face-to-face campaign. The rest are all PbP, of which four are defunct, and another four are organized play characters so they aren't always active.)

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Mystic theurges make me go "ugh." Druids do too when a brand new player wants to play a druid because they have a pet. Druids are probably the most complicated and rules-intensive class in the game.

I have one player for whom branching out is playing a human wizard instead of an elf wizard. From time to time he will get a weird monk urge.

Shadow Lodge

Very true, Charlie!

That Rogue Guy is among the worst. But coming up soon afterward is the person who wants to do more than the rules allow, and either insists on bending and breaking the rules to fit the vision, or attempts to shoehorn the vision into the rules, ending up with something subpar.

The Mystic Theurge is a great example, because many times, they don't want a mystic theurge, they want a Clr 20/Wiz 20 at level 20. So, either they push for the Clr 20/Wiz 20, or they get the MT and complain that it's not a Clr20/Wiz20.

Almost as bad is someone who wants the sorcerer's spell flexibility combined with the wizard's spellbook so that they can cast any spell, whenever they want, without forethought, but thankfully they're rare.

The other problem I see the The Gish, who usually wishes they could be a Ftr 20/Wiz 20 at level 20. Full BAB and full spellcasting, please! They might end up taking a magus or eldritch knight, then complain that they aren't good enough. Bonus points if they insist on casting arcane magic ('cuz divine magic isn't good enough) in full plate.

Note that people who accept the limitations of the system in their character development aren't a problem. So if you go down the MT or Gish path knowing full well the system limits, that's perfectly fine.

Shadow Lodge

InVinoVeritas wrote:
The Mystic Theurge is a great example, because many times, they don't want a mystic theurge, they want a Clr 20/Wiz 20 at level 20. So, either they push for the Clr 20/Wiz 20, or they get the MT and complain that it's not a Clr20/Wiz20.

I think in this case, it's much more about the prestige class failing than the player.


We had a player that until recently almost always played 2 weapon fighter with every feat and ability going for offensive damage.

But then he would play like an armored tank. Would always close for melee immediately (even if the casters wanted to use AoA spells), would never retreat (even if about to drop), and would then complain about failed saves, low hitpoints, low skills, etc...

Has recently decided to try other concepts like cleric and gunslinger. I was very happy to see him expand his experience.


In general, I don't like alignment-driven characters. The one that pops up a lot is the chaotic neutral player, who treats the other party members badly or does anti-social things in game that would be hard to get away with in a normal society, or a chaotic neutral one for that matter. I really dislike hearing: "But, I'm chaotic neutral" as a justification for anything. That said, I love the fascistic lawful-good Paladin or fighter who wants to smash anything that could possibly be evil. It's probably just personal preference. In almost every game I've ever played (across nearly every system), someone (often the same person, nearly always chaotic) makes a big show of collecting trophies from slain enemies. That gets old fast.

For my own vices, I gravitate toward the 3/4 BAB hd8 caster classes other than Bard. Bard, for whatever reason, bothers me. I also tend to play characters who are neutral on at least one axis. To try something new, I made a lawful good Tetori for PFS. He will be fighting the evil inside and outside of the ring.

Silver Crusade

InVinoVeritas wrote:


That Rogue Guy is among the worst. But coming up soon afterward is the person who wants to do more than the rules allow, and either insists on bending and breaking the rules to fit the vision, or attempts to shoehorn the vision into the rules, ending up with something subpar.

Haven't had to deal with the guy who keeps trying to do more than the rules allow (not lately anyway). Have seen the guy who deliberately gimps his character under the rules in order to fit his vision for the character... and then complains because his character isn't very effective.


I try and make every character unique, although I must admit my current weakness is 2 handed weapons, I kind of feel if im trying to hit something in melee I should be using a 2 handed weapon (the only exceptions are sythesist double claw attack, and paladin with sword and board).

Current PFS chars

Rogue/Ranger (greatsword, longsword and shield for backups)
Fighter (Greatsword)
Wizard (Elven curveblade primarily for show)
Sorcerer (Dagger atm but getting Large Falcata -2 to hit at level 3 also mostly for show till later in the build)
Cleric of Desna (Falchion)
Paladin (Bastard sword and Shield)


Monks.
UGH!

Dark Archive

Most of my players and myself usually play different types of characters every time we play.

I did have one player though over the course of 4 different games play basically the same character every time. Almost identical in every way.

The only classes that make me go UGHH are Oriental/Asian themed characters. But they are banned from my games so its all good.


See now, if one of my players tended to play a generalized type of classes, I wouldn't be bothered at all. To me, that just seems like people's personal preferences. I applaud when my players expand at all, and try out classes similar to ones they've already enjoyed.

However, when someone obsessively plays ONE CLASS, it can be annoying. We have one player who excessively attempts to play a bard regardless of the campaign setting, but has never taken advantage of the class or played it to its potential (and doesn't seem to try unless pushed a bit by the other players or I). Sometimes I grind my teeth a bit, because I know there are other classes that would better benefit her playstyle (she likes using her ranged attacks only, and has expressed interest in an animal companion. Ranger anyone?), yet she still gravitates towards bard. We're hoping this upcoming game she at least tries a performance, or uses a spell or two...

Then again, I need to remind myself that she is new and very shy, so she may be more inclined to be useful after she's warmed up to the game... I'll just keep hoping.


I have one player who will only play a monk. No matter what setting, he plays monks. I take that back. He will play a dwarven fighter on occasion. Other than that, monks, for years.

It has been like a running game, trying to shoehorn in a Chinese or Japanese guy into whatever game.

The best was when a sorcerer DMPC "summoned" him with a scroll (she didn't understand) and then proceeded to order him about like a real summoned creature, rather than a teleported person. The monk played along with it for awhile until she started telling him to do something suicidal, believing, "he would just go back to him home plane."


Come to think of it, my "predictable" moments at character creation probably lie with choice of deity. I've had Helm written on more character sheets than I've had character sheets, if that's even possible.


bigkilla wrote:


The only classes that make me go UGHH are Oriental/Asian themed characters. But they are banned from my games so its all good.

Might I ask why? I typically love the flavor, provided the world supports it without the obviously snowflake issues, and even really enjoy a purely oriental/asian themed game right out, again provided there's no anime-references >.>

Not an argument, just my honest curiosity if you wouldn't mind sharing =)

Dark Archive

Gunslingers, in high fantasy settings...

We have 3 in a 5 person party.

I wish the DM wasn't so lax about this.

Silver Crusade

Ndar wrote:
bigkilla wrote:


The only classes that make me go UGHH are Oriental/Asian themed characters. But they are banned from my games so its all good.

Might I ask why? I typically love the flavor, provided the world supports it without the obviously snowflake issues, and even really enjoy a purely oriental/asian themed game right out, again provided there's no anime-references >.>

Not an argument, just my honest curiosity if you wouldn't mind sharing =)

Personally, I like the anime references too. I sometimes do not want, nor allow, oriental/asian-themed characters, if I've set up a 'western-European' (or other entirely-non-Asian-themed) world/game setting, but otherwise, have no problem with it. A lot of the people I game with are Anime fans... if anime-references in a game bother you-- I think you'd hate the way we game.


GnomePaladin wrote:

Gunslingers, in high fantasy settings...

We have 3 in a 5 person party.

I wish the DM wasn't so lax about this.

That's brutal. We once had 2 rogues & 2 bards in a 6 person party. I pretty much carried the group with my Cleric :/

It was everyone's first adventure. Needless to say, house rules were created to keep anything like that from happening again >.>


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

We have a guy in the group who will always either a spellcaster of some kind, or occaisionally a rogue. It doesn't bother me too much except that the rogues are consistantly the type that search every five-foot square for traps, and all the spellcasters he doesn't bother reading the actual class about its abilities. For example, it took a few sessions before he actually realized that a Witch doesn't cast spells spontaneously. He also doesn't bother reading the spells he prepares until he's about to use them, not starting the reading until his actual turn.

The thing that makes me go "Ugh!" about this is that most people who love to play a class, tend to play it rather well. He loves spellcasters, but he can't grasp the fine details of how they work, and thus can't play them very well. I could go on and on, but I'm gonna stop there before people start looking at me like I'm a random crazy hater of old people who can't grasp what I would think is a very simple cla- *Loud impact* *Body hitting floor sound*


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

*Wakes up after two hours* Owwwwwww.

Anyways, my personal vice is martial characters. Generally fighters or barbarians. I just like things that can take a hit, hit back, and not die when the dragon bites them in the face. Though I personally prefer characters I can roleplay and most of my martial chars are pretty one-dimensional, so I think I may actually play something like a wizard or a sorcererererer next time. Hehehehe, Half-Orc Sorcererer with the Orc bloodline... ^,.,^


Finn K wrote:
Ndar wrote:
bigkilla wrote:


The only classes that make me go UGHH are Oriental/Asian themed characters. But they are banned from my games so its all good.

Might I ask why? I typically love the flavor, provided the world supports it without the obviously snowflake issues, and even really enjoy a purely oriental/asian themed game right out, again provided there's no anime-references >.>

Not an argument, just my honest curiosity if you wouldn't mind sharing =)

Personally, I like the anime references too. I sometimes do not want, nor allow, oriental/asian-themed characters, if I've set up a 'western-European' (or other entirely-non-Asian-themed) world/game setting, but otherwise, have no problem with it. A lot of the people I game with are Anime fans... if anime-references in a game bother you-- I think you'd hate the way we game.

I'll allow about anything that comes with a decent explanation. Samurai is a hard sell for me - being a samurai means being leashed to a daimyo's whim. But even that can be accommodated (maybe his daimyo is dispersing men throughout the realm to find something, or maybe his daimyo is there himself on personal business) if the player takes a few minutes to explain it. Or maybe he's a ronin, I guess. Whatever floats your boat. Ultimately, the DM is creating the story, and the DM knows what will/will not work in the game.

Dark Archive

Ndar wrote:
bigkilla wrote:


The only classes that make me go UGHH are Oriental/Asian themed characters. But they are banned from my games so its all good.

Might I ask why? I typically love the flavor, provided the world supports it without the obviously snowflake issues, and even really enjoy a purely oriental/asian themed game right out, again provided there's no anime-references >.>

Not an argument, just my honest curiosity if you wouldn't mind sharing =)

I am a huge anime fan don't get me wrong, but all of the stuff I have ran so far has been inner sea stuff and the thought of halfling and gnome ninjas running around makes me want to puke.

The problem I have seen is that the people I have seen who always like to play a oriental/Asian themes character in a setting other than one that is
oriental/Asian themed usually try to go over the top and make crazy stupid character concepts.Plus I don't think most of the oriental/Asian themed races would receive that great of a welcome in the inner sea.Fox people and other strange creatures in civilized areas would not go over well in my book.

Now I would have 0 issues if it was a pure oriental/Asian themed game.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
I removed a popcorn post.

What's a popcorn post?

51 to 100 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Classes that make your group go UGH! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.