|
As I said recently to someone that argued with me about the "reality" of his dwarf barbarian with a 6 CHA...Were you not aware that fully one-sixth of Golarion dwarves do have 6 CHA? Every NPC stat array includes an 8, so if we assume random distribution, one sixth will have it in CHA, which then gets racially reduced to 6.
In a similar vein, dwarves with a double-digit CHA are in the minority. That's right, more than half the dwarves on the planet have less than 10 CHA.
You should probably do your homework before declaring doing your "are you mad because I'm right?" gloating.
Yeah well, get off my lawn, too.
I don't play pinkskins. Disgusting buggers.
prepared spellcasters, which is a shame as i really want to try the undead lord cleric archetype, i just cant stand playing them.
|
|
Generally, I dislike playing any race that doesn't have darkvision. Of course I like to play rogues and it is pretty hard to hide with a torch in hand or ioun stone floating around your head.
The one class I do not like to play is ranger. The only promising thing I see for them is that they can track. Other than that I can build a better fighter. BTW - Use an animal that has scent instead of a ranger, it is cheaper. :)
I loved the Whisper Gnome from Race of Stone in D&D3.5. It was a great race for the rogue class.
I will say though I agree that the Gnome stat bump should be for either int or cha, it just makes more sense.
As far as rolling or point buy, I prefer rolling. I would rather roll 3d6 6 times and imagine my character afterwards then try to justify why I have a 6 in some stat just to boost another.
Bards. I've made a number of characters with a couple level dips but never just played a full-on bard. I don't think I could handle 20 levels of mediocre.
|
Bards. I've made a number of characters with a couple level dips but never just played a full-on bard. I don't think I could handle 20 levels of mediocre.
Bards are awesome! Seriously, mechanically, 20-level Bards are anything but mediocre in Pathfinder.
On topic:
I hate Full Arcane Casters (Wizard, Witch, and Sorcerer). I want my character to be useful even sans spells and they, well, aren't. I might make an exception for Witch someday (but only because of how cool Hexes are), but I haven't yet.
Druids, Summoners, and other 'pet' or 'minion' based classes don't really appeal to me. I'm willing to have an animal companion, but I don't want the focus to be on it instead of the actual character. Also, I dislike Druid thematics a little.
None of these dislikes translate over to GMing (which I do more than I play, anyway).
I tend to not play Half-Elves or Half-Orcs, as if I want something part-human, I probably want something all Human. I've also never layed a Gnome, but that's just because I've never gotten around to it, not because I dislike them.
Pure rogues. Too many ways to do the same thing but better.
|
I never play dwarves, gnomes or half-orcs. Usually it is elves, half-elves and humans.
As for classes, I never play barbarians or monks. Usually it is sorceror or wizard for me.
I would like to give the gunslinger and inquisitor a go in my group's next campaign, but my attempts to build characters from these classes always seems a bit lacklustre. The oracle also looks interesting, but I think their needs to be more curse options.
I never play shapeshifting characters, elves, or anything with a naturalistic flavour (unless it's about controlling the raw elements themselves). I like puppies and baby deers as much as the next guy, but for some reason I really dislike the classic "friend of nature" concept.
I'll introduce you to my 3.5 Druid/Ranger, he's a friend to nature, but not to anyone else. Half-Orc and believed in bringing the untamed side of the wild to the forefront to balance out the increasing encroachment of civilization.
In all seriousness though, I cannot recall the last time I played an Elf or Half-Elf. And I have only ever played One (1!) Monk (a Gnome of the fist-to-groin school) and only One Paladin (of Sune, one of the few female
characters I have ever run)
I never play PC's. Do they count?
Rolling or buying, that low score is going into charisma.
Rolling or buying, that low score is going into charisma.
Ah, so no Sorcerers or Bards for you.
|
|
Hmm, well...
Races: never halflings or half-orcs, only tried one gnone (for one session), and humans are boring; I'd like to try something exotic for a change, such as a tiefling or genasi, but nobody seems to allow them.
Classes: fighters are boring; don't even know why bards are in the game; don't understand what rangers are (wierd cross-breed class); avoid wizards, clerics, and druids (because I hate the spell-slot system); never barbarians.
Weapons: I think polearms are cool, but awkward to carry and use in the game; same goes for most two-handed weapons.
I have played all the core races, and most of the non-core 0hd races... but never ever Drow.
And I will absolutely never ever ever play any form of Bard.
I don't really know why... The only one I ever played I enjoyed playing, but for some reason every single time I see one or an archetype of one when I am flipping through my books I immediately go "Ew, no way".
Never even CONSIDER dipping or anything. I think I just really am not a fan of the bardic performance mechanic....
Also: I often experiment with ideas and builds for Gunslingers... but have never ever actually found one that I wanted to play enough to not play something different.
And as far as weapons go: I never use any double weapons.
Really not a fan of lawful good (only done it once I think), and the only class I've never played is a paladin (and maybe druid now that I think about it, but I've always wanted to).
I will probably never play a summoner or inquisitor again. The first just isn't that fun (I hate your biggest class feature being another creature), and I personally think the inquisitor is poorly designed.
This thread is as much fun to read as I was hoping it would be!
On the downside, I am starting to rethink my love for the Ranger class....
Can't really play evil, and I have trouble playing Lawful. I could potentially go Neutral Evil (very selfish character) if I had to play evil, though.
Races, well I have no desire to play anything orcish. My BF and his buddies are orcy enough without me adding to it. Gnomes are out for me, they just seem kinda meh. Had a few Halfling concepts, but never played one. Love Aasamar, Teifling, Half-Elf, and Elf.
Classes, I tend to shy away from pure combat (unless it's a rogue). Hate Psionics. I also stay away from things that make you want to dump Charisma or Intelligence.
Hmm, well...
Races: never halflings or half-orcs, only tried one gnone (for one session), and humans are boring; I'd like to try something exotic for a change, such as a tiefling or genasi, but nobody seems to allow them.Classes: fighters are boring; don't even know why bards are in the game; don't understand what rangers are (wierd cross-breed class); avoid wizards, clerics, and druids (because I hate the spell-slot system); never barbarians.
Weapons: I think polearms are cool, but awkward to carry and use in the game; same goes for most two-handed weapons.
Sounds like you should probably be playing D&D 4th edition.
On topic: I rarely play paladins, this is because i tend to stress the self righteous side of lawfulness, usually being a judge and executioner of all things evil. And GMs tend to think it's wrong to cut the heads off of the captured orcs who burned down a village.
Good thing we have cavaliers now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me......Nothing is off limits. (Everything has a place, time, and flavor)
Though up to a number of years ago it was Halflings & Gnomes.
Played a Halfling (Now my favorite character ever)
Played a Gnome (Nothing but sweet pranking fun)
Personally I avoid psionics and rangers, only in 3.5 when I wanted to range I ended up playing a factotum or a fighter who used crossbows, and in pathfinder I ended up using inquisitors or,rarely, the gunslinger. I hardly play Druids or Bards but would like to fix that, I have such a great idea for a bard right now that I can't wait to play. I tend to avoid Elves and Gnomes, though one of the most fun tomes I've had playing was a gnome. The three two alignments I never play are Chaotic Good and Evil, I admit to playing Chaotic Neautral so I can worship some evil gods without the paladin in the party smiting me, though I soon am making a Chaotic Good character who wants to bring about the end of the world. The only class I have never played, outside of prestige classes, is the summoner. I've made one once but the edilon construction takes too long for me. Also I've never played an oracle, but that's only because I play clerics when I want to be divine, though I have an oracle planned..who will help bring an end to the world, and heal all the people.
Never saw a Gnome at my table in 20+ years. That said my parties are lately a mix between Half-Orc martials and Halfling casties. Must look strange...
|
[troll] I only play psionic-bard gnomes who duplicate roles filled in classic fantasy novels named [redacted drow ranger] but with two handed blunt weapons [/troll]
But in all seriousness, I can't do a "classic" cleric. I just can't play a class whose only role is a defensive/post-combat one. It has a place, and if I can mix the role with something a little more proactive (which luckily 3.5 iterations of the game allow for), but the class generally doesn't appeal to me that much.
Small characters, especially as armored martial characters. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a halfling/gnome hater. But 20' speed? Or even worse, 10' speed? Forget it. What good is a game where you play someone who's one step better than paralyzed all the time?
I don't like to play prepared spellcasters -- but I love to play spontaneous spellcasters, despite the fact that I am now in a game with players who have managed to demonstrate to me many of the advantages of prepared spellcasters.
I detest gnomes. I refuse to play one and I constantly mock them when I play. Why? There's nothing that gnomes bring to the table that another race doesn't do better.
1. Want to be small and sneaky? Play a halfling.
2. Want to be an underground dweller, perhaps with a penchant for things mechanical? Play a dwarf.
3. Want to be in touch with nature and magic? Play an elf.They're worse than Jawas!
First of Jawas are awesome ;)
The are ironic characters.
1) Bolded for emphasis
2) So are you saying gnomes are hipster d-bags? If so, then I agree :D
I avoid gnomes, and so far have not played summoners, alchemists, or witches. They hold no real interest for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cavalier, they seem limited, and extremely unimaginative. Also gnome, every time I feel like playing one, I find another race better suited to my concept.
I never played a character with a Strength score lower than 12!
No dwarves, elfs, or half-ocrs. I just never built one, but I made an iconic version of every class for my game just never used those 3 races
I used to be on the gnome bandwagon. I hated gnomes in 3.5 and didn't understand them in AD&D as a kid. Okay, so they can do some mechanical stuff..I always thought dwarves should do that.
But I -adore- the 4e approach to making them the creepy fey tricksters. That blue-skinned gnome with the pointy teeth and Francis the badger minion from the commercial still amuses me today. Even my fiance who doesn't play or like D&D loves that commercial.
As for what I've never played..dwarves. Short, stubby hairy people with a penchant for shuffling around underground? No thanks. I love having them in games though and I've played them as a DM..does that count?
Class wise - anything that is terribly designed mechanically. The original 3.5 monk the (non-houseruled) PF monk, the 4e Vampire and assassin, the 3.5 fighter/swashbuckler/every other weak attempt at making a melee class that wasn't an awkward 5+ combination of classes/PrC's or from tome of battle and the PF/3.5 rogue. If I want to play someone sneaky, I can do it just as well with a Trickery/Darkness domain cleric or a wizard or any other class that has ways of being as sneaky or sneakier than a rogue while having cooler abilities. Obviously traps never showed up much in the games I played in...
|
I've never done (nor have any desire to play) an Antipaladin, since the idea does not appeal (seems so cartoony: a class of pure corruptible evilness...). I have no interest playing a Grippli (yet, ARG may change my mind) or a Dhampir or an Undine. I tend not to use exotic weapons, going for the standard sorts of weapons (longsword, spear, mace, crossbow, longbow, etc.), so stuff like nets, polearms, shuriken, and whatnot.
I have never had a desire to play a Gnome, Dwarf, or Halfling.
I have a general preference for melee classes, but I'm not against arcane or divine casters, and I prefer spontaneous casters to prepared casters. The only classes I will NEVER play are the ones that require an evil alignment.
I have played every core race and quite a few monstrous ones. I have yet to play a gunslinger and a cavalier, but that doesn't mean I have ruled them out. I have played every alignment but LE. The the only thing I dislike doing with one of my characters is dumping a stat for purely mechanical reasons. I like my stats to be at least 10.
|
|
It actually only drops to 15'Small characters, especially as armored martial characters. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a halfling/gnome hater. But 20' speed? Or even worse, 10' speed? Forget it. What good is a game where you play someone who's one step better than paralyzed all the time?
Gorram sleep deprivation got me again!