My rule is unless my campaign specifically says yes ask for anything non core and less human like the race the less likely it will be allowed. Do not try to play a owlbear or some crap, no obvious monsters
what about a lightly homebrewed 0HD Human/Nymph Crossbreed that looked similar to a slightly shorter and slightly skinnier half elf?
The point of their contention with the Killoren was that he looked like an elf and had dark skin, if any race had those characteristics, then yes, they would have been attacked also
Of course the dwarves in question would have to qualify as evil using the default alignment rules in such a case.
Lawful Evil: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
Which is fine, but one would hope that either the GM was working under a revised alignment system, no alignment system, or made the dwarves evil as they deserve to be in such a case.
EDIT: The whole idea that an unusual creature shows up and offers to help and is immediately attacked by the people they want to help just reminds me of that Simpsons episode (Simpson Files?):
Alien: I bring you love.
Lenny: It's bringing love, don't let it get away!
Carl: Break its legs.
[everyone starts to advance on the alien]
Lisa: Wait! You want an alien? This is your alien.
[Shines torch on alien to reveal Mr. Burns in a twisted and disoriented state]
Mr. Burns: [in a high-toned voice] Hello, children. I bring you love.
Willy: Argh. It's a monster. Kill it, kill it!
Smithers: It's not a monster, it's Mr. Burns!
Willy: Aww, it's Mr. Burns! KILL IT! KILL IT!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh*
UM, it's statements like that that make people want to go core only no exceptions.
Just because it is in a book does not mean it is in every game.
Repeat after me : THE BOOK SAYS IT IS OPTIONAL RULES.
Traits, for example, say they are OPTIONAL. They are not required.
Clerics can be concept with the GM's ok, which it specifically says in the cleric class (that's what 'work with your GM' means). Inquisitor's do not have that text at all, as you can't be a holy inquisitor of a concept, you can only be the holy (or unholy) inquisitor of an actual god.
And I couldn't care less how 'ridiculous' you find it to have crossbows but not firearms. It's still an optional thing.
Firearms
This section presents an anachronistic collection of hand-held black powder weapons suitable for a wide variety of fantasy adventure campaigns. Most of them are single-shot muzzle-loaders with highly inefficient triggering mechanisms—traditional sword and sorcery firearms. More advanced firearms are also presented for those brave enough to mix their fantasy with a technology much closer to that of the Old West than the slow and unstable weapons that gave musketeers their name. Of course, it is the GM's decision whether or not guns of any type are allowed in a campaign.
They are also no less optional, same with everything in the Core Rulebook. The games is really a toolkit for making D&D-esque fantasy campaigns.
the races in the Advanced Race Guide are no more an Optional Rule than the Classes in the Advanced Players Guide.a Tiefling, Aasimaar, Drow or Orc is no more Optional than allowing a Cavalier, Witch, Monk, or Magus.
true
though the races i would openly allow in Any Campaign from the ARG, regardless are
Tiefling
Aasimaar
Suli
Fetchling
Sylph
Oread
Undine
Ifrit
Changeling
Dhampir
Whatever my current version of the half Nymph is that needs to be playtested.
My rule is unless my campaign specifically says yes ask for anything non core and less human like the race the less likely it will be allowed. Do not try to play a owlbear or some crap, no obvious monsterswhat about a lightly homebrewed 0HD Human/Nymph Crossbreed that looked similar to a slightly shorter and slightly skinnier half elf?
And what if there are no half-breeds in the game? No half-elves, no half-orcs, nothing like that in the setting, because species can't interbreed in this world? Do you insist on having it anyway?
What if there are no fey in this setting? So no nymphs?
What if there are only humans and animals?
What if there are no humans?
Let me guess, you will have your character and and if you don't get it you'll hold your breath until you turn blue? Or will you rant and rail and call the GM names?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My rule is unless my campaign specifically says yes ask for anything non core and less human like the race the less likely it will be allowed. Do not try to play a owlbear or some crap, no obvious monsterswhat about a lightly homebrewed 0HD Human/Nymph Crossbreed that looked similar to a slightly shorter and slightly skinnier half elf?And what if there are no half-breeds in the game? No half-elves, no half-orcs, nothing like that in the setting, because species can't interbreed in this world? Do you insist on having it anyway?
What if there are no fey in this setting? So no nymphs?
What if there are only humans and animals?
What if there are no humans?
Let me guess, you will have your character and and if you don't get it you'll hold your breath until you turn blue? Or will you rant and rail and call the GM names?
no half-breeds? then i look for a race that evokes the feel, an Elf that has delusions that she is a nymph
no fey? elves are close enough to nymphs conceptually i could still get my concept off on a delirious elf
only humans and Animals? make my human as odd and supernatural as possible, sorcerer could work, just pick up spells that to me, scream "Nymph" or other "Fairy"
no humans? then i play a planetouched of elven or even fey heritage in place of human heritage
My rule is unless my campaign specifically says yes ask for anything non core and less human like the race the less likely it will be allowed. Do not try to play a owlbear or some crap, no obvious monsterswhat about a lightly homebrewed 0HD Human/Nymph Crossbreed that looked similar to a slightly shorter and slightly skinnier half elf?And what if there are no half-breeds in the game? No half-elves, no half-orcs, nothing like that in the setting, because species can't interbreed in this world? Do you insist on having it anyway?
What if there are no fey in this setting? So no nymphs?
What if there are only humans and animals?
What if there are no humans?
Let me guess, you will have your character and and if you don't get it you'll hold your breath until you turn blue? Or will you rant and rail and call the GM names?
Or just maturely say, "Oh, well in that case I am not interested in playing squirrels and mooses. Let me know if you ever want to run a more standard game."
Please, talk me down.
Heck, no. All your concerns are legitimate.
Or just maturely say, "Oh, well in that case I am not interested in playing squirrels and mooses. Let me know if you ever want to run a more standard game."
I love oxymoronic statements like this. :) Really I do. I don't even have to point out the logic hole to drive the Mack truck through. :)
no half-breeds? then i look for a race that evokes the feel, an Elf that has delusions that she is a nymphno fey? elves are close enough to nymphs conceptually i could still get my concept off on a delirious elf
only humans and Animals? make my human as odd and supernatural as possible, sorcerer could work, just pick up spells that to me, scream "Nymph" or other "Fairy"
no humans? then i play a planetouched of elven or even fey heritage in place of human heritage
And that's the reasonable response. No conflict here then.
I love oxymoronic statements like this. :) Really I do. I don't even have to point out the logic hole to drive the Mack truck through. :)
Or just maturely say, "Oh, well in that case I am not interested in playing squirrels and mooses. Let me know if you ever want to run a more standard game."
Well it looked as if you were continuing to put restrictions on thus in the end you appear to be offering a game limited to only animals (humans and animals going to no humans). Now if you consider that a game restricted to only having animals in it (no dragons, elves, whatever) is closer to the standard version of a game than one that includes fey and half-breeds, then I guess I could see how you'd see my comment as illogical.
Why would those be related? Each question was on a separate line.
Each was more restrictive, but not related to each other.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I repeat, it is always okay to ask. However, there are many reasons why the answer may be "no". Many, even most of these answers may be on the level of style, cohesion, plot, theme and mood, and those things are MY job as a GM, not the players'. These things are what make a campaign great, in my experience, but are not usually recognized as such by players, even though they react the same way to them. If a player comes with a suggestion for how their desired race can IMPROVE on these factors, I am quite willing to listen, but throwing other points out to fit the race into the campaign usually shoots this down, as when a player suggests "But hey, why couldn't a conclave of deities have transformed my normal human character into a <whatever> and sent me to avoid a dire prophecy???". If a character comes from another world entirely, that needs to be adressed somehow (visit there?), prophecies cast a huge shadow over a campaign and change all sorts of fiddly bits, and direct divine intervention just doesn't work very well in most settings.
And no one criticized your setting or race preferences, just your apparent unwillingness to even hear your friends' opinion before banning stuff.
If you ban all exotic races, and they complain because all of them wanted to play an exotic race, this is a good sign they were not interested in a "no exotic races" campaign to start with, but you forced one down their throats because that's what you (and no one else) wants.
My point was never about allowing any race in particular, my point is that banning stuff you don't like just because you don't like it, with no consideration for other players' preferences is not in good form.
Unless your players are the bunch of spoiled 6 years old brats that you made them look like ("What if you hate elves, but all players decide to play as elf characters in an elf-only campaign?"), listening to what they have to say goes a long way to improve everyone's fun, including the GM's.
I general the form I like best for races is for the DM to state at the beginning of the campaign what races are absolutely not playable, what races he has extensive plans for and then to allow the Players to ask about any other races. This isn't pathfinder society I can take the time to personally discuss race and class options with all 4-6 of my players; no need to sweeping absolute rules. Specifically I try to see what the player wants from their race choice both from a roleplaying perspective and a mechanical one. Generally this results in finding a place for the previously unincluded race or races and trying to integrate them into the campaign setting, but if I just can't think of anywhere to put them without jeopardizing the quality of my campaign world then I just tell my player or players no and explain why.
Examples
"Orcs do not exist in this setting" is a fine reason for saying no PCs that are orcs
"Orcs are extinct because of plot relavent event" is an equally valid reason
"Orcs are huge compared to the smurf-sized party and will not be able to meaningfully interact with the campaign" is also fine
"Orcs aren't allowed because that makes the party wierd and a freakshow" is not okay and generally indicative of lazy GMing
"Orcs are heavily discriminated against by other races, are you sure you want to play on? It may cause complications down the road" is fine as a warning and good for letting a player know if what they want out of a race isn't what would happen in your campaign world
"Orcs are four armed crusaders designed by a mad wizard to stop demons coming through the worldwound, your tribe witchdoctor idea likely wouldnt work" changing a race is also completely fine and warning a player to reconsider or making them change a character concept because it doesn't work with the race as established is also perfectly fine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you ban all exotic races, and they complain because all of them wanted to play an exotic race, this is a good sign they were not interested in a "no exotic races" campaign to start with, but you forced one down their throats because that's what you (and no one else) wants.
The GM "forced" a campaign "down their throats"? What sort of gulag are these players living in that they are chained to the table and only given food and water if they dance for the GM?
The GM says, "Here's the campaign I want to run." Any player who then makes a character for that campaign is willfully agreeing to play in that campaign. (Assuming the GM isn't the "surprise, you're all were-tigers" guy who tricks you into playing by not telling you what the campaign is really about. And even then, you can leave at any time if you aren't having fun.)
There's no gun to the players' heads. Any or all of them can walk away or sit it out if the campaign doesn't sound fun. No one can "force" a campaign "down their throats" simply by offering to run a campaign a given way.
Which just points to the epiphany I had a moment ago. There is no right or wrong to this topic.I suppose the answer is "whatever works for your table is the best way to go".
I completely agree with this.
It took me a long time to take a deep breath, smile, get up, shake hands and say "Thank you for the game, but I'm a different kinda rper so I won't be back," and walk away...
instead of
Killing myself trying to force others to my way of thinking and not comprehending what they enjoy out of gaming differs from what I like.
I unno.
I guess, if one is a GM, advise players of the kind of GM you are and the basic rules that you run a game, giving them the option to know what they're getting into.
Because in the end, we all reserve the right to stand up and walk away, be it Player or GM.
I repeat, it is always okay to ask. However, there are many reasons why the answer may be "no". Many, even most of these answers may be on the level of style, cohesion, plot, theme and mood, and those things are MY job as a GM, not the players'. These things are what make a campaign great, in my experience, but are not usually recognized as such by players, even though they react the same way to them. If a player comes with a suggestion for how their desired race can IMPROVE on these factors, I am quite willing to listen, but throwing other points out to fit the race into the campaign usually shoots this down, as when a player suggests "But hey, why couldn't a conclave of deities have transformed my normal human character into a <whatever> and sent me to avoid a dire prophecy???". If a character comes from another world entirely, that needs to be adressed somehow (visit there?), prophecies cast a huge shadow over a campaign and change all sorts of fiddly bits, and direct divine intervention just doesn't work very well in most settings.And no one criticized your setting or race preferences, just your apparent unwillingness to even hear your friends' opinion before banning stuff.
If you ban all exotic races, and they complain because all of them wanted to play an exotic race, this is a good sign they were not interested in a "no exotic races" campaign to start with, but you forced one down their throats because that's what you (and no one else) wants.
My point was never about allowing any race in particular, my point is that banning stuff you don't like just because you don't like it, with no consideration for other players' preferences is not in good form.
Unless your players are the bunch of spoiled 6 years old brats that you made them look like ("What if you hate elves, but all players decide to play as elf characters in an elf-only campaign?"), listening to what they have to say goes a long way to improve everyone's fun, including the GM's.
A lot of the comments about "what if all of them want to play only elves" and such were not directed toward my players, but people in this discussion claiming categorically that if I do not allow ALL POSSIBLE RACES, I am a bad GM. Yes, I agree that that's a pretty spoiled 6-year-old attitude, that is why I answered the way I did.
And by the way, you have an exceedingly odd view of how new campaigns get started if you say that one person "shoves a campaign down the others' throats".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would guess that most people play with friends or at least with groups of people who are friends with at least a few other people in the group. In that case it's probably best if you are GMing to see what your players want and run several ideas by them of things you are interested in. Or to offer other people a chance to DM if they have different ideas.
I would like to think most DM's don't just mass email the players with "WE ARE PLAYING A STEAM PUNK ELF ONLY CAMPAIGN...ROLL UP CHARACTERS FOR TUESDAY"
I repeat, it is always okay to ask. However, there are many reasons why the answer may be "no". Many, even most of these answers may be on the level of style, cohesion, plot, theme and mood, and those things are MY job as a GM, not the players'. These things are what make a campaign great, in my experience, but are not usually recognized as such by players, even though they react the same way to them. If a player comes with a suggestion for how their desired race can IMPROVE on these factors, I am quite willing to listen, but throwing other points out to fit the race into the campaign usually shoots this down, as when a player suggests "But hey, why couldn't a conclave of deities have transformed my normal human character into a <whatever> and sent me to avoid a dire prophecy???". If a character comes from another world entirely, that needs to be adressed somehow (visit there?), prophecies cast a huge shadow over a campaign and change all sorts of fiddly bits, and direct divine intervention just doesn't work very well in most settings.And no one criticized your setting or race preferences, just your apparent unwillingness to even hear your friends' opinion before banning stuff.
If you ban all exotic races, and they complain because all of them wanted to play an exotic race, this is a good sign they were not interested in a "no exotic races" campaign to start with, but you forced one down their throats because that's what you (and no one else) wants.
My point was never about allowing any race in particular, my point is that banning stuff you don't like just because you don't like it, with no consideration for other players' preferences is not in good form.
Unless your players are the bunch of spoiled 6 years old brats that you made them look like ("What if you hate elves, but all players decide to play as elf characters in an elf-only campaign?"), listening to what they have to say goes a long way to improve everyone's fun, including the GM's.
A lot of the comments about "what if all of them want to play only elves" and such were not directed toward my players, but people in this discussion claiming categorically that if I do not allow ALL POSSIBLE RACES, I am a bad GM. Yes, I agree that that's a pretty spoiled 6-year-old attitude, that is why I answered the way I did.
And by the way, you have an exceedingly odd view of how new campaigns get started if you say that one person "shoves a campaign down the others' throats".
you don't have to allow All Possible races, just a broad and reasonable Selection. and any appropriate hybrids a player chooses to propose.
how is allowing a theoretical 0HD human-nymph halfbreed designed for player use any different from allowing a half-elf or aasimaar?
it's not like the player is bringing in a half fire elemental advanced vampire fiendish Minotaur which is clearly an Over the Top Monster
i would allow the nymph halfbreed i mentioned as the former, but i wouldn't allow the abomination that is a half fire elemental advanced vampire fiendish Minotaur, at least not before the party was about 11th level, where the CR10 snowflake in question would only have 1 class level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A broad and reasonable selection, absolutely. Appropriate hybrids, certainly, provided that means what hybrids should be available when the laws of genetics of said world are applied (no hybrids means no hybrids, if that is a thing in that setting).
A human-nymph halfbreed sounds like a race designed to push the DCs of diplomancy even further than they already can. Not everything a character can do needs to be completely streamlined into the maximum possible bonus. It is okay to play a bard without +6 Charisma from your race. But if you have another reason for playing a human-nymph halfbreed, I might consider it. A half fire elemental advanced vampire fiendish minotaur is a joke, regardless of the CR, and I solemnly believe it would be a cold day in Hell before I allowed that in a campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you ban all exotic races, and they complain because all of them wanted to play an exotic race, this is a good sign they were not interested in a "no exotic races" campaign to start with, but you forced one down their throats because that's what you (and no one else) wants.The GM "forced" a campaign "down their throats"? What sort of gulag are these players living in that they are chained to the table and only given food and water if they dance for the GM?
The GM says, "Here's the campaign I want to run." Any player who then makes a character for that campaign is willfully agreeing to play in that campaign. (Assuming the GM isn't the "surprise, you're all were-tigers" guy who tricks you into playing by not telling you what the campaign is really about. And even then, you can leave at any time if you aren't having fun.)
There's no gun to the players' heads. Any or all of them can walk away or sit it out if the campaign doesn't sound fun. No one can "force" a campaign "down their throats" simply by offering to run a campaign a given way.
Good job ignoring everything else I said.
In the end, someone has to be the GM. No matter who it is, he/she shouldn't decide everything on his/her own.
The GM always has the final word, but not even pausing to listen what the players have to say is bad GMing, IMHO. And this goes for everything, including, but not limited to race selection. You don't have to allow everything, but you shouldn't ban stuff without a second thought just out of personal preference either. You can, but you shouldn't. That's my whole point.
A lot of the comments about "what if all of them want to play only elves" and such were not directed toward my players, but people in this discussion claiming categorically that if I do not allow ALL POSSIBLE RACES, I am a bad GM. Yes, I agree that that's a pretty spoiled 6-year-old attitude, that is why I answered the way I did.
And by the way, you have an exceedingly odd view of how new campaigns get started if you say that one person "shoves a campaign down the others' throats".
Not once I said you are a bad GM because you don't allow all races (or even any one particular race) in your campaigns.
What I did say was that deciding everything with no regard to what your friends want is bad-GMing. Whoever is the GM should listen to what other players have to say about their rules before setting everything in stone.
"My way or the highway" is not something I'd like to hear from one of my friends. Doesn't friendship usually involve the ability to talk and find a compromise? If you don't want elves and one of them wants to play an elf, see for who it matters the most, make a deal. If that guy really, really wants to play a catfolk, from the bottom of his heart, and you'd rather the setting had no catfolk, but are not that passionate about it, let him play it. If you feel catfolk ruin everything in your setting and he was just mildly interested in playing one of them, he should pick a different race.
I've rarely seen two players disagree so vehemently about this sort of stuff that none of them could possibly concede.
Again, I'm not saying "Do everything they want.", I'm saying "talk to each before banning stuff". That's all.
... which I do. Anything else?
A broad and reasonable selection, absolutely. Appropriate hybrids, certainly, provided that means what hybrids should be available when the laws of genetics of said world are applied (no hybrids means no hybrids, if that is a thing in that setting).
A human-nymph halfbreed sounds like a race designed to push the DCs of diplomancy even further than they already can. Not everything a character can do needs to be completely streamlined into the maximum possible bonus. It is okay to play a bard without +6 Charisma from your race. But if you have another reason for playing a human-nymph halfbreed, I might consider it. A half fire elemental advanced vampire fiendish minotaur is a joke, regardless of the CR, and I solemnly believe it would be a cold day in Hell before I allowed that in a campaign.
the human-nymph halfbreed i had in mind doesn't have a +6 racial bonus to charisma
Houri (Half-Nymphs)
Attributes; +2 intelligence +2 charisma -2 strength; Houri are charming and creative, but slight of frame due to a combination of their nymph blood slimming their frames, softening their features, bestowing enhanced youth and improving their persuasive tendencies, and their human blood boosting their creativity, their ambition, their adaptability and their drive to learn
Medium Size; a Houri Takes no bonuses or Penalties due to her size
Fey Eyesight; a Houri receives darkvision out to a range of 60 feet; this replaces the low light vision possessed by most fey. Most Houri are more Photosensitive than either their human or their nymph parent due to an odd genetic interaction; A trait that often leaves them with Migraines in bright sunlight.
Nymph Blood ; a Houri counts as both a human and a nymph for all intents and purposes pertaining to race, such as prerequisites for racial options (such as archetypes, spells, feats, or favored class bonuses), effects that target race (such as favored enemy or bane weapons), or items that work differently for specific races.
Fey Heritage; a Houri Receives Fey Foundling as a bonus feat due to her fey heritage. (see the pathfinder inner sea world guide for fey foundling)
Able Learner ; a Houri due to her human ambition, tends to pick up new skills rather quickly, this works exactly like the skilled racial trait possessed by humans, giving her a bonus skill point per level. (if playing 3.5, multiply these bonus skill points by 4 at 1st level)
Fey Sorcery ; a Houri receives a +2 racial bonus to concentration checks, to caster level checks made to bypass spell resistance, to caster level checks made to dispel effects, and to spellcraft checks made to craft or identify magic items. A Houri, due to her fey blood, has a natural affinity for sorcerous blood and tend to be born with a variety of arcane talents
Normal Speed ; a Houri has a base land speed of 30 feet and a base swim speed of 30 feet.
Persuasive; a Houri receives a +2 racial bonus on Diplomacy, Bluff, and Perform Checks, she tends to be quite influential and quite able to pass her words in some pleasing manner of delivery
Sizing the Mark; many Houri know how to find marks more submissive than others to accommodate their dominant and usually spoiled needs; a Houri receives a +2 racial bonus on Perception and Sense Motive checks
Languages; Common, Sylvan, Bonus Languages; Any
a race of spoiled and sterile manipulators, but no, they are not built to be minmaxed diplomancers, they are built to be focused on a hybrid of Fey Charms and Human Ambition.
it is just most of them are born of a noble human father and an impressed yet "Corrupted" nymph mother who desires luxury and many nymphs, fall to greed, the moment a wealthy man offers to wed them.
it may be homebrew, but it is closer to the core races than most human nymph crossbreeds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... which I do. Anything else?
That wasn't the what I got from your posts. Reading your words, it seemed to me as if you simply ban races you don't like without caring if your friends agree with the decision or not.
IMO, that sort of thing decreases the fun you and your players have with the game, so I voiced my opinion.
Umbriere: So instead of a +6 Charisma, they get a +2 Charisma and a +2 to Diplomacy, Bluff and Perform, which is what they would have gotten if they had had a +6 Charisma? Added to this a Sense Motive bonus and a skill point bonus, and you have exactly the maximum diplomancer I was talking about. Not to mention that it's far, far more powerful than any of the core races. So, I would be strongly inclined to nix that. If you wanted, you could play a half-elf for a few of those bonuses?
Lemmy: Some races I ban outright. Half fire elemental advanced vampire fiendish minotaurs, for example. Twice-half-dragon gelatinous cube nymphs too. Excepting those, there are a lot of races I would only accept with good reason. "I want as much bonuses as possible to Diplomacy" not included.
BTW, that Half-Nymph sounds cool, but I'd say it's very powerful for a 0HD race.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lemmy: Some races I ban outright. Half fire elemental advanced vampire fiendish minotaurs, for example. Twice-half-dragon gelatinous cube nymphs too. Excepting those, there are a lot of races I would only accept with good reason. "I want as much bonuses as possible to Diplomacy" not included.
That's not a fair comparison. Those examples are obviously more powerful than standard races. That creates a problem with game balance, it's not just personal taste.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Umbriere: So instead of a +6 Charisma, they get a +2 Charisma and a +2 to Diplomacy, Bluff and Perform, which is what they would have gotten if they had had a +6 Charisma? Added to this a Sense Motive bonus and a skill point bonus, and you have exactly the maximum diplomancer I was talking about. Not to mention that it's far, far more powerful than any of the core races. So, I would be strongly inclined to nix that. If you wanted, you could play a half-elf for a few of those bonuses?
i'd rate them no more powerful than humans, fetchlings, aasimaar or dwarves
Race Points are a poor way to measure a races power. the costs are nowhere near balanced
they are also no better a diplomancer than an Aasimaar
an Aasimaar has the Same Diplomacy Bonus
the reason a Diplomacer is called a diplomancer, is because you minmax Diplomacy to absurd heights, not because you play a race with +2 charisma and bonuses to 4 social skills.
is a small race with a Dexterity bonus and +2 to fly, a flightomancer?
Gotta disagree with you, Umbriere. I don't think a human's bonus feat is enough to compensate for a bonus to 4 skills, darkvision, a bonus feat, swim speed, an extra language and a +2 to all checks a caster would make (which is basically the same as 3 bonus feats).
They are pretty much uber humans for any arcane caster. I honestly don't feel they're balanced. And I don't even like Paizo's race-builder point-buy, it's poorly balanced, IMHO.
To be fair, I don't think humans are as good as people say. They are a great race, but they won't make or break any build (except, maybe, for sorcerers and oracles, thanks to their amazing favored class bonus). There are many classes for which I find Half-Elves and Half-Orcs much better suited.
You should look at the Advanced Race Guide, and build your half-nymph as a 10 to 15 pt race to peg it at the same level as existing 0HD races.
Houri (Half-Nymphs)
Attributes; +2 intelligence +2 charisma -2 strength; Houri are charming and creative, but slight of frame due to a combination of their nymph blood slimming their frames, softening their features, bestowing enhanced youth and improving their persuasive tendencies, and their human blood boosting their creativity, their ambition, their adaptability and their drive to learn
Fey; Houri Possess the Fey Type
Medium Size; a Houri Takes no bonuses or Penalties due to her size
Fey Eyesight; a Houri receives darkvision out to a range of 60 feet; this replaces the low light vision possessed by most fey. Most Houri are more Photosensitive than either their human or their nymph parent due to an odd genetic interaction; A trait that often leaves them with Migraines in bright sunlight.
Nymph Blood; a Houri counts as both a human and a nymph for all intents and purposes pertaining to race, such as prerequisites for racial options (such as archetypes, spells, feats, or favored class bonuses), effects that target race (such as favored enemy or bane weapons), or items that work differently for specific races
Fey Heritage; a Houri Receives Fey Foundling as a bonus feat due to her fey heritage. (see the pathfinder inner sea world guide for fey foundling)
Able Learner; a Houri due to her human ambition, tends to pick up new skills rather quickly, this works exactly like the skilled racial trait possessed by humans, giving her a bonus skill point per level. (if playing 3.5, multiply these bonus skill points by 4 at 1st level)
Normal Speed; a Houri has a base land speed of 30 feet
Persuasive; a Houri receives a +2 racial bonus on Bluff and Diplomacy checks, she tends to be quite influential and quite able to pass her words in some pleasing manner of delivery
Languages; Common, Sylvan, Bonus Languages; Any
is this more acceptable
the casting bonus was dropped
3 of the skills were dropped
the swim speed was dropped
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, I wonder if my wife would roleplay a half-nymph... *cracks open the ARG*
This thread hasn't been about the OP for a long time.Please, talk me down.Heck, no. All your concerns are legitimate.
I know. But I'm still commenting. (To be honest, what it became was less interesting than the OP. Just the same ol' same ol' "well you sound like you're a mean nasty DM who never listens to his/her players! blah blah blah".)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would those be related? Each question was on a separate line.
Each was more restrictive, but not related to each other.
Well I was reading it as the GM's side of a conversation, something like the following:
=========Player: what about a lightly homebrewed 0HD Human/Nymph Crossbreed that looked similar to a slightly shorter and slightly skinnier half elf?
GM: There are no half-breeds in the game. No half-elves, no half-orcs, nothing like that in the setting, because species can't interbreed in this world.
Player: Well how about if it is some kind of lesser nymph then?
GM: There are no fey in this setting. So no nymphs.
Player: Well, I guess I could go with a delusional elf that thinks she is a nymph.
GM: There are only humans and animals.
Player: Oooookkkkk. I guess I'll go with a delusional human that thinks she is a nymph, maybe?
GM: On second thought there are no humans.
===========
My response was a bit tongue in cheek with this image in my mind.
Of course any of the issues probably could be dealt with by a little creativity on both the player's and GM's part if they were reasonable people. There may be no absolutely single way to get a character concept built, but there are plenty of wrong ways to do it or dismiss it.
Why would those be related? Each question was on a separate line.
Each was more restrictive, but not related to each other.
Well I was reading it as the GM's side of a conversation, something like the following:
Ok, I can kind of see that. No harm no foul. :)
But no, in general, if someone wants to play something odd I usually try to work with them, personally. But I don't change the world so that Drow are welcome with open arms in elven cities either.
I had a player want to play a yeti in a game (it was a 'non human only' game, so the yeti was fine from that standpoint), but, I pointed out that the constant aura of cold was going to be difficult to deal with for all the other PCs, given they'd be taking damage every time they bumped into him. He decided to go with a serpentfolk instead.
Wow this thread has really blown up like crazy. Let's face it there are a lot of different GM's out there that have their hang-ups on X, Y, and Z. This is one of those things that people get all crazy over.
In the end this should be about fun for everyone at the table. GM's should try to work with their players and players should try to work with their GM's. Every table will be different and open communication is key in making sure that fun is had by everyone.
Why would those be related? Each question was on a separate line.
Each was more restrictive, but not related to each other.
Well I was reading it as the GM's side of a conversation, something like the following:
Ok, I can kind of see that. No harm no foul. :)
But no, in general, if someone wants to play something odd I usually try to work with them, personally. But I don't change the world so that Drow are welcome with open arms in elven cities either.
I had a player want to play a yeti in a game (it was a 'non human only' game, so the yeti was fine from that standpoint), but, I pointed out that the constant aura of cold was going to be difficult to deal with for all the other PCs, given they'd be taking damage every time they bumped into him. He decided to go with a serpentfolk instead.
if i were to run a game, it would be lone Drow or all Drow groups that aren't welcome in elven cities
if the one drow traveled among a party of 2 humans, a dwarf, a sufficiently human tiefling with at worst, minor fiendish features (such as cute vestigial bat wings that could be concealed beneath a corset or a prehensile tail that could be hidden under a full length skirt for example) and a Samsaran. i'd let the group vouch a case to allow the drow inside, it would require 3 of the other 5 to vouch and tell stories of the drow's heroism
the drow would get odd looks, and with an easy sense motive check, he could realize the only reason he was allowed inside, was because his companions vouched for him
as long as the drow didn't do anything shifty or shady, and he traveled with at least 2 of his companions to vouch his case, he wouldn't be killed on sight, and wouldn't be charged triple, and over a long time, could earn the trust of that elven settlement
but the moment he steals a sufficiently valuable item knowingly, murders and elven citizen, or shows signs of cruelty to the elves of that village, expect the city guards to lock him up for a few days
repeat offenses lead to the whole group's exile, and to possible "Kill on sight."
In my games, I expect good individuals to act in good fashions. You don't get to call yourself good and put a little good sticker on and then get to do all kinds of evil acts, such as attacking and trying to kill someone merely based on their race.
Also the death penalty in my games tends to be for heinous crimes not alignment. A character that is known to be evil would not be attacked merely for being evil. Their evil acts could be directed entirely at beings outside of the current jurisdiction. That drow might like to spend his days putting baby goblins on pikes two kingdoms over, but that wouldn't give an elven kingdom he is currently in the moral or legal authority to attack him on sight. So even if I played with might morphin elves (which I don't because I find it silly, though if a player really wanted to do it, I could come up with something to work it out for that individual character), it still wouldn't allow good elves to act in evil fashions to a drow in my game.
In my games, I expect good individuals to act in good fashions. You don't get to call yourself good and put a little good sticker on and then get to do all kinds of evil acts, such as attacking and trying to kill someone merely based on their race.
Also the death penalty in my games tends to be for heinous crimes not alignment. A character that is known to be evil would not be attacked merely for being evil. Their evil acts could be directed entirely at beings outside of the current jurisdiction. That drow might like to spend his days putting baby goblins on pikes two kingdoms over, but that wouldn't give an elven kingdom he is currently in the moral or legal authority to attack him on sight. So even if I played with might morphin elves (which I don't because I find it silly, though if a player really wanted to do it, I could come up with something to work it out for that individual character), it still wouldn't allow good elves to act in evil fashions to a drow in my game.
good idea, hatred and intolerance based on species is evil.
not every drow is a murdering, triggerhappy, puppy kicking, baby eating, sadist who prances around in black leather with a pair of whips.
sometimes, you have elves that are more evil than drow. and sometimes, you have drow that have better moral standards than most elves.
why murder the drow refugee? whom is honestly a refugee and trying to live a life free of his harsh mistresses where he can actually make ends meat?
i mean, drow have plenty of refugees that escape their kin all the time, just that most of them don't survive long. and the ones that do, often have help.
just because Germany was for a decade or so, ruled by a truly atrocious kaiser, does that mean all Germans or evil? the truth is, a lot of the man's rank and file soldiers, served him because they too, were in fear for their lives and had 2 choices, servitude, or death.
think of Cheliax as an analogue of that
many Chelexian nobles praise Asmodeus, but if you asked `1,000 Chelexians which god they served, all 1,000 would Say "Asmodeus" not because they truly do, but because queen Abrogail has strict laws that could prove lethal and potentially fatal if they didn't. in fact, many Chelexians, are like German soldiers in the early 1940s. they are in fear for their lives, and feel that they have no choice, but so serve a harsh leader whom could easily turn on them the moment they start to rebel.
Well to be clear, at least in Golarion, PF's default setting ...
Yet even with that, I still expect good characters to act good and that means not immediately attacking sentient beings merely based on their race.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well to be clear, at least in Golarion, PF's default setting ...
** spoiler omitted **Yet even with that, I still expect good characters to act good and that means not immediately attacking sentient beings merely based on their race.
Unless of course, you're a GM like myself, who believes that arbitrary racial alignments makes the game a lot less interesting as a whole.
Point of order: throwing a CG Red Dragon into a campaign and watch the players WTFroll all over my floor.
I personally don't believe that any Race should be restricted to an alignment, barring ones who fundamentally focus on that particular alignment (I.E. Inevitables, etc.) For example. Red dragons are usually evil. Do they have to be? In my opinion, no. Yes, according to the basis of the setting they might be evil, but as always it remains the GM's prerogative to go "Nah, f&+$ that."
i really don't care about shoehorning races into alignments, i'd rather we not
i like the idea of the Chaotic Good Red Dragon or Inevitable, or the Lawful Good Demon, or the Chaotic Evil Archon
Screw What some random developer said about drow to justify them being always evil. if i have a player that wishes to play a good drow, i will allow them to. it will be treated as a rarity.
** spoiler omitted **
is this more acceptable
the casting bonus was dropped
3 of the skills were dropped
the swim speed was dropped
This is a much more reasonable race. Able Learner kinda steps on Humans' toes, so I'd switch it for one of the casting bonuses you had earlier or a couple SLAs, but that's me.
This is a much more reasonable race. Able Learner kinda steps on Humans' toes, so I'd switch it for one of the casting bonuses you had earlier or a couple SLAs, but that's me.** spoiler omitted **
is this more acceptable
the casting bonus was dropped
3 of the skills were dropped
the swim speed was dropped
in my most recent update. i don't see able learner as too problematic, yeah, they get more skill points than a human, but their focus, is intended to be skills. specifically face skills, plus, they are half human, and needed something of the human half.
Half Orcs can also gain skilled
in fact, half orcs can trade darkvision 60 for skilled, and trade ferocity for acute darkvision, gaining back darkvision 90.
giving a race with better darkvision, no light sensitivity, a decent weapon familiarity selection, a bonus skill point per level, and +2 to intimidate.
i added light sensitivity to represent the photo-sensitivity from their race
and under persuasive, i added the ability to shift a creature's attitude up to 3 steps instead of up to 2. to add a bit of diplomacy oriented boon to a race of social manipulators
it lowered their RP total down to 12.
Houri (Half-Nymphs)
Attributes; +2 intelligence +2 charisma -2 strength; Houri are charming and creative, but slight of frame due to a combination of their nymph blood slimming their frames, softening their features, bestowing enhanced youth and improving their persuasive tendencies, and their human blood boosting their creativity, their ambition, their adaptability and their drive to learn
Fey Type; a Houri bears the fey type but also possesses the (Human) Subtype
Medium Size; a Houri Takes no bonuses or Penalties due to her size
Fey Eyesight; a Houri receives darkvision out to a range of 60 feet; this replaces the low light vision possessed by most fey. Most Houri are more Photosensitive than either their human or their nymph parent due to an odd genetic interaction; A trait that often leaves them with Migraines in bright sunlight.
Nymph Blood; a Houri counts as both a human and a nymph for all intents and purposes pertaining to race, such as prerequisites for racial options (such as archetypes, spells, feats, or favored class bonuses), effects that target race (such as favored enemy or bane weapons), or items that work differently for specific races
Fey Heritage; a Houri Receives Fey Foundling as a bonus feat due to her fey heritage. (see the pathfinder inner sea world guide for fey foundling)
Light Sensitivity; Houri are dazzled as long as they remain in an area of bright light due to the photosensitivity derived from the odd interaction between their mixed human and nymph heritages
Able Learner; a Houri due to her human ambition, tends to pick up new skills rather quickly, this works exactly like the skilled racial trait possessed by humans, giving her a bonus skill point per level. (if playing 3.5, multiply these bonus skill points by 4 at 1st level)
Normal Speed; a Houri has a base land speed of 30 feet
Persuasive; a Houri receives a +2 racial bonus on Bluff and Diplomacy checks In addition, when she uses Diplomacy to shift a creature's attitude, she can do so up to three steps up rather than just two. She tends to be quite influential and quite able to pass her words in some pleasing manner of delivery
Languages; Common, Sylvan, Bonus Languages; Any
I once played in a game where one player was allowed to play a space marine.
It was a D&Dish fantasy game.
I don't mean 'a big tough guy with backup organs'. He was an actual space marine.
From space.
The game was not about a backwater world in the Imperium that mistakes psykers for magic. It was a proper fantasy setting.
We had a space marine in the party. I was playing a small catfolk wizard and we had a halfling rogue, a dwarf fighter and a drow sorcerer (for a short time; he got angry with the dwarf and tried to kill him... as a level 1 caster).
I once played in a game where one player was allowed to play a space marine.
It was a D&Dish fantasy game.
I don't mean 'a big tough guy with backup organs'. He was an actual space marine.
From space.
The game was not about a backwater world in the Imperium that mistakes psykers for magic. It was a proper fantasy setting.
We had a space marine in the party. I was playing a small catfolk wizard and we had a halfling rogue, a dwarf fighter and a drow sorcerer (for a short time; he got angry with the dwarf and tried to kill him... as a level 1 caster).
How'd all of that work out for you? (Both the Space Marine and the Sorcerer's probably rather short and gory existence as a pin cushion for said dwarf*.)
* Hey, I'm curious. It could be a funny story. I don't know!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The space marine was massively powerful and could tear through pretty much anything we ran into. We'd often sit back and watch.
We'd ended up in a human-centric land that hated magic and non-humans. If I recall correctly, they wouldn't attack elves but would refuse service and generally be nasty around them. They'd enslave small humanish humanoids such as halflings and gnomes, but would kill beast races and other weirder things on sight. My wizard had to hide a lot.
Because the party had not been entirely successful in their stealthy activities, the local inquisition got wind that there was a spellcaster in the city.
We were hiding out in an abandoned house, and the drow got angry about something (I forget the details) with the dwarf. He shot fire at the dwarf, for piddly amounts of damage. The dwarf told him to apologise, and if he did that again, he'd bury an axe in his skull.
The drow grudgingly apologised and the dwarf turned his back to watch the door. The drow attacked with measly fire again. The dwarf turned and killed the drow in one hit.
We carted the drow's body out into the town, declaring, "We killed the heretic! Burn the body!" and other things to try to convince them we were good guys who had dealt with the 'evil magician'. It worked.
My wizard had to remain hiding during this.
The space marine was massively powerful and could tear through pretty much anything we ran into. We'd often sit back and watch.
We'd ended up in a human-centric land that hated magic and non-humans. If I recall correctly, they wouldn't attack elves but would refuse service and generally be nasty around them. They'd enslave small humanish humanoids such as halflings and gnomes, but would kill beast races and other weirder things on sight. My wizard had to hide a lot.
Because the party had not been entirely successful in their stealthy activities, the local inquisition got wind that there was a spellcaster in the city.
We were hiding out in an abandoned house, and the drow got angry about something (I forget the details) with the dwarf. He shot fire at the dwarf, for piddly amounts of damage. The dwarf told him to apologise, and if he did that again, he'd bury an axe in his skull.
The drow grudgingly apologised and the dwarf turned his back to watch the door. The drow attacked with measly fire again. The dwarf turned and killed the drow in one hit.
We carted the drow's body out into the town, declaring, "We killed the heretic! Burn the body!" and other things to try to convince them we were good guys who had dealt with the 'evil magician'. It worked.
My wizard had to remain hiding during this.
Sounds pretty fun, actually.
Although I'd have personally granted you a hat of disguise as part of "random treasure" if there was a whole anti-magic thing going on in the region.