What makes you so special that you get to play your snowflake anyway?


Gamer Life General Discussion

2,001 to 2,050 of 2,339 << first < prev | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
All of which is sort of irrelevant to "kill the special snowflake". The special snowflake could be a frontline thug. The squishy caster could be a bog-standard human wizard.

Yes and no. This side-thread was brought about by

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
my problem isn't a snowflake on dying on the DM's watch, it's the suspicious activity of the DM specifically targetting the snowflake above and beyond all worse threats. ignoring the heavily armored fighter and the obvious wizard, just to target the young half-nymph whom put major efforts into looking like the least threatening member of the group by means of actions and feigning weakness through subtle support.

which begged the question of if the GM was targeting them out of a passive aggressive dislike of the character and trying to get rid of them, or if they were using mildly intelligent tactics to remove one of the players from the board. I'd hope the tactics remain the same regardless of whether or not someone was playing an exotic.


knightnday wrote:
thejeff wrote:
All of which is sort of irrelevant to "kill the special snowflake". The special snowflake could be a frontline thug. The squishy caster could be a bog-standard human wizard.

Yes and no. This side-thread was brought about by

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
my problem isn't a snowflake on dying on the DM's watch, it's the suspicious activity of the DM specifically targetting the snowflake above and beyond all worse threats. ignoring the heavily armored fighter and the obvious wizard, just to target the young half-nymph whom put major efforts into looking like the least threatening member of the group by means of actions and feigning weakness through subtle support.
which begged the question of if the GM was targeting them out of a passive aggressive dislike of the character and trying to get rid of them, or if they were using mildly intelligent tactics to remove one of the players from the board. I'd hope the tactics remain the same regardless of whether or not someone was playing an exotic.

Agreed. Though the discussion did seem to directly to "target the caster not the fighter" and ignored the "obvious wizard" part.

And usually if a GM has it in for a character you can tell. Far beyond reasonable tactical decisions. Most GMs willing to do that aren't all that subtle about it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
memorax wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


What is there to understand? Some people feel entitled to be able to play their special snowflake whenever they want and I am telling them no they can't. My game being proof that there is at least one DM that I can say for certain won't allow that kind of behaviour.
So ultimately threads such as these are just so that you can feel validated in your opinions. Nothing is going to change your mind. Good to know. Next time I know not to waste my time then trying to find any common ground then. Whats the point in wasting my time. And your not just telling them they cant. Your telling them they cant or else to leave if they are not happy. Not the same thing imo.

To Shallowsoul

i debate with DMs all the time, i negotiate, i try to find a middle ground

neutral ground is a must, better for both sides to find a compromise, a true snowflake isn't bound to one lone concept.

though some characters i will most likely never get a chance to RP

a fire lolimental bard (an anthropomorphic flame shaped like a young girl, could drop the racial hit dice off a small fire elemental and it wouldn't be too powerful a PC race)

a lilligant "Sun Dancer" (gen 5 anthropomorphic plant type pokemon, dancer), "Sun Dancer" is lilligant speak for fire mage

a meinshao invulnerable rager beast totem barbarian (gen 5 anthropomorphic ferret martial artist pokemon)

a gardevoir Psychic Warrior (gen 3 psionic humanoid fairy pokemon)

a mawile ninja who fights with it's hair-jaws as a primary weapon (gen 3 fairy/steel pokemon, anthropomorphic, likes to eat, it's hair gives it a bite attack with reach)

a plushie assassin animated by an angelic spirit

I place restrictions on certain games I run for a reason, not just for kicks.

I have also learned from my many years of gaming that when you let one do something extra then you have to let them all do it. Sticking to one's restrictions is one way to ensure fairness. I have had games where I allowed the special character while everyone else went along with the restrictions. Well later on in the game one of the other characters died so his next character was a special snowflake, and since I already allowed one player to do it, I had to allow another player to do it which meant I had to go back and start changing things and reset others. This doesn't happen any more because I run multiple styles of games and if there are restrictions then I see them through.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's also worth bearing in mind that if the monsters are intelligent enough to co-ordinate their attacks, the easiest PC to describe (in comparison to the others) could end up being the first target by default. Or, to put it another way "get da one wit da wings!"

It all depends on the level of intelligence and combat training, of course. Without much of either, "dumb monster" tactics pretty much boil down to "fight whatever is hitting you and worry about the rest later."


This thread is the Fibonacci Sequence of threads. It just spirals and circles and spirals and circles.....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:

It's also worth bearing in mind that if the monsters are intelligent enough to co-ordinate their attacks, the easiest PC to describe (in comparison to the others) could end up being the first target by default. Or, to put it another way "get da one wit da wings!"

It all depends on the level of intelligence and combat training, of course. Without much of either, "dumb monster" tactics pretty much boil down to "fight whatever is hitting you and worry about the rest later."

. . . So you do allow strix as a player race? :P


Maybe we should address what is a special snowflake and/or banned idea/concept to the individual. I mean, my tastes are certainly going to differ from someone else's, and that doesn't make it wrong or right. It is as much a fact of life as me not liking reggae music.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Character should not be special because of what they are, but because of what they do.


knightnday wrote:
Maybe we should address what is a special snowflake and/or banned idea/concept to the individual. I mean, my tastes are certainly going to differ from someone else's, and that doesn't make it wrong or right. It is as much a fact of life as me not liking reggae music.

Tried that multiple times, and any definition that even posits the existence of such a thing is viciously attacked, so ...


Terquem wrote:
A Character should not be special because of what they are, but because of what they do.

I am not sure everyone feels compelled to agree with that philosophy and fantasy have plenty of examples of people who are special for what they are first before what they do just take Aragorn (decendent of a king) or for that matter Gandalf is another example of someone who is special because they are.


Zouron wrote:
Terquem wrote:
A Character should not be special because of what they are, but because of what they do.
I am not sure everyone feels compelled to agree with that philosophy and fantasy have plenty of examples of people who are special for what they are first before what they do just take Aragorn (decendent of a king) or for that matter Gandalf is another example of someone who is special because they are.

Not really. Gaandalf is special because he took a much different route from all of his fellow Istari. Because he maintained his "common touch". And many other reasons than 'what he was'

Aragon is special because of what he represented, and what he did. Yes, he had special blood or status, but what made him special was what he DID with it.

Grand Lodge

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

different tactics are for different scenarios

Young Noble Girl? capture and Ransom

Dragon? unload the composite bows, slay it with ranged firepower

Horde of Mooks? have the fighters start cleaving and great cleaving if they have the feats

single boss? have the party close in and focus fire

Yes, different tactics for different scenarios... But these tactics are not universal, and thusly are not followed by everyone (e.g. not everyone wants to take prisoners regardless of any potential ransom value). And if you personally have never seen evidence of anybody using tactics different than yours, that is just anecdotal...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've always wanted to create a character named Anik Dotal


Arssanguinus wrote:
Zouron wrote:
Terquem wrote:
A Character should not be special because of what they are, but because of what they do.
I am not sure everyone feels compelled to agree with that philosophy and fantasy have plenty of examples of people who are special for what they are first before what they do just take Aragorn (decendent of a king) or for that matter Gandalf is another example of someone who is special because they are.

Not really. Gaandalf is special because he took a much different route from all of his fellow Istari. Because he maintained his "common touch". And many other reasons than 'what he was'

Aragon is special because of what he represented, and what he did. Yes, he had special blood or status, but what made him special was what he DID with it.

And how is this different than a special snowflake who at the beginning are mostly special for what they are? I mean we are talking character creation here not end of the campaign. I mean with the example of the half nymph bard she is special by being a rather unique individual by birth and decide to make her own way and choices by adventuring. After all adventuring is being different than almost anyone else of their kind being in that special 1% which include paladin Orcs and what not.


Zouron wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Zouron wrote:
Terquem wrote:
A Character should not be special because of what they are, but because of what they do.
I am not sure everyone feels compelled to agree with that philosophy and fantasy have plenty of examples of people who are special for what they are first before what they do just take Aragorn (decendent of a king) or for that matter Gandalf is another example of someone who is special because they are.

Not really. Gaandalf is special because he took a much different route from all of his fellow Istari. Because he maintained his "common touch". And many other reasons than 'what he was'

Aragon is special because of what he represented, and what he did. Yes, he had special blood or status, but what made him special was what he DID with it.

And how is this different than a special snowflake who at the beginning are mostly special for what they are? I mean we are talking character creation here not end of the campaign. I mean with the example of the half nymph bard she is special by being a rather unique individual by birth and decide to make her own way and choices by adventuring. After all adventuring is being different than almost anyone else of their kind being in that special 1% which include paladin Orcs and what not.

At the beginning, none of the characters involved even KNEW exactly what gaandalf and Aragon were. Gaandalf was "a wandering wizard". And Aragon was 'a ranger.'

If the only reason you are different is being of an odd race, you really aren't that different.


Arssanguinus wrote:

At the beginning, none of the characters involved even KNEW exactly what gaandalf and Aragon were. Gaandalf was "a wandering wizard". And Aragon was 'a ranger.'

If the only reason you are different is being of an odd race, you really aren't that different.

You mean none of the other characters knew this. that doesn't change the fact who says the other characters knows that the half-nymph has a nymph as a mother?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zouron wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:

At the beginning, none of the characters involved even KNEW exactly what gaandalf and Aragon were. Gaandalf was "a wandering wizard". And Aragon was 'a ranger.'

If the only reason you are different is being of an odd race, you really aren't that different.

You mean none of the other characters knew this. that doesn't change the fact who says the other characters knows that the half-nymph has a nymph as a mother?

I repeat, if the source of interest in the character is simply the fact that they are 'x unusual race' then I'm simply not going to find them that interesting.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

What I've picked up from the thread is that there is no problem with any of the hypothetical characters, all the hypothetical players seem to be unyielding douches. Because if we decide to play a game of political intrigue and you bring Sir Smash and Burn, then the player not the dwarf fighter is the problem. If no elves exist in your world then 90% of the time bringing an elf is bad form. But if we are playing a campaign where it just might work (exploring a new continent, interplanetary travel, or the like) then asking isn't out of the question. Heck asking for something and listing your main reason/s why should never be considered bad. However only having that one idea and refusing to budge is bad for the player to do, just like adamantly refusing to at least talk to the player as a GM isn't going to help anything


Arssanguinus wrote:
Zouron wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:

At the beginning, none of the characters involved even KNEW exactly what gaandalf and Aragon were. Gaandalf was "a wandering wizard". And Aragon was 'a ranger.'

If the only reason you are different is being of an odd race, you really aren't that different.

You mean none of the other characters knew this. that doesn't change the fact who says the other characters knows that the half-nymph has a nymph as a mother?
I repeat, if the source of interest in the character is simply the fact that they are 'x unusual race' then I'm simply not going to find them that interesting.

That might be, but does that make them an invalid choice for others or for others to feel that that character is uninteresting? I mean if I had to ban/disallow every character from a game that I found rather dull I would probably have to disallow 2/3 of all characters put before me.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a few more posts and responses. Please keep hostility/personal insults out of the conversation.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Talonhawke wins the thread.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Talonhawke wins the thread.

You saying this makes me want to print and frame it on my wall.

Liberty's Edge

Arssanguinus wrote:


It all depends. If they are targeted without reason, sure. However if someone makes themselves a target, then ...

Nothing can be done for players who use poor tactics. Or if they insist on making grand displays of power and showing off. Besdies that no reason why a creature with a int of 1-4 would ignore the heavily armored target.

Silver Crusade

There is something else that people need to remember, and a lesson I have learned as well. Atthe end of the day, Gandalf's end was already decided by Tolkien and nothing could have changed that. Role playing games, don't work that way unless you have a DM who is running that type of game. Sometimes the roll of the dice and certain situations can leave your character dead for good. I have had special snowflake players think their characters were safe because of their specialness and if they were ever targeted, then it was done on purpose and the game was spoiled, according to that player.


of course, I don't think we are disputing that to me it was more a point of saying that a character didn't have to be special by what he did but by what he was and that such a perception is not unknown in fantasy even in the "holy grain" of fantasy literature.


Arssanguinus wrote:
Zouron wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:

At the beginning, none of the characters involved even KNEW exactly what gaandalf and Aragon were. Gaandalf was "a wandering wizard". And Aragon was 'a ranger.'

If the only reason you are different is being of an odd race, you really aren't that different.

You mean none of the other characters knew this. that doesn't change the fact who says the other characters knows that the half-nymph has a nymph as a mother?
I repeat, if the source of interest in the character is simply the fact that they are 'x unusual race' then I'm simply not going to find them that interesting.

the Half-Nymph Bard could be easily mistaken for a half elf and she didn't advertise her nymph blood

she told her close friends and dearest servants about it

she told others that she was a Countess, a Ventriloquist, and a Puppeteer. all of which were half-truths, she was indeed a Countess by Rank, but the Ventriloquist and Puppeteer, were a different medium, her marionettes, weren't physical marionettes, as expected. but the emotions and volition of others.

if you could honestly guess her Sylvan Heritage, she wouldn't dismiss it

it's just, her appearance could easily be mistaken for a half-elf and she focused more on the noble human portion, than she did the nymph portion of her heritage.

the fact her mother was a nymph was rarely brought up, most peasants assumed her mother was an outcast elf whom got lucky with a human nobleman.

strength and constitution were her dump stats, her highest stats were Intellect followed by Charisma as a close second.


Talonhawke wrote:
What I've picked up from the thread is that there is no problem with any of the hypothetical characters, all the hypothetical players seem to be unyielding douches. Because if we decide to play a game of political intrigue and you bring Sir Smash and Burn, then the player not the dwarf fighter is the problem. If no elves exist in your world then 90% of the time bringing an elf is bad form. But if we are playing a campaign where it just might work (exploring a new continent, interplanetary travel, or the like) then asking isn't out of the question. Heck asking for something and listing your main reason/s why should never be considered bad. However only having that one idea and refusing to budge is bad for the player to do, just like adamantly refusing to at least talk to the player as a GM isn't going to help anything

I was running intrigue games for a few years and I did wonder what would happen if someone took a smash and burn lord. You see, some of the npcs were smash and burn (throw more troops at that problem, lead from the front) and their quick and direct action got them some serious political gains. Like the desert orcs that learned feudalism and turned upon their former masters, seizing new fertile lands of northern Cormyr. I wanted a bit more smash and burn, but most went intrigue, build, conquer.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
knightnday wrote:

But it isn't your racial snowflakiness (is this a word?) that is drawing attention, but the other character choices. The style of dress and place in the party makes you either a high value target to be taken before a stray arrow kills them or a potential spell caster of some flavor. Either way, you've made yourself a target.

Consider how you'd address the same situation if it were an NPC group you happen across in combat. What is your immediate reaction to the scene without knowing any more than 'someone dressed like so, doing this'.

capture the Noble Bard with nonlethal damage, Find out her Family, Ransom her for quite an extravagant reward

don't break the "China Doll." she's more Valuable Alive, Whole, Still Pure, and Unblemished by Rope Burns

Not to sound like a creep here, but I think they would find it pretty difficult to keep her held captive without tying her up. They could try to use Charm Person, but magic has a set duration. One of them could just toss her over his shoulder and carry her off, but she'd still be making a huge fuss (i.e she'd either be attracting too much attention or making opposed CMB checks).


Axial wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
knightnday wrote:

But it isn't your racial snowflakiness (is this a word?) that is drawing attention, but the other character choices. The style of dress and place in the party makes you either a high value target to be taken before a stray arrow kills them or a potential spell caster of some flavor. Either way, you've made yourself a target.

Consider how you'd address the same situation if it were an NPC group you happen across in combat. What is your immediate reaction to the scene without knowing any more than 'someone dressed like so, doing this'.

capture the Noble Bard with nonlethal damage, Find out her Family, Ransom her for quite an extravagant reward

don't break the "China Doll." she's more Valuable Alive, Whole, Still Pure, and Unblemished by Rope Burns

Not to sound like a creep here, but I think they would find it pretty difficult to keep her held captive without tying her up. They could try to use Charm Person, but magic has a set duration. One of them could just toss her over his shoulder and carry her off, but she'd still be making a huge fuss (i.e she'd either be attracting too much attention or making opposed CMB checks).

And in a world where you could remove rope burns with a zero level spell, likely?


Axial wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
knightnday wrote:

But it isn't your racial snowflakiness (is this a word?) that is drawing attention, but the other character choices. The style of dress and place in the party makes you either a high value target to be taken before a stray arrow kills them or a potential spell caster of some flavor. Either way, you've made yourself a target.

Consider how you'd address the same situation if it were an NPC group you happen across in combat. What is your immediate reaction to the scene without knowing any more than 'someone dressed like so, doing this'.

capture the Noble Bard with nonlethal damage, Find out her Family, Ransom her for quite an extravagant reward

don't break the "China Doll." she's more Valuable Alive, Whole, Still Pure, and Unblemished by Rope Burns

Not to sound like a creep here, but I think they would find it pretty difficult to keep her held captive without tying her up. They could try to use Charm Person, but magic has a set duration. One of them could just toss her over his shoulder and carry her off, but she'd still be making a huge fuss (i.e she'd either be attracting too much attention or making opposed CMB checks).

be extra careful with the rope, tie it in ways intended to cause the least blemishing, or the most easily healable burns. i'd consider it worth a penalty to your tying check to guarantee a less burning, less blemishing, and less painful fastening.

and heal her rope burns up before you ransom her

the key isn't to avoid tying her up

it's to avoid the rope burns blemishing her body, healing magic can do that. i'd say a single CLW a day for every day she is tied, could remove the rope burns issue.

they key is not to damage your hostage in a way that could hinder your reward, or at least repair or conceal the damage in way that could retain the value

using small amounts of rope to bind the wrists and ankles is sufficient, rather than hog-tying her, a gag helps too

you don't want to offer a scarred maiden for ransom when they know you have means to treat the scars.

that nobleman wants his daughter to be in a condition worthy of being married off, excessive and unneccessary blemishes hinder the chance of that.

i prefer to be nice, generous, delicate, and accomodating towards the hostages i intend to ransom, such as any noble, regardless of gender, if they have a family that provides a decent reward

if it's a prisoner i intend to interrogate and kill off right there, i let the sadism fly with no holds barred. such as an enemy soldier or bounty hunter working for whomever the objective foe is that we intend to slay.


Arssanguinus wrote:
Axial wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
knightnday wrote:

But it isn't your racial snowflakiness (is this a word?) that is drawing attention, but the other character choices. The style of dress and place in the party makes you either a high value target to be taken before a stray arrow kills them or a potential spell caster of some flavor. Either way, you've made yourself a target.

Consider how you'd address the same situation if it were an NPC group you happen across in combat. What is your immediate reaction to the scene without knowing any more than 'someone dressed like so, doing this'.

capture the Noble Bard with nonlethal damage, Find out her Family, Ransom her for quite an extravagant reward

don't break the "China Doll." she's more Valuable Alive, Whole, Still Pure, and Unblemished by Rope Burns

Not to sound like a creep here, but I think they would find it pretty difficult to keep her held captive without tying her up. They could try to use Charm Person, but magic has a set duration. One of them could just toss her over his shoulder and carry her off, but she'd still be making a huge fuss (i.e she'd either be attracting too much attention or making opposed CMB checks).
And in a world where you could remove rope burns with a zero level spell, likely?

0 level spells may be at will, but you can only prepare so many at one time in one day

unless you are a spontaneous caster


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

using small amounts of rope to bind the wrists and ankles is sufficient, rather than hog-tying her, a gag helps too

In that case, she still wouldn't be able to walk and you'd be encumbered while carrying her.

Or would that not be an issue?


Axial wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

using small amounts of rope to bind the wrists and ankles is sufficient, rather than hog-tying her, a gag helps too

In that case, she still wouldn't be able to walk and you'd be encumbered while carrying her.

Or would that not be an issue?

it would be an issue for the casters

the fighter or barbarian can probably carry her just fine

or we get a cart/wagon to carry our hostages on by means of horse and dominated driver.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Axial wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

using small amounts of rope to bind the wrists and ankles is sufficient, rather than hog-tying her, a gag helps too

In that case, she still wouldn't be able to walk and you'd be encumbered while carrying her.

Or would that not be an issue?

it would be an issue for the casters

the fighter or barbarian can probably carry her just fine

or we get a cart/wagon to carry our hostages on by means of horse and dominated driver.

It seems like an Order of the Penitent Cavalier would be the best "kidnapper" class, order restrictions notwithstanding.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/cavalier/orders/paizo---cavali er-orders/order-of-the-penitent

He can tie up the damsel in question without having to pin her, and has a handy mount to make his escape. Also, he gets Improved Disarm at 8th level and can grab the disarmed weapon as a free action. Noble's daughter grabs a weapon and tries to fend off her captor? I'll be taking that! ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
What I've picked up from the thread is that there is no problem with any of the hypothetical characters, all the hypothetical players seem to be unyielding douches. Because if we decide to play a game of political intrigue and you bring Sir Smash and Burn, then the player not the dwarf fighter is the problem. If no elves exist in your world then 90% of the time bringing an elf is bad form. But if we are playing a campaign where it just might work (exploring a new continent, interplanetary travel, or the like) then asking isn't out of the question. Heck asking for something and listing your main reason/s why should never be considered bad. However only having that one idea and refusing to budge is bad for the player to do, just like adamantly refusing to at least talk to the player as a GM isn't going to help anything

I think this was already pointed out in the first few pages of the thread, where it was decided that no, it's not the hypothetical player that is a douche. It's the GM who is a tyrant for trying to repress that player's freedom of speech.

Which isn't all bad. It gave us a new idea for a TV show. :p

(A buddy-cop show featuring the drow ranger Draz'zt and his faithful sidekick, the Trandoshan Han Solo, working as private investigators in 1890s San Francisco. Draz'zt will be played by Michael Douglas.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing is the GM is only at fault if there is a complete refusal of discussion. If I say that I'm running Dragonlance you can't be a halfling but if what your wanting is a small race who are good at sneaking that's an option. If you wanted to play a warforged your outta luck as well but maybe you just wanted the constructy flavor (mmnm wood, metal, and oil) so we might ask the resident tinker gnome if he minds you playing a gnomish invention of a close friend who he is helping test. But if I just say no without at least learning what your seeking then who am I helping.

On the flip side if it's a game set in the godless years and you demand to play a cleric or you won't play there isn't much I can do to help. Same thing if you show up with a 3pp moogle race that you have to play, and by Reorx's beard you mean a moogle not a kender then am I the problem?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:

The thing is the GM is only at fault if there is a complete refusal of discussion. If I say that I'm running Dragonlance you can't be a halfling but if what your wanting is a small race who are good at sneaking that's an option. If you wanted to play a warforged your outta luck as well but maybe you just wanted the constructy flavor (mmnm wood, metal, and oil) so we might ask the resident tinker gnome if he minds you playing a gnomish invention of a close friend who he is helping test. But if I just say no without at least learning what your seeking then who am I helping.

On the flip side if it's a game set in the godless years and you demand to play a cleric or you won't play there isn't much I can do to help. Same thing if you show up with a 3pp moogle race that you have to play, and by Reorx's beard you mean a moogle not a kender then am I the problem?

Now in fairness, some DMs just don't want certain things in their campaigns.

I don't restrict things only to have them reskinned so you can still play that thing I banned. What's the point in banning something if you are still going to allow it in every way but name only?


So if we don't talk how do I know the line. If you ban elves and just say that nothing more than is the problem

1. Tree living hippies?

2. Over androgynous race?

3. Stats seem to op to you?
If I don't know then my replacement character might still raise your ire.

I'm not saying you have to bend on your no elf policy but you do need to discuss it.

Edit: read both paragraphs

Silver Crusade

Talonhawke wrote:

So if we don't talk how do I know the line. If you ban elves and just say that nothing more than is the problem

1. Tree living hippies?

2. Over androgynous race?

3. Stats seem to op to you?
If I don't know then my replacement character might still raise your ire.

I'm not saying you have to bend on your no elf policy but you do need to discuss it.

Edit: read both paragraphs

Always, before my games begin, the players will know what is restricted. I don't do a surprise restriction after character creation.

"Hey lads, I want to run a viking type of game so the only race allowed is human. Anyone up for it?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Once again lack of info on why is the issue. In the Viking example it's evident why humans only. However lets say a guy shows up with a short bearded human with a high con, a Scottish accent, worse alcoholism than the cast of Jersey Shore, and a big axe. Will you be frustrated because he is a dwarf rip-off? ( and yes I know that guy fits in great with Vikings)

Silver Crusade

Talonhawke wrote:
Once again lack of info on why is the issue. In the Viking example it's evident why humans only. However lets say a guy shows up with a short bearded human with a high con, a Scottish accent, worse alcoholism than the cast of Jersey Shore, and a big axe. Will you be frustrated because he is a dwarf rip-off? ( and yes I know that guy fits in great with Vikings)

Well since he is human, he can put his +2 in con and be a short stocky human. Will he be taking a dwarf's stats? Nope.


See them the player gets the dwarf flavor he wanted now he might be sol if he wanted say darvision

Silver Crusade

Talonhawke wrote:
See them the player gets the dwarf flavor he wanted now he might be sol if he wanted say darvision

He could save up his gold and buy Goggles of Darkvision or something along those lines.


shallowsoul wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
See them the player gets the dwarf flavor he wanted now he might be sol if he wanted say darvision
He could save up his gold and buy Goggles of Darkvision or something along those lines.

He can even carry a pickaxe and gleefully attack the walls of any tunnel the party finds themselves in, if he feels like it! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Once again lack of info on why is the issue. In the Viking example it's evident why humans only. However lets say a guy shows up with a short bearded human with a high con, a Scottish accent, worse alcoholism than the cast of Jersey Shore, and a big axe. Will you be frustrated because he is a dwarf rip-off? ( and yes I know that guy fits in great with Vikings)
Well since he is human, he can put his +2 in con and be a short stocky human. Will he be taking a dwarf's stats? Nope.

Dwarf = Short Stocky Human

Elf = Tall Point Eared Human

Half-Orc = Green Skinned Muscular Human

Half-Elf = Less Pronounced Tall and Pointy Eared Human

Halfling = Short, Fat, Slow, Annoying, Human

Gnome = Shorter, Slower, More Annoying, Human


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Once again lack of info on why is the issue. In the Viking example it's evident why humans only. However lets say a guy shows up with a short bearded human with a high con, a Scottish accent, worse alcoholism than the cast of Jersey Shore, and a big axe. Will you be frustrated because he is a dwarf rip-off? ( and yes I know that guy fits in great with Vikings)
Well since he is human, he can put his +2 in con and be a short stocky human. Will he be taking a dwarf's stats? Nope.

Dwarf = Short Stocky Human

Elf = Tall Point Eared Human

Half-Orc = Green Skinned Muscular Human

Half-Elf = Less Pronounced Tall and Pointy Eared Human

Halfling = Short, Fat, Slow, Annoying, Human

Gnome = Shorter, Slower, More Annoying, Human

Halflings arent presumed to be fat in the current incarnation im pretty sure ...


If everything is just human with a modifier, then we don't need races at all! Exotics are just humans with funny masks or wigs or costumes on! That means that we don't have to worry about any of this, because everyone is human and most people are not stopping people from having those in game! Thread is over!

(My victory lap may be premature I fear)

2,001 to 2,050 of 2,339 << first < prev | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / What makes you so special that you get to play your snowflake anyway? All Messageboards