I wonder how many of your cute Nymph/Sylph characters ending up coming to a grimdark fate it would take before you stopped re-skinning the same character over and over and played something with some regard to the setting?
It's got nothing to do with 'comfort of handling such things' its about the relevance of those things to what is going on. Sticking Mickey Mouse into Game of Thrones would be ridiculous.
i have played cute small framed females of other races too
sticking mickey mouse into game of thrones would be ridiculous, i can agree with that
sticking a doll like half-nymph into a gothic horror setting isn't too bad. i mean lots of fantasy gothic horror, includes victorian elements
and my characters aren't always the same race or class, i might recycle an idea i love with a DM that approved it before
but i keep 10-15 backups at one time, 4-6 of which, are Reiterations of characters the group liked from a previous campaign
i do take the setting into account, i might twist aspects to fit my tastes and have certain predone characters for predone genres
but it's no different than bringing a binder of 15 characters for one DM to browse through
considering how often i die, i often get to play several of the characters from the binder, usually a new character every 3-4 levels
not all of my cute petite females are exactly the same
i do have a few archetypes i might attach placeholders to
but the placeholders are merely that, placeholders for the purpose of saving the character as a file, some names are reused, mostly names that would seem common for such a species
for example
Ignis, Ignatia, Pyrus, Aries, Mars, Helia, Helios, Apollo, Apolla, and a variety of similar themed cliche names, could be used on the fly for an Ifrit of either gender, even though most of them have to do with fire or violence. it's a cliche enough name to be assumed to be common place and more likely a nickname than a true name, like naming an Oread Rocky.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
sticking a doll like half-nymph into a gothic horror setting isn't too bad. i mean lots of fantasy gothic horror, includes victorian elements
Besides, I hear the little ones are delicious. The only problem is there just isn't enough to eat, but such is the manner of delicacies.
I wonder how many of your cute Nymph/Sylph characters ending up coming to a grimdark fate it would take before you stopped re-skinning the same character over and over and played something with some regard to the setting?
It's got nothing to do with 'comfort of handling such things' its about the relevance of those things to what is going on. Sticking Mickey Mouse into Game of Thrones would be ridiculous.
i have played cute small framed females of other races too
sticking mickey mouse into game of thrones would be ridiculous, i can agree with that
sticking a doll like half-nymph into a gothic horror setting isn't too bad. i mean lots of fantasy gothic horror, includes victorian elements
and my characters aren't always the same race or class, i might recycle an idea i love with a DM that approved it before
but i keep 10-15 backups at one time, 4-6 of which, are Reiterations of characters the group liked from a previous campaign
i do take the setting into account, i might twist aspects to fit my tastes and have certain predone characters for predone genres
but it's no different than bringing a binder of 15 characters for one DM to browse through
considering how often i die, i often get to play several of the characters from the binder, usually a new character every 3-4 levels
Well, if you are bringing many characters to the table, are willing to switch between them or cut and trim and paint to make them fit in the setting ... I can't see that you would qualify as one of the problem players. Of course, at least in my game generally the generation would start with me sitting down with you and talking back and forth or sending messages back and forth, asking questions about what you want in general terms, and moving to more specific, trying to weave it into the setting as we go, so that by the end of the process hopefully most of the wants for the character are addressed, but addressed in a way that suits the setting. It does a disservice to a character even if its just shoehorned in instead of fit in.
Well, if you are bringing many characters to the table, are willing to switch between them or cut and trim and paint to make them fit in the setting ... I can't see that you would qualify as one of the problem players. Of course, at least in my game generally the generation would start with me sitting down with you and talking back and forth or sending messages back and forth, asking questions about what you want in general terms, and moving to more specific, trying to weave it into the setting as we go, so that by the end of the process hopefully most of the wants for the character are addressed, but addressed in a way that suits the setting. It does a disservice to a character even if its just shoehorned in instead of fit inI wonder how many of your cute Nymph/Sylph characters ending up coming to a grimdark fate it would take before you stopped re-skinning the same character over and over and played something with some regard to the setting?
It's got nothing to do with 'comfort of handling such things' its about the relevance of those things to what is going on. Sticking Mickey Mouse into Game of Thrones would be ridiculous.
i have played cute small framed females of other races too
sticking mickey mouse into game of thrones would be ridiculous, i can agree with that
sticking a doll like half-nymph into a gothic horror setting isn't too bad. i mean lots of fantasy gothic horror, includes victorian elements
and my characters aren't always the same race or class, i might recycle an idea i love with a DM that approved it before
but i keep 10-15 backups at one time, 4-6 of which, are Reiterations of characters the group liked from a previous campaign
i do take the setting into account, i might twist aspects to fit my tastes and have certain predone characters for predone genres
but it's no different than bringing a binder of 15 characters for one DM to browse through
considering how often i die, i often get to play several of the characters from the binder, usually a new character every 3-4 levels
sometimes i bring 10 characters, sometimes i bring 15, sometimes i'll bring as few as 5 or 6.
but i really don't see myself as a problem player, allow me to play a petite and cute female of a medium sized long lived sufficiently humanoid race, i'll gladly adjust as needed. though my definition of cute, is closer to the Touhou/Disgaea/Etrian Oddyssey/Luminous Arc Definition. not that i will specifically emulate that genre, just that general visual artistic style
sometimes, a player is interested in one of my backups and plays her as something akin to a pregen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
sticking a doll like half-nymph into a gothic horror setting isn't too bad. i mean lots of fantasy gothic horror, includes victorian elementsBesides, I hear the little ones are delicious. The only problem is there just isn't enough to eat, but such is the manner of delicacies.
true. i have closet loves for gothic horror, plane hopping, victorian steampunk, and final fantasy's traditional blend of swords, magic, axes, bows, and spears alongside trains, zepplins, ironclads, submarines, televisions, and telephones
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
LOL, you left out my favorite, the minotaur artificer riding on a mechanical elephant. Or something like that.
The true foolishness of inserting that guy into a Tolkienian world is that it would of course be an oliphant. Try to fit the setting, dude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
in every thread we have had about exotic races, dump stats, or power gaming. i noticed a common trend
the people advocating against such practices, always use the most extreme examples they can find, and the people advocating for allowing and defending such practices, tend to be the ones with the tame and reasonable examples, the compromises and the like.
That's total BS.
I remember somebody in one of those crazy build threads a couple weeks ago, ranting for page after page, for several days in a row, about how stupid and rotten GMs who don't allow him to ride a talking dinosaur are. He was advocating FOR exotic races and he was about as extreme and off the charts as a poster could get.
You chose very convenient and RARE examples to illustrate your point, but your point is way off base. Plenty of people on both sides of any argument on these boards go overboard and get extreme to prove their points. You just happen to agree with one side, and your confirmation bias has informed you that you're right.
That's what confirmation bias does.
in every thread we have had about exotic races, dump stats, or power gaming. i noticed a common trend
the people advocating against such practices, always use the most extreme examples they can find, and the people advocating for allowing and defending such practices, tend to be the ones with the tame and reasonable examples, the compromises and the like.
That's total BS.
I remember somebody in one of those crazy build threads a couple weeks ago, ranting for page after page, for several days in a row, about how stupid and rotten GMs who don't allow him to ride a talking dinosaur are. He was advocating FOR exotic races and he was about as extreme and off the charts as a poster could get.
You chose very convenient and RARE examples to illustrate your point, but your point is way off base. Plenty of people on both sides of any argument on these boards go overboard and get extreme to prove their points. You just happen to agree with one side, and your confirmation bias has informed you that you're right.
That's what confirmation bias does.
sorry. i guess i was blinded to the examples on my own side
guess i am one of the few people on the side whom are tame and able to compromise.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a bit hypocritical to accuse the other side of resorting to exaggerations when you yourself are cheerfully generalizing. Especially considering how frequently I see people on your side talking about berserk GMs with snowscapes and murderous campaigns where powergaming is demanded.
Nobody's above the stupid comparisons. That's just this subforum's thing.
EDIT: Ohp, ninja'd by you withdrawing the accusations. Darn ninjas in my European fantasy!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny thing for me is? My players would have more problems with the "petite and cute female of a medium sized long lived sufficiently humanoid race" bit more than the exotic race part of it, especially if it is something that cropped up over and over again.
As GM, I'm indifferent to it, other than the world possibly not reacting to you in quite the way you hope. But we discussed that in the other thread, the concept that just because you believe that you are a tiny female that you will be last on the attack sequence may not always hold true.
But we discussed that in the other thread, the concept that just because you believe that you are a tiny female that you will be last on the attack sequence may not always hold true.
Especially when to get that treatment, or even the opportunity to have it implied and pull that sort of stunt is a Halfling only Feat.
Otherwise my Tarrasque just looks like a tiny female girl-child too, because I fluffed it that way.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One person's "extreme," is another person's "Tuesday morning." It's all subjective.
I see people using extreme example simply to cut-corners and really drive their point home. It cuts to the chase, and shows how far that person considers "too far" in their own taste.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One person's "extreme," is another person's "Tuesday morning." It's all subjective.
I see people using extreme example simply to cut-corners and really drive their point home. It cuts to the chase, and shows how far that person considers "too far" in their own taste.
Or to put it bluntly, I'm not going to use examples of things I probably would allow as examples to illustrate what I wouldn't allow.
But we discussed that in the other thread, the concept that just because you believe that you are a tiny female that you will be last on the attack sequence may not always hold true.Especially when to get that treatment, or even the opportunity to have it implied and pull that sort of stunt is a Halfling only Feat.
Otherwise my Tarrasque just looks like a tiny female girl-child too, because I fluffed it that way.
I wouldn't go that far; I'm not going to say that you can't look childlike without that feat. You just don't get the following benefits to try to do so.
Benefit: You can take 10 on Bluff checks to convince others you are telling the truth, so long as your story makes you appear innocent. You gain a +2 bonus on Disguise skill checks to pose as a human child, and ignore the check penalties for disguising yourself as a different race and age category while doing so.
One person's "extreme," is another person's "Tuesday morning." It's all subjective.
I see people using extreme example simply to cut-corners and really drive their point home. It cuts to the chase, and shows how far that person considers "too far" in their own taste.
Or to put it bluntly, I'm not going to use examples of things I probably would allow as examples to illustrate what I wouldn't allow.
Pretty much. Everyone has a different tolerance level, or different list of thigns they consider "appropriate" for their games. If someone goes out on a limb and says "I'll alow some oddball stuff," someone invariably wants to test them and push them as hard as they want to go, with something like "oh yeah? well, what if I rolled up a half-golem Catfolk with robotic arms that shoots missiles and rides on a T-Rex?"
Yeah, that has happened. Blew their mind when I said "Ok. Sure. Your new character will probably be in the next town waiting for the party."
Sometimes, I see the people throwing around the extremes are typically just "feeling out" everyone else to see what is generally acceptable. It's like, "if I use this crazy example, and that gets allowed, then I know my actual character should be ok."
But we discussed that in the other thread, the concept that just because you believe that you are a tiny female that you will be last on the attack sequence may not always hold true.Especially when to get that treatment, or even the opportunity to have it implied and pull that sort of stunt is a Halfling only Feat.
Otherwise my Tarrasque just looks like a tiny female girl-child too, because I fluffed it that way.
I wouldn't go that far; I'm not going to say that you can't look childlike without that feat. You just don't get the following benefits to try to do so.
Benefit: You can take 10 on Bluff checks to convince others you are telling the truth, so long as your story makes you appear innocent. You gain a +2 bonus on Disguise skill checks to pose as a human child, and ignore the check penalties for disguising yourself as a different race and age category while doing so.
For my players, it is less about gaining the benefits of the feat without actually taking it feat. It's concept fatigue; we'd had a player who did pretty much the same sort of concept over and over. They had also seen it a lot online, apparently, and it was linked to, ah, promiscuous characters (gotta keep it PG!) So they just are very tired of the whole deal.
For my players, it is less about gaining the benefits of the feat without actually taking it feat. It's concept fatigue; we'd had a player who did pretty much the same sort of concept over and over. They had also seen it a lot online, apparently, and it was linked to, ah, promiscuous characters (gotta keep it PG!) So they just are very tired of the whole deal.But we discussed that in the other thread, the concept that just because you believe that you are a tiny female that you will be last on the attack sequence may not always hold true.Especially when to get that treatment, or even the opportunity to have it implied and pull that sort of stunt is a Halfling only Feat.
Otherwise my Tarrasque just looks like a tiny female girl-child too, because I fluffed it that way.
I wouldn't go that far; I'm not going to say that you can't look childlike without that feat. You just don't get the following benefits to try to do so.
Benefit: You can take 10 on Bluff checks to convince others you are telling the truth, so long as your story makes you appear innocent. You gain a +2 bonus on Disguise skill checks to pose as a human child, and ignore the check penalties for disguising yourself as a different race and age category while doing so.
Yeah, I can get that - but in that case its between that player and the other players, not her and me. I might mediate, but ... They gotta hash that one out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how many of your cute Nymph/Sylph characters ending up coming to a grimdark fate it would take before you stopped re-skinning the same character over and over and played something with some regard to the setting?Woah! That is not the way to handle things. You do not tell a player no by saying yes and killing them until they take the hint. That is a terrible thing to do and solves nothing.
I think you both might be right.
sticking a doll like half-nymph into a gothic horror setting isn't too bad. i mean lots of fantasy gothic horror, includes victorian elementsBesides, I hear the little ones are delicious. The only problem is there just isn't enough to eat, but such is the manner of delicacies.
you sound disturbingly like a rakshasha npc in my darklight sisterhood game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh, in a real-world corollary to this discussion, I once dated a girl who had no experience whatsoever with the "natural world." She was a committed pacifist and avowed nature lover, but just had no actual experience with nature "in the raw". At that time I was very active in hunting and fishing, which created an interesting dynamic in our relationship.
One day we were on a long hike deep in the woods and encountered the remains of a meal that I decided from the tracks and remains, was from a pack of coyotes. The object of the meal was a fawn, probably just a few months old.
Her reaction to the scene was to first be repulsed, but then her curiosity overcame her and she came over to look at it. Our conversation went something like this:
She: "What happened here?"
Me: "Hmm... looks like some coyotes had a meal here."
She: "Oooh... what was it?"
Me: "Looks like a fawn."
She: "A fawn? A little baby deer?"
Me: "Yep. Probably a few months old."
She: "Why would they kill a little baby deer?"
Me: "To eat it."
She: "But wouldn't they want a bigger deer? Why kill a little baby?"
Me: "Because little babies are easier to kill and taste better"
She: "That's horrible!"
Now, it is quite possible that the fawn was actually abandoned by a mother who had been hit by a car and had starved and the coyotes hadn't killed it, but the basic principle was accurate enough. Her attitude about nature changed pretty dramatically after that experience.
|
I'm sorry but Shifty has hit the nail on the head, which goes back to what I was saying with regards to snowflakes being someone who is trying to be different which in turn leads to hogging of the spotlight. Let's use his example of the elf in an orc village. Well as we all know, the DMs attention is going to be focused on this one elf and how he is going make it work. Also, the scenarios with in the village are going to be focused on the character as well.
At the same time, if you have the orcs rush the elf and slaughter him, then the player will become angry and accuse you of killing them on purpose. Now if you are the kind of DM who doesn't have the surrounding area react in a way that it should then no more can be said.
I also hate crazy BS reasons why it would work.
Besides, I hear the little ones are delicious. The only problem is there just isn't enough to eat, but such is the manner of delicacies.you sound disturbingly like a rakshasha npc in my darklight sisterhood game.
Why thank you! I think.
But we discussed that in the other thread, the concept that just because you believe that you are a tiny female that you will be last on the attack sequence may not always hold true.Especially when to get that treatment, or even the opportunity to have it implied and pull that sort of stunt is a Halfling only Feat.
Otherwise my Tarrasque just looks like a tiny female girl-child too, because I fluffed it that way.
I wouldn't go that far; I'm not going to say that you can't look childlike without that feat. You just don't get the following benefits to try to do so.
Benefit: You can take 10 on Bluff checks to convince others you are telling the truth, so long as your story makes you appear innocent. You gain a +2 bonus on Disguise skill checks to pose as a human child, and ignore the check penalties for disguising yourself as a different race and age category while doing so.
i can handle not getting the benefits without taking the feat
who needs to pretend to be childlike when you character already is?
- people seeking to abduct or assault said PC
- not being allowed in certain establishments without an adult to protect and certify me or at least a diplomacy check
- not being able to make specific purchases without an adult present or at least a diplomacy check
- being the Macguffin for a session or two
- some spotlight, as long as i can share it with individual PCs
- the abduction doesn't happen more than a handful of times in a campaign.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And significant portions of those drawbacks put the onus back on the party to dig you out of a hole; in short your choice creates a significant liability for the party. Your choices aren't just limited to your experience, but it begins to shape theirs too in ways they might not want.
If all the players and the GM is fine with that then go right ahead, but as a player and a GM I resent having concepts foist upon me that create a lot of headaches, and after having lolligoths running around being a PITA I personally wouldn't have one at my table again out of choice.
And significant portions of those drawbacks put the onus back on the party to dig you out of a hole; in short your choice creates a significant liability for the party. Your choices aren't just limited to your experience, but it begins to shape theirs too in ways they might not want.
If all the players and the GM is fine with that then go right ahead, but as a player and a GM I resent having concepts foist upon me that create a lot of headaches, and after having lolligoths running around being a PITA I personally wouldn't have one at my table again out of choice.
another, more appropriate idea i would generally prefer and creates less headaches
is to ignore that the character is a loligoth and treat them as you would any other PC, regardless of race, class, clothing style or age category.
just remember, adventurers in general, are pretty eccentric, and ignore that the loligoth chose to wore a fashion normal of nobility in a typical fantasy or steampunk setting. no bonus, no penalty.
snowflake removed
if the half-nymph is a half-nymph or the aasimaar is an aasimaar, to reduce the attention, just simply have most NPCs simply not care and mistake them for a more common race with a similar appearance, half-elf and human respectively
now, if it's a catfolk or talking horse, i wouldn't know what to say. giving them attention, whether positive or negative, is giving in to their desire for attention.
when i play a loligoth, it's not that i generally want attention, it's that i want to emulate a particular fashion style with my character for artistic purposes. i usually want neither a bonus nor penalty attached to my character for their social status, seemingly mistakeable race or clothing choices, i'd rather they be treated as any other player character would be treated. while i am fine with people picking on the eccentric loligoth here and there, i just don't want it to be a focus for the whole campaign.
if a guy who plays an exotic race that can reasonably pass for a core race with a bit of tweaking, don't penalize him for being different, the guy made a conscious effort to avoid the attention of an exotic race.
not every aasimaar player wants to hog the spotlight by having npcs beg their pc for a lock of her hair. not every tiefling player wants to be picked on for the miniature bat wings she concealed beneath a corset or the tail she concealed beneath an ankle length skirt, not every loligoth player wants to be abducted for her clothing choices and cuteness. while i am fine with such things in small amounts, i don't desire any more attention than most other players.
i try to play a character with a reason to be an adventurer rather than being one of the generic mold whom joined the hive. all adventurers are pretty darn odd, and a lot of them, would logicially have traits that hinder them in their home societies.
it's just, half the DMs i know feel like trying to penalize the loligoths for their eccentricy. i'm fine with those penalties that make me a liability, but i'd rather deal with neither those nor the good.
just, ignore the special attention towards a given PC, even if you feel the need to, and simply say no if they concept is too outrageous. i'm fine with planetouched or half-humans in a core focused game, but catfolk and awakened horses make me feel a little iffy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But why would the average adventuring party roll with someone who resembled a ten your old girl in eccentric clothes to go off and engage in a whole bunch of bloodletting with? I can't think of why a professional bunch of 'trouble shooters' would burden themselves in that way, except in extraordinary circumstances, and only until those circumstances changed.
What you have to get is that anime lolligoth is fine in some circles, and not fine in others. If half the GM's are penalising your choice then perhaps that's a message to you that you are trying to make a square peg fit a round hole and that your choices are disrupting what they are doing and the style of play they are wishing to explore. The best bet is to find a group that fits your playstyle OR you fit the playstyle of the group.
Spotlight hogging motivations or whatever aside, your tiefling IS a tiefling, your Aasimar IS an Aasimar, your plane-touched IS a plane-touched and handwaving all that away gets a bit silly. Handwave away a tiefling in Cheliax? Hardly. Aasimar around the Worldwound? you get the idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But why would the average adventuring party roll with someone who resembled a ten your old girl in eccentric clothes to go off and engage in a whole bunch of bloodletting with?
Because she stabbinates or blastinates pretty well. Also she's stupid enough to trust anyone with an exclamation mark over their head, like everyone else in the party!
But why would the average adventuring party roll with someone who resembled a ten your old girl in eccentric clothes to go off and engage in a whole bunch of bloodletting with? I can't think of why a professional bunch of 'trouble shooters' would burden themselves in that way, except in extraordinary circumstances, and only until those circumstances changed.
What you have to get is that anime lolligoth is fine in some circles, and not fine in others. If half the GM's are penalising your choice then perhaps that's a message to you that you are trying to make a square peg fit a round hole and that your choices are disrupting what they are doing and the style of play they are wishing to explore. The best bet is to find a group that fits your playstyle OR you fit the playstyle of the group.
Spotlight hogging motivations or whatever aside, your tiefling IS a tiefling, your Aasimar IS an Aasimar, your plane-touched IS a plane-touched and handwaving all that away gets a bit silly. Handwave away a tiefling in Cheliax? Hardly. Aasimar around the Worldwound? you get the idea.
loligoth is based on Victorian Noble's Fashion, which is based on fashions from as far as multiple centuries back in the same continent.
and in a fantasy setting that is percieved to have medieval influence, a 10 year old girl is considered old enough to work, just like a 10 year old boy would be.
there are some circles that would see them as children, but 8-10 would generally be the age the child is sent off to an apprenticeship and train in the profession they would eventually perform for a decent portion of their lives.
why would the professional bunch of troubleshooters take the 10-12 year old youth with them? trade apprenticeship of course. sometimes, a portion of the education is already done, but a skilled professional has to start somewhere, and an apprentice generally has more time to hone the talents you teach, is easier to pass your methods of thinking upon, and is generally easier to teach due to being less rooted in their path.
when you have a hard time recruiting old veterans, it's time to start training apprentices, they might have a few difficulties at first, but so did you early in your career, to train the newbie might take a bit, but is easier to train a newbie than an old veteran set in their ways. in dangerous scenarios, newbies whom survive, will eventually reach veteran skill levels.
there is a reason knights had squires and a reason why most businesses have interns, to teach customs, to instill training, and to leave an impression in one's life, you better start educating them in their youth
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And significant portions of those drawbacks put the onus back on the party to dig you out of a hole; in short your choice creates a significant liability for the party. Your choices aren't just limited to your experience, but it begins to shape theirs too in ways they might not want.
If all the players and the GM is fine with that then go right ahead, but as a player and a GM I resent having concepts foist upon me that create a lot of headaches, and after having lolligoths running around being a PITA I personally wouldn't have one at my table again out of choice.
another, more appropriate idea i would generally prefer and creates less headaches
is to ignore that the character is a loligoth and treat them as you would any other PC, regardless of race, class, clothing style or age category.
just remember, adventurers in general, are pretty eccentric, and ignore that the loligoth chose to wore a fashion normal of nobility in a typical fantasy or steampunk setting. no bonus, no penalty.
snowflake removed
if the half-nymph is a half-nymph or the aasimaar is an aasimaar, to reduce the attention, just simply have most NPCs simply not care and mistake them for a more common race with a similar appearance, half-elf and human respectively
now, if it's a catfolk or talking horse, i wouldn't know what to say. giving them attention, whether positive or negative, is giving in to their desire for attention.
when i play a loligoth, it's not that i generally want attention, it's that i want to emulate a particular fashion style with my character for artistic purposes. i usually want neither a bonus nor penalty attached to my character for their social status, seemingly mistakeable race or clothing choices, i'd rather they be treated as any other player character would be treated. while i am fine with people picking on the eccentric loligoth here and there, i just don't want it to be a focus for the whole campaign.
if a guy who plays an exotic race that can reasonably pass for a core race with a bit of tweaking, don't penalize him for being different, the guy made a conscious effort to avoid the attention of an exotic race.
not every aasimaar player wants to hog the spotlight by having npcs beg their pc for a lock of her hair. not every tiefling player wants to be picked on for the miniature bat wings she concealed beneath a corset or the tail she concealed beneath an ankle length skirt, not every loligoth player wants to be abducted for her clothing choices and cuteness. while i am fine with such things in small amounts, i don't desire any more attention than most other players.
i try to play a character with a reason to be an adventurer rather than being one of the generic mold whom joined the hive. all adventurers are pretty darn odd, and a lot of them, would logicially have traits that hinder them in their home societies.
it's just, half the DMs i know feel like trying to penalize the loligoths for their eccentricy. i'm fine with those penalties that make me a liability, but i'd rather deal with neither those nor the good.
just, ignore the special attention towards a given PC, even if you feel the need to, and simply say no if they concept is too outrageous. i'm fine with planetouched or half-humans in a core focused game, but catfolk and awakened horses make me feel a little iffy.
I'll answer this here, as it is here and not in the newly created thread.
It isn't a matter of penalizing anyone. For myself (and my group's preferences, yours may vary, etc etc), the world reacts to you. If you have horns, smell like brimstone and have cute little bat-like wings on your cute little self, there are people who are going to react to that in different ways, just like if Jeff the Barbarian chooses to make his character six foot ten inches tall with muscles on muscles, a taste for rare meat that drips down his long beard and wears nothing but a muskrat pelt on his groin, he is going to get a reaction too.
From comments from other threads, you say that you'd believe that the enemy would ignore you because you look small, look rich, look weak, don't look to be a threat. This is a reaction that you hope to inspire by your looks in race, in clothing, the choices you've made. Jeff the Barbarian has made similar choices, and is going to draw attention for the notched and bloodstained battleaxe he casually carries in one hand while wandering the city.
You say that not every X wants a certain reaction or to hog the spotlight; I counter that if you aren't looking for that reaction, you'd have chosen differently. Choosing a goblin or kobold character in a mostly civilized area is going to draw a reaction from the townfolk who are being victimized by such creatures. The GM can hand-wave it as much as handwaving reactions to the batwinged demon-spawn or the glowing angel or the hulking barbarian half-orc, but at what point is hand-waving the reactions of the NPCs denying you and the rest of the group meaningful RP? At what point does the downside of your choices meet up with the mechanical or RP upsides?
This isn't to pick at your choices; rather, you've been the more vocal of posters with commentary on your characters, so we have those to choose from as examples. My table's reacts to characters by their choices, because we assume you made those choices in good faith and for a reason. This isn't letting a snowflake win; this is creating an active world where the snowflake -- or anyone else -- deals with what is before them. I'm not a big fan of just saying "Oh, yes, adventurers are all freaks, carry on, carry on." It allows a good bit of tomfoolery to take place that otherwise should not.
Pretty much, Knightnday.
I'll answer this here, as it is here and not in the newly created thread.
It isn't a matter of penalizing anyone. For myself (and my group's preferences, yours may vary, etc etc), the world reacts to you. If you have horns, smell like brimstone and have cute little bat-like wings on your cute little self, there are people who are going to react to that in different ways, just like if Jeff the Barbarian chooses to make his character six foot ten inches tall with muscles on muscles, a taste for rare meat that drips down his long beard and wears nothing but a muskrat pelt on his groin, he is going to get a reaction too.
From comments from other threads, you say that you'd believe that the enemy would ignore you because you look small, look rich, look weak, don't look to be a threat. This is a reaction that you hope to inspire by your looks in race, in clothing, the choices you've made. Jeff the Barbarian has made similar choices, and is going to draw attention for the notched and bloodstained battleaxe he casually carries in one hand while wandering the city.
You say that not every X wants a certain reaction or to hog the spotlight; I counter that if you aren't looking for that reaction, you'd have chosen differently. Choosing a goblin or kobold character in a mostly civilized area is going to draw a reaction from the townfolk who are being victimized by such creatures. The GM can hand-wave it as much as handwaving reactions to the batwinged demon-spawn or the glowing angel or the hulking barbarian half-orc, but at what point is hand-waving the reactions of the NPCs denying you and the rest of the group meaningful RP? At what point does the downside of your choices meet up with the mechanical or RP upsides?
This isn't to pick at your choices; rather, you've been the more vocal of posters with commentary on your characters, so we have those to choose from as examples. My table's reacts to characters by their choices, because we assume you made those choices in good faith and for a reason. This isn't letting a snowflake win; this is creating an active world where the snowflake -- or anyone else -- deals with what is before them. I'm not a big fan of just saying "Oh, yes, adventurers are all freaks, carry on, carry on." It allows a good bit of tomfoolery to take place that otherwise should not.
i guess we have different views on extremes
i'm fine with giving the odd character some attention here and there, as long as they don't take the majority of the spotlight, when a character takes the majority of the spotlight, you have a problem. the key is balancing it, but giving characters a bit of attention based on their race or fashion choices isn't an issue as long as it doesn't happen in excess.
my problem, comes from dealing with attention hogs who hog the attention to the point of denying everyone else a chance to roleplay because the snowflake is hogging all the spotlight
i have played a few attention grabbing characters, but i'd look for chances to engage other players in the roleplay too.
i have had bad experiences with players that hog the spotlight and don't give others a chance to roleplay, or DMs who put shy players on the hotspot to get them out of their shell in discomforting ways.
sometimes, you might have a naturally shy player who chooses an exotic race because he likes the artistic style of that race, not because he wants to stand out, such as my buddy kevin, whom has difficulty talking due to his shyness, and he is one of many, weekly william likes to place within the hot seat and force him to speak in the moment without giving him time to think.
As a rule, if somebody plays something weird, NPCs and PCs will react to it. Unless the player annoys me, in which case I will change the first adventure so they're in a village of that somebody's weird race. That'll teach them to eat my pumpkin bread!
As a rule, if somebody plays something weird, NPCs and PCs will react to it. Unless the player annoys me, in which case I will change the first adventure so they're in a village of that somebody's weird race. That'll teach them to eat my pumpkin bread!
close enough, you got the right idea, though a malicious execution
some races, you don't need a village for because they are nearly identical to certain other races on a cosmetic level. a lot of planetouched look sufficiently human, with maybe an odd coloration or appendage that could be passed off as a fashion choice popular to a certain culture or as an odd medical condition.
catfolk and ponies, may be harder
but a lot of the planar cosmetic traits, are even optional
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as they make their disguise check.
Otherwise they are identifiable as what they are.
Always get yourself a hat of disguise. 101 uses and the best fashion statement you can make.
Exactly - I hate this 'I can pass for X' business where people conveniently handwave mechanics.
As long as they make their disguise check.
Otherwise they are identifiable as what they are.
the Scion of humanity trait does that for Aasimaars, a similar trait could be homebrewed for the other 7 species of planetouched and would be reasonable to do such.
the whole point of such a trait is "you look human, most people don't care."
Scion of humanity is generally an autopass for pretending to be human in most scenarios
it's not a bad workaround.
but i imagine you hate that alternate racial
Good.
As I say, pay the cost for it and that's fine, but lets not otherwise try and just fluff away what there are fixed mechanics for.
Edit: That trait also makes you count as Humanoid, so some of those funky defences become nullified too.
Exactly - I hate this 'I can pass for X' business where people conveniently handwave mechanics.
Mechanically in pathfinder your attributes don't actually affect your appearance, that's all up to the people playing the game. Its one of those fine if you do, fine if you don't things. I'm fine with someone playing an 18 strength petite character myself, or a horrifically ugly or beautiful character with 10 or 5 or 18 charisma.
I used extremes here to show how wide a variance I'm okay with! That's why we use extremes... sometimes.
Mechanically in pathfinder your attributes don't actually affect your appearance, that's all up to the people playing the game. Its one of those fine if you do, fine if you don't things.
It's more about handwaving the identification of a species, as that has direct in game consequences and effects. When people see an X, they might be aware that Y will/wont work etc.
When you'd get a hard time in Cheliax, saying they can't tell you are a Tiefling 'because of fluff' is just cheating the system.
Shifty's pretty much right. Half-orcs have a feat called "Pass For Human" that lets them do what's being discussed here. It gives them a bonus on Disguise checks and makes it even easier when in an area where people would naturally assume them to be human.
In other words, if you want to just by default be seen as something you are not, spend a feat. ;D
That's right, it is a Feat for most people.
So if I were GM, and you asked me if your character could be mistaken for a child, I'd probably say something like: "Well, tell you what, write up a feat like the one that exists for halflings and it's a deal."
I actually had a player in my last game play a half-orc with Pass For Human. I know they woulda been ticked if their high specialized flavor feat got made even more useless by other PCs being able to pull off the same stunt for free. ;D
Childlike
Your resemblance to a human child tends to make others trust you, perhaps more than they should.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, halfling.
Benefit: You can take 10 on Bluff checks to convince others you are telling the truth, so long as your story makes you appear innocent. You gain a +2 bonus on Disguise skill checks to pose as a human child, and ignore the check penalties for disguising yourself as a different race and age category while doing so.
What I suggest here is just broadening the race requirement. :)
I let people reskin. Not as big a deal for me. I also think pass for human is ridiculously overpriced as a feat and I'm not going to tax someone for doing what they want. I might have an issue if one day they look 12 and the next they enter a bar saying they look 21 and their physical features keep changing in weird ways that don't make sense, but that's more of a consistency thing than anything.
RAW/RAI the races can look very similar. Look at how many different kinds of catfolk and assimar there are. Some look almost human, others look like a third or fourth species is involved and they might be the missing link. Something to consider is racial heritage and child like aren't 1st only feats, so it would be weird to force someone to take them for appearances(its barely a feat as is, imo). Besides, can make the game interesting for people to bring different aspects with roleplay, which is something I like.
If it's so important not to waste a feat, in my game, you'll just invest lots in Disguise. Reskinning has its limits.
Reskinning has its limits.
The only limit is physical anatomy! Your not gonna' get vestigial wings without wings or a prehensile tail without a tail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are certain aspects of reskinning that just bug me. When push comes to shove, I usually say spend the feat (or buy the trait). Otherwise, it's a bit unfair to the already barely-used Disguise skill.
Reskinned or not, your Xling is identifiable as a Xling unless you use the mechanics not to.
This becomes important when factoring a whole range of game mechanics, and especially so in combat. People will respond to a 10 year old weak sickly child one way, and a Sylph in quite another. That is mechanical advantage for free. Certain regions will respond to certain races in certain ways, but if you are now 'just a little girl' and bypass that, then its a mechanical advantage for free.
It's not always about getting an extra benefit (like wings and tail as you suggest) its just as often about side-stepping negatives.