I was curious about something.
I know people in my group love playing the monster or at least a type of odd creature, rarely do we ever pull monsters like Abberations or the like.
But Feys and Monstrous Humanoids are popular.
So I was curious if anyone else would ever let one into their games? If you have have they screwed it up any? Would you recommend against it?
For example I have players who are looking at a Leprechaun and a Sasquatch Character idea.
I think the Sasquatch is wanting to play a Wookie like character while the Leprechaun is just a huge lover of Irish Lore and would love to be the little mischief maker (She has previously played a pixie like race I build for her.. and dang near TPKed the party with an exploding gunpowder incident.)
So if I let the Sasquatch into the game, should I be considered by his... well +12 Str?
Here is the 3rd party side like to him
What would you do if someone really wanted to play something like a Dryad a creature bonded to a tree who takes a d6 of Con damage every day they are more then 300 Ft from their tree.
|
What I would do? rework them with race points from the Advanced Race Guide to be somewhat playable.
If you really want to let them play a monster character as described...frankly i do no freebies and follow the rules described in the bestiary to play monsters. The problem it is , a rather slow progression and the player might feel shafted often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I know about the rule of playing the CR of the race as their level adjustment. So a CR 2 race would only be playable at level 3.
But I have heard you can pay off CR to half of the original CR of the creature rounded down. So a CR 2 becomes a CR 1 after three levels so at level 6 I think?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to help people make the concepts they are interested in, but party balance and taking a strange race for mechanical benefits is a different thing.
I would tend to look at re-skining an existing race, possibly with a few alterations or building with the advanced race guide, although that can become fairly broken too if you aren't careful.
For the leprechaun, it seems to me that the gnome race pretty much has all of the mechanics and flavor you need to create a player version of a leprechaun. For the Sasquatch, it depends greatly on what they are really trying to get, but if it just being hairy well that is easy.
Agreed with Dave Justus.
Mechanics and flavor are two very different things. I will let your reflavor anything to anything else.
The mechanics however are the hard part. Now, I agree to an extent that you want mechanics to match concept, but many NPC races/monsters are very difficult to balance within a party. For me as a GM, balance is the second most important issue. With making sure everybody is having fun being the first.
If anything, I might consider letting a player play a very odd race, but they will either have to grow into it (gaining powers as they level up, possibly never gaining certian things) or if the game starts high enough then you may just start a few levels behind. I will go ahead and also say I will probably overbalance towards you being underpowered, to make sure your uniqueness doesn't cause you to outshine the other players.
So...I might allow it, but it probably wont be good mechanically.
Okay. The very general answers are "It depends on the campaign" and "It depends on you, the DM."
General Answers About My GMing Style
Myself, I can be a bit of a hardass about letting players play something off-the-wall - rather, something that doesn't fit into the lore of the setting I'm running. Let's take your Sasquatch example. In a typical D&D setting, I'd be really apprehensive about the idea, and instead would say "Okay, why don't we look at creatures that are SIMILAR?" Why not a half-ogre? Why not a swamp troll? Why not something that already exists in this universe I have?
If it exists within the universe, I'm much more open to the idea, but then it depends on A) why the player wants to play this race and B) whether the race is too powerful. Typically speaking, if I find a race is too powerful, I allow the player to play it IF they let me reduce its power significantly for them. (I.E. I don't want, in Pathfinder, a 26 STR character running alongside a human fighter with 18 STR at level 1.) Also, if I don't like the player's reasons for wanting to play the race... I just don't let them. That's it; that's that. I'm the GM, and while my goal is to make a fun, engaging game for everyone, if I don't enjoy the game then I'll just end up making the game unfun. Sometimes having someone play a redeemed Drow, for instance, is so unfun for me that I just have to say "No" to it in my campaign.
Specific Answers to Specific Examples
The Dryad idea seems like it wouldn't work out, not with the constant CON damage. I'm sure you could find a way to wiggle around that (Lesser Restoration), but I'd just say "No, that doesn't make sense to me." I'd be more open to a partially fey character. I'd accept a Dryad who DOESN'T suffer that problem with a tree if the game was highish level.
Sasquatches? Depends wholly on the campaign, because I'd just say "Okay, you have a +4 to STR and a -2 to INT and CHA. Go." No need to give them +12 STR and break the low level game. So, all that matters is whether or not a sasquatch fits the lore or the setting or the themes. If it doesn't, I negotiate with the player and find a similar-but-different race.
Leprechauns... Same thing as with the Sasquatches. Make sure the stats are acceptable to me and make sure the race fits the lore for the setting I have.
In my current campaign I'd have said 'No' to the Dryad and pointed them toward a satyr race in that setting, have said 'yes' to the sasquatch and made my own stats, and said 'okay, but they're not called that in my setting' to the Leprechaun. (They're called Mites, and they're mean little bastards.)
There is a reflavor option but I also have to say when you break it down to that point then there is no point in any race. Oh you want to play an Elf that is a +2 to one ability and a bonus feat, you want to be a Dwarf? Your short and you have a +2 to one ability and a bonus feat.
Humans are OP, they have some of the best exclusive traits and feats, a free bonus feat, ect. So why wouldn't you just reflavor the most powerful race as that of what you want.
I really dislike the idea of Punishing a player for wanting to play a unique creature or race.
Myself, I try to make sure the options available to them are good options, but I won't generally just allow a very powerful race without seriously considering "Is there a way I could fix this so it would be playable from the level I want to start the game at?" That level is frequently level 1.
So, if someone picks a race for flavor, I'll work with them. If they REALLY just want mechanical benefits, I'll say no.
EDIT: By work with them I mean "Work out a deal," basically.
Now, if that mechanical benefit is just the ability to do one or two really cool things - let's say I have a Grippli player that wishes their tongue was prehensile - I may allow them to trade something out for that ability on a standard race or even just say "Sure, why not?"
I really dislike the idea of Punishing a player for wanting to play a unique creature or race.
In my experience the players after really unique races are after the mechanical benefits, not the role play of such a unique race. This is nto true of all players, but many.
If a player is not willing to be a little worse to fulfill his concept, in my mind then he's not after the role play he's after the mechanics.
Perhaps I am a bit jaded from the the consistently annoying munchkin who attempts to do such things in every game we play, but this is simply my experience.
I will say that I have some minor experience with players who are not attempting to just go for mechanics and are willing to accept that their character will not be as strong. Usually, to those players I will try to make sure that I provide extra bonuses in game for them. Such as one player wanted to play a ninja kitty. Yes, a house cat that was a ninja. Using house cat stats. He got a free helm of telepathy that only worked with his caretaker (who was a squire as per the feat).
However letting a player play a race with a +12 strength bonus or regeneration 10 is pretty much just straight out the door. Not without significant drawbacks.
Well lets look at the Sasquatch
Your a large Medium creature I would say roughly 7 foot tall you are also big and built like a brick house and have the strength to match. You are also the first target of anyone attacking the party as you are clearly the most imposing threat, the largest target for an archer and the most likely to get into trouble with citywatch guards who are looking to make sure trouble doesn't break out with the giant man-beast comes to town.
You also only speak Sasquatch and thus cannot be understood by anyone who didn't invest a skill point to learning to talk to you. Which adds more RP issues as people are not going to know what your saying is your translator is not there.
Yes you could mimick this with a Feral Gargun from 3.5 which has a handy Monster Race build in Races of Stone but its still not the same fluff or idea as for example the Sasquatch has that forest strider ability that sure you can handwave bonuses to but again thats not the character.
For Leprechaun they have a persona, their mischief makers, hard drinkers, and fun loving little snots. They are good at manipulation and getting out of trouble via magic or wit.
Yes you could use a gnome as refluff.. but why a gnome. Couldn't you play a human and say they are gnome sized rather then a gnome race if everyone is human all balance is there.
Refluff takes you only so far.
Yes you can say No to any idea that does not fit thats the ability of a DM.
Adjusting stats makes sense, typically what I do is run the stats shown into a point buy calculator and adjust for what the 15 points are and give adjustments off their. But you can still end up with pretty high stat adjustments. Though typically this also means the character is aiming toward a specific idea of the character. Example being the Sasquatch as a Barbarian, so he is a Str centric character who can be easily overcome with any other method of combat from fireballs to mind control adding buffs to str only goes so far. The Leprechaun has a lot of mind trick powers, basically as if it had a level of Bard so likely its going to be played more toward a bardic character where str is a serious problem and so getting in close and dealing damage is a good way to counter them.
Just playing Devils Advocate for argument sake, all the ideas are great so far.
I really dislike the idea of Punishing a player for wanting to play a unique creature or race.
In my experience the players after really unique races are after the mechanical benefits, not the role play of such a unique race. This is nto true of all players, but many.
If a player is not willing to be a little worse to fulfill his concept, in my mind then he's not after the role play he's after the mechanics.
Perhaps I am a bit jaded from the the consistently annoying munchkin who attempts to do such things in every game we play, but this is simply my experience.
I will say that I have some minor experience with players who are not attempting to just go for mechanics and are willing to accept that their character will not be as strong. Usually, to those players I will try to make sure that I provide extra bonuses in game for them. Such as one player wanted to play a ninja kitty. Yes, a house cat that was a ninja. Using house cat stats. He got a free helm of telepathy that only worked with his caretaker (who was a squire as per the feat).
However letting a player play a race with a +12 strength bonus or regeneration 10 is pretty much just straight out the door. Not without significant drawbacks.
I am not talking about adjustments as a punishment. I mean like the old LA adjustments of 3.5 style punishment. Where you play with RHD and a boat load of bloated LA empty levels that where basically there just to say "No screw you" to a player wanting to play something.
Of course they want mechanical benefits. Again we then fall into the trap of Then why not just use Human mechanics for every race just reskin them. You want to play a Elf, Halfling, Dwarf, Etc you get a +2 to one chosen ability score and a free feat... refluff everything else. Elf has really long ears and the Halfling is just a very short person suffering from some sort of dwarfism.
They want mechanical benefits that outweigh that of other races (that are available to other players). That is the rub.
We don't need to use humans specifically, but there is probably something that can be refitted to match the fluff and still be relatively balaced.
Sasquath? Use an Orc, +4 strength, -2 int/wis/cha. Lose darkvision and light sensitvity and trade for low-light vision. Begins play with sasquatch language. Trade ferocity for scent. Trade weapon familiarity for woodland stride. And either a +2 to stealth or survival for only having one language. Pretty simple reskin that should do the job in my book. There you have a sasquatch.
They want mechanical benefits that outweigh that of other races (that are available to other players). That is the rub.
We don't need to use humans specifically, but there is probably something that can be refitted to match the fluff and still be relatively balaced.
Sasquath? Use an Orc, +4 strength, -2 int/wis/cha. Lose darkvision and light sensitvity and trade for low-light vision. Begins play with sasquatch language. Trade ferocity for scent. Trade weapon familiarity for woodland stride. And either a +2 to stealth or survival for only having one language. Pretty simple reskin that should do the job in my book. There you have a sasquatch.
He's got the right idea. It's not that hard to fix a race so it works from level 1 and is still unique.
They want mechanical benefits that outweigh that of other races (that are available to other players). That is the rub.
We don't need to use humans specifically, but there is probably something that can be refitted to match the fluff and still be relatively balaced.
Sasquath? Use an Orc, +4 strength, -2 int/wis/cha. Lose darkvision and light sensitvity and trade for low-light vision. Begins play with sasquatch language. Trade ferocity for scent. Trade weapon familiarity for woodland stride. And either a +2 to stealth or survival for only having one language. Pretty simple reskin that should do the job in my book. There you have a sasquatch.
That is a really good reskin. But that also saddles them with Light Sensitivity and a serious neg to all mental stats. Focusing them to pour all their points into mental stats to off so their not suffering a mental handicap due to their physical strength.
Not saying that is not fair, but might not play into the players desire for the character, I mean seriously have you seen Chewie? I doubt he has Negs to more then Cha.
Now yes this is Far more balanced, but also cuts into the character a bit, sure he can play the character as wise and strong and blah blah blah but when he tries to roll that knowledge check he is suffering a serious neg to it when hell maybe thats his character to know that such as Knowledge Nature check for a creature who lives exclusively in the woods suffering a -1 for example to the check... why?
You missed the part where I said you're trading in darkvision and light sensitvity for just plain low light vision. So no, no saddling there.
And a sasquatch isn't a wookie.
A sasquatch doesn't have exceptional int or charisma. At best you might say he shouldn't have the wisdom penalty, but honestly we have pretty standard ability point scheme laid out to us. +4 to one physical or mental ability and -2 to the all of the opposite of physical or mental from the first choice is a standard array. To make things fair this is pretty par for the course.
Remember the player can choose to not go so hard into strength to make up for the deficet on their other stats. It is their choice as a player to fully flesh out the character. You're not supposed to be good at everything.
You missed the part where I said you're trading in darkvision and light sensitvity for just plain low light vision. So no, no saddling there.
And a sasquatch isn't a wookie.
Yes I did miss that part somehow, thank you.
And no they are much smarter and more cunning then an average Wookie if you believe they exist today in the real world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if he wants specific things, like better Knowledge: Nature, then he can negotiate with his GM. It's bargaining. One party says what they want; the other makes an offer. A racial +2 to Nature checks is possible, etc.
Don't forget that traits are part of character creation. If the player still isn't satisfied, they can use that.
If they can't agree with you on what's fair then they can use one of the other races you've allowed or designed and it's as simple as that.
You missed the part where I said you're trading in darkvision and light sensitvity for just plain low light vision. So no, no saddling there.
And a sasquatch isn't a wookie.
Yes I did miss that part somehow, thank you.
And no they are much smarter and more cunning then an average Wookie if you believe they exist today in the real world.
I don't, and they're not. At least not based on Pathfinder rules.
Sasquatch has only 9 int, 10 wis, and 11 cha.
With what I have suggested you can have these stats on a 20 point buy:
STR: 20 (16+4 from race) DEX: 14 CON: 14 INT: 7 WIS: 8 CHA: 9
or this one (at 21 points)
STR: 20 DEX: 10 CON: 14 INT: 9 WIS: 10 CHA: 11
The point is that you have to pick and choose your balance and how you want to play the character.
You don't get to play a super paragon that's good at everything just because you want to.
I agree, I am just saying I am playing the advocate of the player, I agree with you all we need to find a proper balancing point.
But I did have a question, say the player picked a human character, but was using a rolled system and got all 18s. Would that person need to be penalized with a adjustment in level, or stats or something to balance out the party?
I ask this because while doing a 2d6+6 roll I did manage an all 18... which my DM promptly checked my dice for signs of cheating and then rolled my dice a good dozen times and figured my dice where just lucky when he hit a few 18s but also rolled a few 3s.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the problem with over powered races. It isn't that the GM can't 'deal' with them, it that it limits anyone else playing to either being sub-par or also only playing the 'super races'
You allow your Sasquatch with +12 str in your game, and that player plays him as a barbarian. I am also interesting in playing a barbarian, and being a fan of Conan, I pick a human. Now, with the other player getting a bonus of +5 to hit and damage compared to me, I am looking pretty pathetic, and probably not having too much fun. This addition of the Sasquatch has probably made any non-Sasquatch melee character not viable in your game, and pretty soon any one who plays a melee character will feel like they have to be a Sasquatch.
Other powerful races have similar problems. If one choice is clearly mechanically superior to others then by allowing it, you are in effect almost disallowing anything else.
I agree, I am just saying I am playing the advocate of the player, I agree with you all we need to find a proper balancing point.
But I did have a question, say the player picked a human character, but was using a rolled system and got all 18s. Would that person need to be penalized with a adjustment in level, or stats or something to balance out the party?
I ask this because while doing a 2d6+6 roll I did manage an all 18... which my DM promptly checked my dice for signs of cheating and then rolled my dice a good dozen times and figured my dice where just lucky when he hit a few 18s but also rolled a few 3s.
Yes, that's why we use point buy and don't roll for stats. Actually, I am more generous than that, and use a stat array. 16/16/15/14/13/11 (before racial adjustments), distributed as you like. No one likes playing sidekick to the guy that rolled all 18s.
Luck should not determine something so long lasting and important.
Here is the problem with over powered races. It isn't that the GM can't 'deal' with them, it that it limits anyone else playing to either being sub-par or also only playing the 'super races'
You allow your Sasquatch with +12 str in your game, and that player plays him as a barbarian. I am also interesting in playing a barbarian, and being a fan of Conan, I pick a human. Now, with the other player getting a bonus of +5 to hit and damage compared to me, I am looking pretty pathetic, and probably not having too much fun. This addition of the Sasquatch has probably made any non-Sasquatch melee character not viable in your game, and pretty soon any one who plays a melee character will feel like they have to be a Sasquatch.
Other powerful races have similar problems. If one choice is clearly mechanically superior to others then by allowing it, you are in effect almost disallowing anything else.
Exactly, if your race is better for a character type (such a melee fighter) than any other possible race...then allowing that race means your forcing other players to be worse or choose the "unique" race just to stay competitive.
If someone that just loved irish lore asked to play a Leprechaun, the first thing I'd do is try to sell them on the idea of a gnome.
Small? Check.
Penchant for bright red hair and colorful (green) clothes? Check.
Likes to play pranks on people? Check.
Has a link to the fey? Check.
Has innate magical powers? Check.
Gnomes are already really close to Leprechauns straight out of the box.
RESPONDING TO TITLE ALONE
No, not really. It's not that I'm against drugs in general, but X is not conducive to tabletop. I find people on ecstasy are really sweaty and keep trying to hug you, which is distracting to playing an RPG.
But mushrooms...you can have a damn fine game when those are involved.
Here is the problem with over powered races. It isn't that the GM can't 'deal' with them, it that it limits anyone else playing to either being sub-par or also only playing the 'super races'
You allow your Sasquatch with +12 str in your game, and that player plays him as a barbarian. I am also interesting in playing a barbarian, and being a fan of Conan, I pick a human. Now, with the other player getting a bonus of +5 to hit and damage compared to me, I am looking pretty pathetic, and probably not having too much fun. This addition of the Sasquatch has probably made any non-Sasquatch melee character not viable in your game, and pretty soon any one who plays a melee character will feel like they have to be a Sasquatch.
Other powerful races have similar problems. If one choice is clearly mechanically superior to others then by allowing it, you are in effect almost disallowing anything else.
Indeed, but also you have the issue of that Sasquatch playing levels behind. So while your BAB grows and you gain more access to cool Class Features they dont get them for several levels. So that human has a Rage Power, +3 BAB, 3d12 HD, Good Fort save and so forth and access to more then just the racial weapon (Club in this case)
I agree, I am just saying I am playing the advocate of the player, I agree with you all we need to find a proper balancing point.
But I did have a question, say the player picked a human character, but was using a rolled system and got all 18s. Would that person need to be penalized with a adjustment in level, or stats or something to balance out the party?
I ask this because while doing a 2d6+6 roll I did manage an all 18... which my DM promptly checked my dice for signs of cheating and then rolled my dice a good dozen times and figured my dice where just lucky when he hit a few 18s but also rolled a few 3s.
Yes, that's why we use point buy and don't roll for stats. Actually, I am more generous than that, and use a stat array. 16/16/15/14/13/11 (before racial adjustments), distributed as you like. No one likes playing sidekick to the guy that rolled all 18s.
Luck should not determine something so long lasting and important.
Exactly, if your race is better for a character type (such a melee fighter) than any other...Here is the problem with over powered races. It isn't that the GM can't 'deal' with them, it that it limits anyone else playing to either being sub-par or also only playing the 'super races'
You allow your Sasquatch with +12 str in your game, and that player plays him as a barbarian. I am also interesting in playing a barbarian, and being a fan of Conan, I pick a human. Now, with the other player getting a bonus of +5 to hit and damage compared to me, I am looking pretty pathetic, and probably not having too much fun. This addition of the Sasquatch has probably made any non-Sasquatch melee character not viable in your game, and pretty soon any one who plays a melee character will feel like they have to be a Sasquatch.
Other powerful races have similar problems. If one choice is clearly mechanically superior to others then by allowing it, you are in effect almost disallowing anything else.
I don't really like Point Buy, it makes everything seem so static and dry and boring.
And I must ask now, how to do you handle the end game power difference. When the Wizard can casually destroy countries at will, and the Barbarian is barely able to put a dent in another level 20 fighter... how do you handle that power difference because there goes balance.
Yes, I would consider it.
If I had two players both wanting to play more exotic creatures, I'd let the other players choose between playing an exotic creature themselves, or a nice bonus. I've done it before, and it worked out pretty well. It depends on your preferred game style. A party of monster type creatures is probably not going to be great for an AP (both in terms of power level and reasonable townspeople reaction), but you can tell all kinds of interesting stories with them.
Um, I'm not gonna quote and cut the whole thing out, cause I'm on a phone and that'd take even longer than this explanation, but...its in regard to the last paragraph of OTOH's post.
If you're playing past level six or so, you don't really care about balance that much, because once casters get fourth level spells it isn't really fair anymore.
If you're playing at 20th, you've abandoned all pretenses that you give a flying crap about it.
Honestly, though, if you're playing any class-based system you have to just accept that they're either all going to be the same mechanics with different flavor text, or some choices will inherently be better than others.
I've said before, you can make the only two choices for a feat possible be Piranha Strike and Power Attack (damnnear the same feat) and there will still be a mouth breather on the sidelines whining that Piranha Strike doesn't let you two-hand for extra damage and that Power Attack is OP. Cries of "Paizo hates Piranha Strike" would run rampant, and the people would say anyone who picks Power Attack isn't a true roleplayer, but is a dirty min-maxing rollplayer who hates puppies.
I don't really like Point Buy, it makes everything seem so static and dry and boring.
And I must ask now, how to do you handle the end game power difference. When the Wizard can casually destroy countries at will, and the Barbarian is barely able to put a dent in another level 20 fighter... how do you handle that power difference because there goes balance.
You say static dry and boring. I say fair. Fairness is more important.
As far as being fair between a wizard and a barbarian...the player gets to choose what class to play. He imposes the limitation on himself, not the luck of random dice rolls.
Also, don't play games to level 20. The game is inherently unbalanced and not really playable at that point for anyone but full casters.
A good place to end camapaigns is between levels 13-15. This is before caster go to far off the deep end in shenanigans. Though there are a few problematic spells that have to be addressed individually.
But again, it's player choice instead of luck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a sasquatch in real life, and actually we're pretty much the same as wookies since they were based on us. In the real world we're the ones with the lightsabers though.
Our race actually has a +12 Str and a +4 Int too. We use super science to dwell not in the spaces you know but between them, coming into your world mostly to play pranks which get blamed on leprechauns. That commercial about us taking the remote control was no joke, and we know where your lost socks and underwear go.
Anyhow, we're obviously way too awesome to be balanced with lesser races, but you could check out some old 3e material like Savage Species for some idea on how to construct balanced "monster classes" where PCs gain the abilities of iconic monsters over a number of levels. Another option is to play a Summoner and use the eidolon to represent the monster the player wants as a PC. Since some folks consider the eidolon better than certain base classes it might even be balanced/fun to just let the PC be an unfettered eidolon (possibly with regular point buy or rolled ability scores)
The leprachaun is a bit much with its sla that give it a tone of prowess as a manipulator but a cr 2 sounds right
Overall i would but only with their cr being rolled into level. So unless the game starts at 2 or three they cant play. 3gives them cr 2/x1 because being delayed by two levels is a hinder. As well as their likely smaller hd.
Point buy = more conducive to player choice. Rolling = lol luck
And this I say as someone that gets really high numbers for stats as a player whenever rolls are allowed.
One thing that I've done in the past is make a set array for 4 stats and let the players roll for the last two stats, ensuring there is at least SOME consistency. I've also tried a system wherein you point buy, then roll a 1d4 after setting your stats up where you like them to get bonus points to allocate wherever.
Simple stuff.
When the heck did Luck become a bad thing in D&D or PF? How do you guys stand rolling dice for To Hit or Damage? How do you do that when it all comes down to luck and thus might be really unfair. I mean the other guy could roll really bad.
Fair and Balanced is hard to do in a game based on dice.
I generally let people play anything that's CR 3 or less as a PC using the 'Monsters as PC' rules from the Bestiary.
I generally don't ban things outright, I don't usually like to do that. I do say 'no 3pp unless you can put it in my hands prior to game time'.
I don't like point buy because all the characters end up with the same stats anyway, and it's always 16, 14, 12, 10, 10, 8 or something like that.
What I do do however, is roll 3 sets of stats, and let all players pick from those 3 arrays. Often they'll pick the same array, but just as often they don't (depends on the rolls). So somewhat more organic but still fair (so you don't have that one guy who always rolls cruddy).
I am just surprised that people would not let someone who rolls really just roll really well without punishing them somehow.
So if they get uber lucky and roll all 18s they deserved to be punished and penalized in effort to be fair.
So why don't we just make it a straight array of 12s I mean that is uber fair.
|
|
Why would anybody bother punishing someone who rolled well? those are the risks when you do roll for stats. Sometime, someone roll very well and that's that.
Frankly rolling well, usually doesn't mean a lot, since some classes only function with one stat, so if the guy who has 18s everywhere is a wizard...whatever, not like , he is going to go in melee and swing his staff. But well usually when someone rolls well, they would take advantage of it to play concept/characters they wouldn't normally be able to get away with.
I'm going to ramble a bit.
In a homespun, contintent-spanning game, I am usually willing to let players be whatever they want to be, but I will warn them that the world will react to them as what they are, so they should choose wisely. Our homespun games are 90% roleplay/10% combat, and unbalanced combat doesn't bother our players.
- BUT -
The one time I had a player who chose to play a "non-traditional" race (a griffon, in this case), I warned her over and over again: "You are considered a wild predator of the mountains. You will not be welcome in cities or towns," and she responded, "Oh, that's OK, I can live with that."
So we open the campaign, in the first 5 minutes she flies down into the dead center of town square "to prove that she's not like the other griffons".
So I riddled her with crossbow bolts, told her to roll up a new character, and called it good.
In APs, it's FAR more important to stick to your guns. Our Kingmaker campaign was ruined by one guy who "just had this really cool idea for a custom race", but he wanted to be fey, he wanted Tongues as an at-will spell-like ability, and he wanted to be known by and on friendly terms with all the noble houses of the River Kingdoms. In 6 months of arguing and demanding he finish his character, he never did, and since kicking him would have ended the campaign anyway, I just pulled the plug on it.
=====
On the other hand, my older son grabs any old random race (sverfneblin, grippli, fetchling) and plays them magnificently as the quirky outsiders they should be, and doesn't even pay attention to things like spell-like abilities or racial immunities when he chooses them.
=====
In short, I've never seen an adult pull off an exotic race in an "adult" manner. No matter how much they insist that it's for 'flavor', you always end up in arguments with them because they just *HAVE* to have some game-altering ability 'because it fits in with their character concept'.
If my son told me that he was going to play a sentient bulette for our next campaign, I'd go ahead and let him, just to see what he did with it. It may be the father/son relationship, or the adult/child, but when I tell him, "No, you can't do that," that's the end of it and he doesn't fight it. With adult players and their 'pet' races, you'll end up in an argument every. Single. Session. About what they 'should' be able to do.
It's a pain. I wouldn't do it.
Why would anybody bother punishing someone who rolled well?
I don't.
When the heck did Luck become a bad thing in D&D or PF?
So if they get uber lucky and roll all 18s they deserved to be punished and penalized in effort to be fair.
So why don't we just make it a straight array of 12s I mean that is uber fair.
Firstly, your broad, sweeping generalizations are silly, sir.
Rolling for stats is great and all, but half the time one player (myself if I'm playing) rolls really great stats and someone else rolls really bad stats. It's a feeling not everyone likes. Half the time someone asks for a reroll, or they get that face that screams "Oh God I should be pitying this person because look at that 5, 8, and 4 sitting on their character sheet." No joke, I've seen that, and it wasn't a nice day for that player. The other stats were suboptimal, too.So, I prefer the consistency of point buy or partial point buy for certain games. Point Buy gives you more control over the creation of your character, and it means parties will generally be better balanced so long as everyone has a roughly equal mastery over the system. You still get some vastly different arrays with point buy, too... and occasionally people who are really bad at math and are playing a human / half-elf / half-orc and allocate that +2 badly, but let's move on past those moments.
When I want to throw the players at a megadungeon or the like, I say, "Okay, roll those stats up and get ready to grit your teeth and take what you get." It feels more old school and fitting that way.
The point is: some people have different playstyles and different GMing styles. If you don't agree with it, that's fine. GMs should have different styles of running a game, the better to cater to a variety of different sorts of players.
whatever, not like , he is going to go in melee and swing his staff.
My 3.5 march-into-the-melee wizard did just that and was super effective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one time I had a player who chose to play a "non-traditional" race (a griffon, in this case), I warned her over and over again: "You are considered a wild predator of the mountains. You will not be welcome in cities or towns," and she responded, "Oh, that's OK, I can live with that."
So we open the campaign, in the first 5 minutes she flies down into the dead center of town square "to prove that she's not like the other griffons".
So I riddled her with crossbow bolts, told her to roll up a new character, and called it good.
I had a similar situation come up with a player who wanted to play an undead... something in an old campaign of mine. "I'll roleplay this guy well," he said. "I won't do anything silly and I accept the consequences of being undead," he said.
And then he proceeded to reveal himself in town and then he died.
Sorry, but if you're a zombie, someone's going to chop your head off and call it a day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my very first Pathfinder game, we rolled for stats. I didn't know about point buy, so I accepted it. I thought a magus looked cool, so I decided to play that. I rolled 4d6, with the lowest one being dropped.
My highest rolled stat was a 15.
In this game also existed a wizard and a cavalier. The wizard had rolled 2 18s while the cavalier had rolled 3 18s and a 16.
This was a level 4-5 campaign.
My character basically ended up completely overshadowed whenever he tried to do something, since the Cavalier (and a ranger who also rolled 2 18s) would often annhilate the lower level monsters while I struggled to hit anything and the wizard would have better spells and was better able to make concentration checks. Hell, the wizard often had much better AC than me (I had the lowest in the group).
Luckily, with a crash course in system mastery, a blackblade to increase my to-hit, and a decent Shocking Grasp delivered from a Spellstrike, I managed to contribute decently well against the smaller enemies. OOC I was also able to contribute to our group's basic strategy and planning.
But to this day I don't understand why people would choose to roll for stats. This isn't like rolling for your to-hit or your damage. Those rolls you can increase. Those rolls you can always just try again. You can mitigate poor rolls with class features and system mastery. But no amount of system mastery in the world is going to mitigate poor stat rolls, and you only get one chance before they stay with your character FOREVER.
Sure, eventually you can buy belts or other items to increase your stats, but unbalanced stats in the party means that if the GM has to account for the people with good stats, the people with bad stats get left to be completely useless.
And of course this might not have happened if I hadn't chosen a gish class with poor system mastery in the first place. But things like AC, to-hit, and concentration checks would have been a whole lot easier to fix if my stats were more in line with the rest of freakish rollers that composed the rest of the team. The enemies could have had lower AC if it wasn't so easy for everyone else to hit them. The enemies could have had lower to-hit bonuses if it wasn't so easy for everyone else to dodge them.
Long story short, rolling for stats can create disparity in group power for little justification other than "Them's the breaks, kid!"
It's not fun. And games should be played to have fun.
My 3.5 march-into-the-melee wizard did just that and was super effective.
Just like electric pokemon against flying pokemon! Woo hoo!
Here is how i do it. We roll our stats and then we decide on the best array for the game. Typically this means a choice of the highest array. But the whole group shares
I am just surprised that people would not let someone who rolls really just roll really well without punishing them somehow.
So if they get uber lucky and roll all 18s they deserved to be punished and penalized in effort to be fair.
So why don't we just make it a straight array of 12s I mean that is uber fair.
It never seems to surprise me that people take something like 'I roll 3 sets and everyone can choose from those so nobody feels like they got hosed' and turn it into 'why you gotta hate me for being a super uber roll master?'.
*le sigh*
It is not about punishing the person who rolls uber high (which by the way, happens way less than the guy who rolls 8, 5, 8, 10, 12, 11). It's about making sure nobody get's hosed over in the stat lottery.
I swear sometimes the people on these boards can't read anything without making it about how they got picked on in dodge ball in school.
I am just surprised that people would not let someone who rolls really just roll really well without punishing them somehow.
So if they get uber lucky and roll all 18s they deserved to be punished and penalized in effort to be fair.
So why don't we just make it a straight array of 12s I mean that is uber fair.
Hilariously, an array of straight 12's is incredibly unfair because it shifts the balance towards anything with a buddy, particularly Summoners and other conjuring classes.
Hilariously, an array of straight 12's is incredibly unfair because it shifts the balance towards anything with a buddy, particularly Summoners and other conjuring classes.I am just surprised that people would not let someone who rolls really just roll really well without punishing them somehow.
So if they get uber lucky and roll all 18s they deserved to be punished and penalized in effort to be fair.
So why don't we just make it a straight array of 12s I mean that is uber fair.
Actually it gives anyone who is a caster an edge, As 12 means you can cast level 2 spells without needing to boost your scores any. But yes Summoners and the like get great aid from that.
My comment was more about how it seemed like everyone was saying rolled stats are just awful because random chance might occur.
Sure it sucks when your the guy who rolls really low. But why kill the buzz of the guy who got the high roll? Why does he have to be subpar just because luck shat on the other guy?
It reminds me of that thing they do in schools today where everyone get a trophy, the exact same identical trophy for participating.
Where the kid who is actually good at it and tries his hardest gets the same exact reward as the kid who stood there picking his nose and complained about having to move the whole time.
Yes it sucks to roll low, but it feels awesome to roll high its why we get a thrill when we roll a critical threat.
Sure it sucks when your the guy who rolls really low. But why kill the buzz of the guy who got the high roll?
I don't think anyone was advocating that. Either you play by a system where everyone rolls dice for their stats, in which case you are actively encouraging a mixture of overpowered and underpowered characters, or you play by a system that imposes balance.
It reminds me of that thing they do in schools today where everyone get a trophy, the exact same identical trophy for participating.
Where the kid who is actually good at it and tries his hardest gets the same exact reward as the kid who stood there picking his nose and complained about having to move the whole time.
You're comparing someone who rolls some high numbers on some dice to someone achieving impressive results through hard work and skill?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one time I had a player who chose to play a "non-traditional" race (a griffon, in this case), I warned her over and over again: "You are considered a wild predator of the mountains. You will not be welcome in cities or towns," and she responded, "Oh, that's OK, I can live with that."
So we open the campaign, in the first 5 minutes she flies down into the dead center of town square "to prove that she's not like the other griffons".
So I riddled her with crossbow bolts, told her to roll up a new character, and called it good.I had a similar situation come up with a player who wanted to play an undead... something in an old campaign of mine. "I'll roleplay this guy well," he said. "I won't do anything silly and I accept the consequences of being undead," he said.
And then he proceeded to reveal himself in town and then he died.
Sorry, but if you're a zombie, someone's going to chop your head off and call it a day.
These sound a bit passive aggressive. Why allow something if you're going to snatch it away at the first opportunity? Just be direct, and say no upfront.
In my case, I feel it wasn't passive-aggressive because I warned her, "If I let you do this, you CANNOT go into towns. You CANNOT go into towns. You CANNOT go into towns."
And the VERY first thing she did was go into town.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say, "OK, you want to play something that's extremely out-of-the-ordinary. I'll allow it, but here are the rules you're going to have to follow," and then, when they explicitly, intentionally, knowingly violate those rules in the first 5 minutes of play you end their experiment.
I wasn't angry; I just felt that if her very first act as a PC was going to be to violate the single rule I'd given her, she was going to play that PC as too much of a headache for me to bother with.
I accept I was a jerk. I don't think it was passive-aggressive because there was nothing passive about it. "Here are my rules." "Nyah! I'm going to ignore them!" "Fine. Roll up a new PC."