I feel like I have failed (optomized rant)

[Nodrog]

I admit to liking variety in the party, and so created a starting port city large enough to allow any race Paizo has put in a book to be a player character...

My wife is a Samsaran, and the rest are humans. So five humans and a Samsaran.

Same with class any published class and I get: fighter, cleric, paladin, monk, sorcerer. And a swashbuckler.

So the only interesting character to me is the Samsaran Swashbuckler.

And they are all human for the same reason, +2 to what ever they want and the bonus feat. So human just cause they are more concerned with character optimization than making a fun character.

I kind of blame the class build guides put out by lots of people. Which takes away some of the creativity in character creation. Sure a Kitsune isn't a numbers perfect race for a war priest, but the concept is interesting and the high dex with the right weapon makes for an effective melee. Yes the -2 to str hurts the damage dealt, however the sacred weapon and the weapon enhancements the war priest can do evens it out a bit.

Still in a fantasy world where you can pretty much be anyone or thing, why would you not want to try and think of something unique and interesting? I understand that everyone's idea of fun is a bit different, but how is playing a character laid out for you every step of the way fun? At that point it is like picking a character in a video game.

[Jason S]

Maybe it's fun for them. Maybe they don't like going through books and websites or don't have time to make an effective character.

I've been playing for a long time and I've found that when everyone picks characters of different races, for some reason these have been the most uninteresting PCs I've seen.

I find a fun (or interesting) character has very little to do with the build, race, or class. If your fun is building characters, that's cool, but maybe it's not important to everyone else.

[eakratz]

I wouldn’t sweat it. I ran Legacy of Fire and made sure to not only open up all the genie related races, but I went and converted some Al-Qadim classes and PrCs to Pathfinder. And I got four humans of standard classes but we had a blast.

As far as the guides, at this point Pathfinder has gotten way too expansive to be able to create a character without a guide, imho. I rely on guides to help sift through all the chaff because there is no way I can sift through every spell and feat and make an informed decision on build.

[Slim Jim]

Run 'em through the Dungeon of Neverending Saving-Throws and eventually they'll all be dwarves, half-orcs, or halflings.

[roguerouge]

For me, I have a lot easier time identifying with characters who are human. I've played a goblin, and had a blast, so I know I can do it, but if I want to focus on story or put more of myself into the character, then human it is.

[Kitty Catoblepas]

Sometimes you just don't feel like waiting until level 3 for your build to come online (damned feat taxes).

[Cavall]

Hey I feel your pain. Humans give a lot and trade nothing, and always give in a way that allows you to focus where you want to. Your attribute. Your feat. Your skills. Hell even the alternative for class bonus is usually more spells or fractions of class focused abilities.

It also doesn't help humans are the race in current power over the world.

Still, damn shame to offer the world full of options and get traditional. Cote is core for a reason though.

[Dark Midian]

The thing is, is that the game penalizes you for not being human. The +2 and the feat really are too good.

As much fun as I do have playing aasimar, tiefling, and the odd dwarf, humans reign supreme.

[MageHunter]

Huh. My kind of optimizing is more work than its worth. :p

Anyways, I personally feel most of the variety for characters and fun in roleplaying will come from the personality and background designed for the character. It's like the difference between Harsk, a Dwarf Tea-Drinking Ranger who has a dead brother he constantly thinks about, and Dwarfy McDwarfFace who is an alcoholic beer guzzling Dwarf Fighter who is mildly racist.

I personally avoid human characters as a choice, and I don't really miss it. My crutch is Half Orcs and Half Elves, but many races can sometimes be as good as or better than humans for certain instances. For example, Dwarves make great monks. This is mechanically advantageous, and also a great story. Does he like beer as a monk? Why doesn't he use armor? Why is he so nontraditional? etc.

[Malefactor]

Slim Jim wrote:

Run 'em through the Dungeon of Neverending Saving-Throws and eventually they'll all be dwarves, half-orcs, or halflings.

Or Paladins. Or Barbarians. Or Inquisitors. Or Monks. Or Clerics. Or Rangers. Or just take Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, or Great Fortitude...

[Planpanther]

For some folks its about the adventure and not about the character.

[Marius Castille]

Their choices also let them devote more brain power to exploring your city. They won’t have to juggle unusual race/class combos *and* remember details about the campaign.

[graystone]

Nodrog wrote:

At that point it is like picking a character in a video game.

Why would you think this isn't fun? People play video games every day BECAUSE it's fun. Some people play the game for the story and that story isn't likely to change much if you're a 1/2 dragon doppleganger or a human. If a race/class combo is simple enough that it doesn't take time away from the game, all the better. I don't get the issue: Not everyone wants to be their very own special snowflake and are perfectly happy playing an 'average' adventurer.

Now my question to you is, did they make interesting, involved backgrounds with plenty of story hook or didn't they just do the bare minimum? The answer should point you to the answer to your dilemma. I suspect they are more interested in the game's story than their backstory/race/ect.

PS: I also think is false that unusual races/classes make an " interesting character". the funkiest character combo can be as dull as a brick if the player doesn't put effort into it. I also disagree that race/class combos that go against stats sre 'interesting'. They generally just make the player feel depressed/underwhelming when they underperform the 'boring' character that actually followed the math and made a character that works well from the start. At best, that kitsune warpriest gets up to 'meh' once it 'evens out'.

Now that's not to say I don't enjoy odd races/classes myself, but they have to work well mechanically and I usually invest in the characters story. The thing is, I enjoy all the moving parts and enjoy seeing what new races/classes can add to mix. Not everyone enjoys that though.

PPS: Is your game starting at 1st? The lower the level you start the game at, the more important those bonus feats are. Also what are your points for stats? The lower those are, the better SAD[single attribute characters] are.

[graystone]

Dark Midian wrote:

The thing is, is that the game penalizes you for not being human. The +2 and the feat really are too good.

As much fun as I do have playing aasimar, tiefling, and the odd dwarf, humans reign supreme.

I don't really agree with that. The thing non-human races bring to the table are two +2 stats so if you match both of those to what your class needs, you're ahead. They make it easy to start with two 18's.

I agree the extra feat is sweet, but not every class really needs many feats and many racial features are well worth multiple feats. For instance, a 1/2 orc can have +2 saves, Skilled, the Endurance feat and proficiency in multiple weapons along with the same +2 to any stat...

Human isn't always the best option, but it's by far the easiest and is never a bad choice.

[SmiloDan]

We just began a new 1st level 5th Edition campaign in a highly human homebrew world. Out of six, two were human (a cleric and a rogue), one a drow bard (me), one a half-elf warlock, and TWO mountain dwarf fighters with the dueling weapon style (one with a battle axe, one with a morningstar, so they weren't identical....). ;-)

We did choose human because it was easy for the rogue (the player last played 1st or 2nd Edition D&D), and the other was a super healer cleric (Life domain + Magic Initiate feat for a couple druid cantrips and goodberry to get ten good berries that each heal 4 hit points--that's 40 hit points of healing on a 1st level spell at 1st level--and you can distribute the healing in quanta of 4 hit points, so it's very adaptable).

The other newbie made a mountain dwarf fighter, and the ex-newbie made a mountain dwarf fighter, independent of each other.

[The Dandy Lion]

Gotta say, I agree with the sentiment that humans just often work out easiest, for RP and character building both. Even though I often pick half-human races, I certainly focus more on the 'human' aspect of their character.

I can get something more unique and interesting by focusing what kind of person they are and why they're in this adventure, than I can out of trying to justify why a space alien or blue man is in the middle of a human settlement in human country.

A character being a Vanara or Kitsune or Lashunta is just as likely to take away from a story as it is to add to it. You have to really know what you're doing with those oddball races, and not everyone is good at that.

[graystone]

The Dandy Lion wrote:

A character being a Vanara or Kitsune or Lashunta is just as likely to take away from a story as it is to add to it. You have to really know what you're doing with those oddball races, and not everyone is good at that.

I completely agree. If you put the effort into making an exotic character, it can be amazing fun to play. If you're not into the exotic part and you're just playing a human that happens to have 4 arms or has a fuzzy tail, it ends up being kind of painful to watch. Myself, I'd rather see a well played human over a horribly played exotic any day.

[WormysQueue]

Nodrog wrote:

I admit to liking variety in the party, and so created a starting port city large enough to allow any race Paizo has put in a book to be a player character...

Part of the problem might be the way those races are described in the books. I remember how I loved the new races in the Eberron setting, but that was because they had a background (especially the Kalashtar, but also the Warforged) that really appealed to me. They were steeped in the culture of the setting, and that was what made me want to play them.

And that's why I generally prefer to play the common races of a setting, because more often than not, their culture is presented in greater depth than the culture of the other races.

Quote:

Still in a fantasy world where you can pretty much be anyone or thing, why would you not want to try and think of something unique and interesting?

2 points on that question: First, your character doesn't need to belong to an exotic race to be something unique and interesting, that can be done just by playing a human as well. And second, I have to admit that I prfer playing characters that aren't created against general setting expectations. After I read the Kitsune entry in the great Dynasty Races Compendium, I thought for the first time that it might be interesting to play a member of that race. But I certainly won't do that in any game where this choice doesn't really matter because the game focusses on other aspects of the setting and the only thing changing by this choice is the mechanical numbers behind that choice.

[SmiloDan]

Also, a lot of the races have a lot of clichéd baggage: dwarves are gruff and drink ale, elves are whimsical and stuck up, halflings are annoying, gnomes are really annoying, half-orcs are dumb and brutal, half-elves are "caught between two worlds!" etc. etc.

With the more exotic races, less is known about them, but somehow they're even more clichéd. They just lack of depth of culture, history, and tradition.

Another issue with non-human races is the presence of negatives to ability scores and fixed bonuses to ability scores. Since a lot of feats and spells have a minimum ability score to use them, you're either punished for going against type, or you need a great deal of system mastery to find esoteric alternate rule systems to compensate for low ability scores.

[graystone]

SmiloDan wrote:

you need a great deal of system mastery to find esoteric alternate rule systems to compensate for low ability scores.

This isn't case most times. For instance, you take a -2 Cha with a fighting type player and you lose nothing. You lose a point of Int and it's a skill point/level, usually not an issue. Strength on a caster is hardly an issue as long as you can carry your equipment. Con, Dex and Wis are the hard one to work with,and even then you can toss 2 points into it to keep a 10.

It's easier to deal with the -2 than it is to not have a +2 in your main stat(s).

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

You seem to be confusing unusual and fun.

A character doesn't have to be unusual to be fun. Speaking as someone that's made Ghoran's, Sylphs, Vishkanye, Suli, Kasatha, Naiad and various core races.

Playing an unusual race does not equate to a fun character, playing a common one doesn't not garuntee a boring one.

[UnArcaneElection]

Nodrog wrote:

I admit to liking variety in the party, and so created a starting port city large enough to allow any race Paizo has put in a book to be a player character...

My wife is a Samsaran, and the rest are humans. So five humans and a Samsaran.

Same with class any published class and I get: fighter, cleric, paladin, monk, sorcerer. And a swashbuckler.

So the only interesting character to me is the Samsaran Swashbuckler.

And they are all human for the same reason, +2 to what ever they want and the bonus feat. So human just cause they are more concerned with character optimization than making a fun character.
{. . .}

I don't know the players of your PCs, so I could be going out on the wrong limb here, but I wonder about the following alternative possibility:

After all the bashing of "special snowflakes" I have heard on these boards, I wonder if some people feel beaten into avoiding that kind of bashing, so that even when the more off-beat choices are explicitly made available to them, they subconsciously feel compelled to go as standard as possible, and to rationalize it as being just for mechanical soundness. Of course, it also makes things worse when people get bashed for making non-optimal characters (which I have also heard of on these boards, although usually more indirectly, and more commonly with respect to Organized Play than home games).

[Matthew Downie]

Nodrog wrote:

My wife is a Samsaran, and the rest are humans...

So the only interesting character to me is the Samsaran Swashbuckler.

It must be terrible to go through life being unable to take an interest in the vast majority of fictional characters, everyone in the news, everyone in history, everyone you meet, all just a bunch of tedious humans...

[Gilfalas]

Nodrog you cannot force people to enjoy the game the way you do. Likewise you cannot cite yourself at fault if your players do not see the game the way you do.

Giving them all possible options is the best you can do (and may even be a little self defeating in certain corner cases but this does not sound like one of those).

The old adage of 'You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink' applies here.

Bottom line = no one has failed. You just got a party mix you personally are not thrilled by. That will definitely happen as a GM but, IMO, the mark of a good GM is tailoring a game to the players and the characters THEY have chosen to play.

If everyone is having fun playing the game and your having fun running it then your ok. If your not having fun running it you need to examine if the problem is actually their character choices ruining it for you or something else.

[Vidmaster7]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Nodrog wrote:

My wife is a Samsaran, and the rest are humans...

So the only interesting character to me is the Samsaran Swashbuckler.

It must be terrible to go through life being unable to take an interest in the vast majority of fictional characters, everyone in the news, everyone in history, everyone you meet, all just a bunch of tedious humans...

It really is quite terrible. fortunately the TMNT always manage to cheer me up. HA HA pizza is good!

[Sarcastic Durgon]

Matthew Downie wrote:

It must be terrible to go through life being unable to take an interest in the vast majority of fictional characters, everyone in the news, everyone in history, everyone you meet, all just a bunch of tedious humans...

What this guy said. ^^^

[Vidmaster7]

Sarcastic Durgon wrote:

What this guy said. ^^^

PIZZA for life!

(I'll just assume I ninjaed you and it was directed at the post above mine.)

Edit: someone thought they could get away without quoting we showed them!

[graystone]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

It really is quite terrible. fortunately the TMNT always manage to cheer me up. HA HA pizza is good!

But they are ALL turtles... No variety and no exotic animals. It sounds SO boring...

If only there was a naked mole rat, a red panda and a duck billed platypus it'd be interesting... :P

[Jurassic Pratt]

graystone wrote:

If only there was a naked mole rat, a red panda and a duck billed platypus it'd be interesting... :P

Teenage Mutant Ninja Animals just didn't have the same ring :)

[avr]

In the game I'm currently running there's a variety of races among the PCs; not one human. But the most interesting and detailed as a character IMO is the half-elf, the closest to human of them all.

[Vidmaster7]

most of the time my players go with human but I have one that I think is trying to slowly try out every animal-humanoid type race he can find. so far frog, tengu, lizard, bird, and fox

[graystone]

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

graystone wrote:

If only there was a naked mole rat, a red panda and a duck billed platypus it'd be interesting... :P

Teenage Mutant Ninja Animals just didn't have the same ring :)

Adolescent Altered Assassin Animals?

[Vidmaster7]

AAAA ? seems like that could get confused with AA or AAA

[graystone]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

AAAA ? seems like that could get confused with AA or AAA

Nothing stops them from being alcoholics or accountants! ;)

AAA{American Accounting Association}

[Vidmaster7]

So now its the Alcoholics Anonymous American Accounting Adolescent Altered Assassin Animals Association(AAAAAAAAA or maybe A^9)?

[Set]

Cavall wrote:

Hey I feel your pain. Humans give a lot and trade nothing, and always give in a way that allows you to focus where you want to. Your attribute. Your feat. Your skills. Hell even the alternative for class bonus is usually more spells or fractions of class focused abilities.

The 'trade nothing' part really appeals to me. I hate having stats below 10, so no matter what race I'm playing, points are going to be automatically dedicated to buying up whatever racial stat is -2.

And that free feat, so sexy. The dwarven and Halfling save bonuses are nice, but feel more reactive, and I'm illogically drawn to something like a free feat, which I'm going to end up spending half the time on something reactive like Improved Initiative or Toughness anyway ('cause I'm the world's worst power-gamer, and will pick something out of Core to avoid picking up one of the 100+ PF rulebooks, campaign setting books or chronicles books six inches from my left arm...).

[HWalsh]

Non-Standard races don't mean non-standard characters. A Samsaren Swashbuckler can be played exactly like a Human Swashbuckler.

I can make 10 Human Paladins, and each can have the exact same stat array and each will play totally uniquely.

It seems your idea of "unique character" in this case, is any non-core class/race combination. That just inst true.

-----

A Human Paladin of Sheylin who wields and practices Oratory as a performance skill, for example, was one I played.

A villain hired a hard to slander us at one point, but Adam couldn't defeat him by the blade, that would be illegal and immoral, so he challenged him, publicly to a performance battle.

Thus the legend of the rapping paladin of Sheylin was born, when the following flowed out of my mouth:

-----

My word, As a villain you're quite absurd,
Limp noodle arms and foul breath like you've eaten a turd,
Your name leaves my mouth sour likened to old curd,
You don't know who I am because you haven't heard,

I am Adam, the Paladin of Shelyn,
And you got no clue what trouble you're in,
Before you face my allies call your next of kin,
Make peace with your gods and confess your sins,

I'm a knight on a mission, for someone is missin,
Time is of the essence so I shant be dismissin,
The threat that you pose, while I recite prose,
Because when my sword glows, everyone knows,

I'm on a quest, it is one of retrieval,
So step aside cur, before I get medevil,
Change your ways and walk a path that's peaceful,
Unless you dare to face my smite evil,

I shant be stopped, that's abundantly clear,
I won't be slowed down and I know no fear,
In this war of words you'll surely fall here,
I'll write these lyrics down as a souvenir,

If you think you can take me, let the battle commence,
Though your pitiful loss will be clear and immense,
Do you wish to continue, or am I too intense?
So sit down, shut up, and stop talking nonsense.

-----

The table fell silent, every player turned to look, I had never had any such freestyle skill before in my life and I did all of that in full character voice...

I pick up my die to roll perform, the GM just held his hand up and said, "No. You win."

After that it became a thing... Bardic Duels...

Regardless, that character was one of the most memorable ones I had... It had nothing to do with his Race or Class.

[PossibleCabbage]

You can fix this with house rules. Some things I've played with-

-Replace existing ability modifiers with something like "+2 to a stat a race gives a bonus to, and +2 to one of the key stats for your class, these can't be the same". If you want, you can leave out the -2, or let the player put them where they want. This allows players to match concepts they like with class/race combinations that aren't normally considered viable (e.g. Gnome Barbarians, Dwarf Paladins).

- Eliminate or reduce feat taxes, by combining feats (dodge & mobility don't really need to be separate things), making existing feats things anybody can do (e.g. Power Attack- "swing harder" can be a thing anybody can do, if you want to be good at it take Furious Focus.) This reduces the appeal of that bonus feat at level 1, since people needn't jump through as many hoops to get where they want.

We do both of these things, and we still get a lot of human characters, and that's fine because "human" is the playable species each of us have the best understanding of anyway.

On the other hand, when you have a "you can play any race you want folks" sometimes it's a relief you get a lot of humans, since the party of a Cecaelia, a Kasatha, an Android, a Gathlain, and a Syrinx is going to get funny looks when they walk into a bar.

[Lucy_Valentine]

There's a lot going on in the OP, so I'm going to try and break it down.

Nodrog wrote:

I admit to liking variety in the party, and so created a starting port city large enough to allow any race Paizo has put in a book to be a player character...

That is cool. I like that.

Nodrog wrote:

My wife is a Samsaran, and the rest are humans. So five humans and a Samsaran.

Same with class any published class and I get: fighter, cleric, paladin, monk, sorcerer. And a swashbuckler.
So the only interesting character to me is the Samsaran Swashbuckler.

Alright, so your first problem here is that a class/race combo, while important, is not the same as a character. The surly grumpy elf wizard who wants all the power and the friendly kind elf wizard who loves making a performance out of illusion magics are really different people. So that's a problem with you. Albeit an understandable one given context.

Nodrog wrote:

And they are all human for the same reason, +2 to what ever they want and the bonus feat. So human just cause they are more concerned with character optimization than making a fun character.

So first off, you set the difficulty of the game. If you want them to make less optimised characters and take slightly less difficult challenges, that's completely cool. But, you really need to say that to them before building characters. If I go into a PF game and nobody says "we're playing on easy so anything will be viable", then I definitely won't build an elf cleric, because an elf cleric would be objectively less good at being a cleric than other options. So you have something of a communication problem here.

But also: PF encourages optimisation. In fact, I'm not really sure what the purpose of PF as a game is if not to play an optimisation game. It seems to me that optimisation and building is basically a huge part of it, because of how class powers work. So, why use PF if you don't want optimising?

Third, humans might seem bland, but... they're the easy option. Faced with a giant pile of options, picking "human" is basically the simple option that is definitely not wrong. Most people don't want to let the team down, and even if they don't mind that playing a weak character isn't fun for many. Humans are easy to build, easy to RP, all-round the simple easy choice for new players. It isn't really nice or fair to knock people for choosing the easy option in a game where option paralysis is a genuine likelihood.

Fourth, would it really be better if the monk and cleric were both dwarves because yay wisdom bonus? I mean, most races have one or two classes they're good at. If everyone picked non-humans, but defaulted the those best classes, is that actually more varied and interesting than an all-human team? Is it really original or interesting when almost every PC elf in the world is some sort of int-based caster?

Nodrog wrote:

I kind of blame the class build guides put out by lots of people. Which takes away some of the creativity in character creation.

Again, this isn't really fair. The guides are tools to help players create characters that aren't bad at the things they're supposed to be good at. Players don't want their characters to be bad at the things they're supposed to be good at, and PF has a lot of weak options, so this is relevant to them.

Nodrog wrote:

Sure a Kitsune isn't a numbers perfect race for a war priest, but the concept is interesting and the high dex with the right weapon makes for an effective melee. Yes the -2 to str hurts the damage dealt, however the sacred weapon and the weapon enhancements the war priest can do evens it out a bit.

But the problem is that you're exactly wrong: it doesn't "even it out a bit", compared with a human warpriest. Unless you find some hilarious racial option (fox-form dex-damage Warpriest of a deity who loves natural attacks, maybe?) that Kitsune warpriest is always going to be weaker than the human equivalent. And that means the character isn't going to shine if they're in the same party as other, more optimised, characters. And everyone wants their chance to shine, and to be effective, and to solve some problems. Playing a character who is just a bit weak all the time really grates after a while.

So if you want the Kitsune Warpriest in the party, then before you ever do any building you need to tell the players that the game is going to be on easy mode, and you'd like them to do non-optimal builds like that, and that they should all aim to have the same power level.

Nodrog wrote:

Still in a fantasy world where you can pretty much be anyone or thing, why would you not want to try and think of something unique and interesting?

This, I totally get. But I don't think it's a problem with guides, or players, or GMs. I think it's a problem that's built into the game at every level. Classes with specific stat needs plus standardised CR inherently makes it an optimisation game, add in races with specific stat boosts/penalties and you'll get a lot of humans.

[supervillan]

Don't be too hard on yourself, OP.

There's lots of reasons players choose to play humans. My wife, for example, doesn't like complex builds. Most of her characters are human, because that's straightforward. (Most of our Pathfinder play is in PFS). Me, on the other hand, I love complexity. I like to build characters with lots of options, lots of moving parts. Of my 10 active PFS characters only one is human. Neither of us is "doing it wrong"; my builds are typically more "optimised" than my wife's are, and that's OK.

[Tacticslion]

Gilfalas wrote:

Nodrog you cannot force people to enjoy the game the way you do. Likewise you cannot cite yourself at fault if your players do not see the game the way you do.

Giving them all possible options is the best you can do (and may even be a little self defeating in certain corner cases but this does not sound like one of those).

The old adage of 'You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink' applies here.

Bottom line = no one has failed. You just got a party mix you personally are not thrilled by. That will definitely happen as a GM but, IMO, the mark of a good GM is tailoring a game to the players and the characters THEY have chosen to play.

If everyone is having fun playing the game and your having fun running it then your ok. If your not having fun running it you need to examine if the problem is actually their character choices ruining it for you or something else.

I have no idea how this post has not received more favorites.

[Orville Redenbacher]

I like the D20 version; You can lead gamers to mountain dew, but you cant make them drink :)

[graystone]

Orville Redenbacher wrote:

I like the D20 version; You can lead gamers to mountain dew, but you cant make them drink :)

That's only because it isn't diet double dew! ;)

[Weirdo]

Tacticslion wrote:

Gilfalas wrote:

Nodrog you cannot force people to enjoy the game the way you do. Likewise you cannot cite yourself at fault if your players do not see the game the way you do.

Giving them all possible options is the best you can do (and may even be a little self defeating in certain corner cases but this does not sound like one of those).

The old adage of 'You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink' applies here.

Bottom line = no one has failed. You just got a party mix you personally are not thrilled by. That will definitely happen as a GM but, IMO, the mark of a good GM is tailoring a game to the players and the characters THEY have chosen to play.

If everyone is having fun playing the game and your having fun running it then your ok. If your not having fun running it you need to examine if the problem is actually their character choices ruining it for you or something else.

I have no idea how this post has not received more favorites.

Yeah, I'm going to signal boost this, too.

There are multiple reasons for playing humans and core classes: mechanics, simplicity, even preferring the flavour. You could ask the players why they made these choices. You might even be able to use this information to convince your players to play something more exotic. For example, if someone chose a human fighter for simplicity, you might be able to point them at character builds that would be more "interesting," but still effective and fit the concept they wanted. If multiple players need bonus feats to get a build online at 1st level, maybe start at level 3 or just give everyone a bonus feat. If they feel like they would be judged for playing bizarre or non-optimal builds, have a talk with the group about these expectations.

But if your players really prefer humans and core classes, you haven't failed. In fact, you succeeded: the players are now playing the characters they really want to play, without being restricted by the GM!

[UnArcaneElection]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

You can fix this with house rules. Some things I've played with-

-Replace existing ability modifiers with something like "+2 to a stat a race gives a bonus to, and +2 to one of the key stats for your class, these can't be the same". If you want, you can leave out the -2, or let the player put them where they want. This allows players to match concepts they like with class/race combinations that aren't normally considered viable (e.g. Gnome Barbarians, Dwarf Paladins).
{. . .}

Haven't tried this myself, but 13th Age does this (and doesn't give you racial penalties).

[Nord]

[]Sure a Kitsune isn't a numbers perfect race for a war priest

Don't underestimate Kitsune. Humans do get a feat which is awesome in any build but Kitsunes has access to one of the few ways for a character to get a pounce effect. IMHO, kitsune swashbuckler is one of the most powerful ways to build such a class.

[graystone]

Nord wrote:

Don't underestimate Kitsune. Humans do get a feat which is awesome in any build but Kitsunes has access to one of the few ways for a character to get a pounce effect. IMHO, kitsune swashbuckler is one of the most powerful ways to build such a class.

He's literally talking about finding an incompatible combination and playing it 'because that's fun'. So a better example would be a kobold two handed fighter. "kitsune swashbuckler" actually fits the stat bonuses so it wasn't what he's talking about. It wasn't a statement of kitsune but compatible stats.

[Ckorik]

Tacticslion wrote:

I have no idea how this post has not received more favorites.

ROFL because some people don't use the favorite system as a thumbs up?

:) I know ... the very idea....

[Tacticslion]

Nonetheless! ;D

[Amanda Barry]

I know it's technically the "best" race. But I honestly never pick human because I can't stand having normal vision.

I need low light vision at the least or I feel either blind or exposed in every dungeon (At least early levels).