
UnArcaneElection |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I can understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree. I have a player that ALWAYS plays an elf or half-elf bard. A couple years ago we got him to read a guide, so now he makes optimized bards, but still nothing but bards. I have another that always want's to be an elf wizard, even though she's awful at it. I got her playing a magus, finally. He keeps wanting to go back to wizard, even though she plays a way better magus. I have one goof ball that always plays really weird combinations, but only to optimize builds, and he is frequently boring or annoying. {. . .}
Yeah, only so much you can do when your players have dumped Intelligence, Wisdom, and/or Charisma . . . .
{. . .}
Slim Jim wrote:Kiss goodbye the bonus feat.A feat to put your bonus stat where you want while gaining access to everything the race can take? Not a wasted feat by any means and refutes you 'no one but gnomes can take this' argument.
Not everything the race can take. You don't get any of the racial traits (Halfling Luck, Slow and Steady, etc.).
Point based construction actively hinders SAD classes like monks. What that means is that min/maxers move to single stat classes and aren't slowed down a bit with their 20's in their main stat. Point-buys are a complete failure if it's meant to stop optimization.
Don't you mean MAD classes like Monks?

Claxon |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

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.
Ever heard of the Stormwind Fallacy? Cause your kind of hitting up against it pretty hard.
I'd also like to add that playing human vs playing another race isn't necessarily about the mechanical benefits. I personally have a big problem with non-human characters which basically get played as human with odd physical features, players rarely play another race in such a way that I feel like they've really role played it well. And that's okay, we're human. It's really hard to get out of that mind set and role play another race well. Also, generally speaking humans make up 80% or more of the humanoids of Golarion.
But also, it shouldn't be about what you as a GM find interesting. Players should play what they find interesting. Characters aren't interesting because of their race or class. They're interesting when you give them good personalities, reasoning for their actions, quarks, failures, etc. None of that depends on race or class.
I absolutely abhor the idea that being a unique race somehow makes a character better or more interesting.

Tacticslion |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

To be fair I have had two GMs who have forgotten what race people are playing.
One of my silliest moments as a GM.
I had a party consisting of a pixie, a half-elf, and a humanoid-shaped human-sized 4E sentient psychic crystal thing (there were others, but the characters weren't there, yet). They had been invited to the masquerade, had gotten extravagantly dolled up.
Human PC: "Does anyone stop us in the street to talk to us?"
Me, the GM (being stupid): "Well, you're wearing masks so they don't recognize you."
The players all stare at me, at first bemused (not getting my "joke") then aghast that I really just did that, then really amused at my expense.
Me, the GM (being stupid): "What? What? You're all in masks, so they can't-"
Shardmind player: "... recognize a six-foot-tall walking crystal, and a flying glowing pixie, and the one half-elf that hangs out with them?"
Me, the GM (light dawning): "... ... ... oh. Right. Whoops~!"
We all had a pretty great laugh at that point.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

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.
Kinda overread that in my first reading but now I have to ask: Do your players generally caring about non-core stuff? I ask that because in my own homegroup, it's kinda the same, only core races and classes. Not because I wouldn't allow for anything else but because none of my players is very interested in the rules per se and they don't even think about reading those other splat books.
I kind of blame the class build guides put out by lots of people.
Yeah, I have my problems with them as well, but for other reasons. I don't think that they hinder anyone in making an interesting character though. I mean I play a lot of humans, but if they are boring characters, then I think that would be my fault, not the fault of the +2 and the bonus feat.