General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
My group ended up going with Con/Int for Tieflings, although we haven't figured out how to make the racial power into something we like yet.
I could totally see different stats for Male and Female Drow, but, on the other hand, I can also see that Dark Pact Warlock makes a lot more sense than the cleric class for Drow adventurers.
There was talk - in the DMG? -, however, of letting evil clerics use some other power source than radiant, which would do a lot to address the disconnect there.
I like dwarves as they are. The dwarf shaman really appeals to me - Stonespeakers for the win! - and they make really excellent fighters in terms of qualifying for completely bitchin feats.
This problem is a double-edged sword. If the mechanics made every race the best choice for some archetype-role, I would suspect to see in most games choices that reflect this, especially in 4e that archetypes-roles are fairly important in the game, mechanics wise. Eventually this would come down to be as if the race-class approach of basic d&d was in play. But if they explicitly did something like that they would probably risk higher ranks of disfavor among the players of the previous 3.xe.
On a different note, some times I feel like I do not understand the fundamental appeal of the game about playing fantasy races as player characters. Wouldn't it be better if the fantasy races were limited as respect worthy NPCs game wise?
On a different note, some times I feel like I do not understand the fundamental appeal of the game about playing fantasy races as player characters. Wouldn't it be better if the fantasy races were limited as respect worthy NPCs game wise?
I know how you feel - or at least I think I do - regarding some kinds of D&D campaign. I suppose D&D, as a whole, has always fallen somewhere between say, Pendragon and the World of Darkness, in that way. However, IMO, in very recent times the balance has shifted more t'ward the latter. Mileage is, so I hear, variable.
I didn't see this posted anywhere, so forgive me if I'm rehashing..
Consider that the devs know what iconic class/race combinations are and wrote the bonuses to specifically play against it. Given the ferocity of min-maxing in D&D ::raises hand:: if the Dwarf was built to play a fighter, you would probably see 90% dwarf fighters and only a smattering of other classes. By writing the stats against type, it encourages those of us who game primarily because we like math to try a wider variety of class/race combos.
On a different note, some times I feel like I do not understand the fundamental appeal of the game about playing fantasy races as player characters. Wouldn't it be better if the fantasy races were limited as respect worthy NPCs game wise?
No because some people want very much to play something that isn't human.
No because some people want very much to play something that isn't human.
I can understand the appeal for this but I find it only reasonable for something highly dramatic and thus almost definitely much shorter than an ever-going campaign that is supposed to get you from the beginning of your career to retirement.
Comic books for example or cinema films could do justice to this, but not a 1 to 30 level game.
My group ended up going with Con/Int for Tieflings, although we haven't figured out how to make the racial power into something we like yet.
I'm thinking of going to Con/Int for tieflings as well. I like how it makes them good arcanists, but in a different way from Eladrin. I was also going to change their racial skill bonuses to Arcana and Intimidate. I'm thinking of leaving Infernal Wrath as is. It'll give some extra benefit to the tiefling who invests in Cha.
Quote:
I could totally see different stats for Male and Female Drow, but, on the other hand, I can also see that Dark Pact Warlock makes a lot more sense than the cleric class for Drow adventurers.
Yeah, I think there is a difference between small "c" clerics and capital "C" Clerics. One is a setting thing, the other is a class. Ideally the setting matches up with the mechanics, but it doesn't always work out that way. I'm happy with drow priests being warlocks or something like that.
Quote:
I like dwarves as they are. The dwarf shaman really appeals to me - Stonespeakers for the win! - and they make really excellent fighters in terms of qualifying for completely bitchin feats.
I agree. I don't understand the dwarf complaints. Dwarves have an innate connection with stone, so it seems reasonable to me that they would be able to wield primal power.
I can understand the appeal for this but I find it only reasonable for something highly dramatic and thus almost definitely much shorter than an ever-going campaign that is supposed to get you from the beginning of your career to retirement.
That's because your equating the experience with drama, when another angle is contemplation of what the life of a different kind of creature would be like. You can contemplate both the nature of having a different kind of physiology and what that would do to a creature's psychology and even further into aspects such as their society. Contemplation of a self is not a short one-shot deal, it's the action of an entire lifetime and would fit perfectly well in a long campaign.
Plus some people are acutely aware of what it's like to be human and don't see a reason to bother pretending anything if they're just going to replicate the experience of their real life all over again.
I didn't see this posted anywhere, so forgive me if I'm rehashing..
Consider that the devs know what iconic class/race combinations are and wrote the bonuses to specifically play against it. Given the ferocity of min-maxing in D&D ::raises hand:: if the Dwarf was built to play a fighter, you would probably see 90% dwarf fighters and only a smattering of other classes. By writing the stats against type, it encourages those of us who game primarily because we like math to try a wider variety of class/race combos.
To stay on the Dwarf for a moment:
Sure, the Dwarf doesn't have a bonus to Str. BUT:
- They have bonus to Wis and Con, the two secondary abilities of Fighters. One helps with Combat Superiority, the other with HP and additional damage from hammers and axes (the traditional dwarven weapons).
- They can heal themselves as a MINOR action.
- They aren't slowed down by heavy armor.
- They are good at resisting forced movement.
All that works in favor of the Fighter. Specifically, the iron-clad, axe-wielding archetype.
Plus some people are acutely aware of what it's like to be human and don't see a reason to bother pretending anything if they're just going to replicate the experience of their real life all over again.
Sure, because your life is exactly like a human's might be in say, Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Forgotten Realms, Eberron. . .
And only some people (i.e., humans) 'are acutely aware of what it's like to be human'. . .? Niiiice.
another angle is contemplation of what the life of a different kind of creature would be like...
Plus some people are acutely aware of what it's like to be human and don't see a reason to bother pretending anything if they're just going to replicate the experience of their real life all over again.
But these creatures do not exist. They are the product of mythology or fiction which is always originated from human sensibilities. What you are talking about is better served by studies or documentaries regarding actual animal wild life and the like. I am not sure what you are saying here is really valid.
Sure, because your life is exactly like a human's might be in say, Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Forgotten Realms, Eberron. . .
But I can still imagine what it is like to be them physically and psychologically in a short amount of time, no point in playing a long game like that for me. I want a life I can't comprehend on a minute or two, and for that I need something different from a human.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aus_Snow
And only some people (i.e., humans) 'are acutely aware of what it's like to be human'. . .? Niiiice.
Okay, that was stupid of me to say. What I really meant was that there are some people who aren't comfortable with their current bodies (including its humaness) and like to explore what another kind of body, another kind of existence, would be like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xechnao
But these creatures do not exist. They are the product of mythology or fiction which is always originated from human sensibilities. What you are talking about is better served by studies or documentaries regarding actual animal wild life and the like. I am not sure what you are saying here is really valid.
I am saying that the point of playing a non-human is to contemplate what it would be like to be them from the inside. What you seem to be saying is that if you are not something you should never try that, you should only look at a subject from the outside. Based on that logic no one should ever play a character that is not very similar to themselves.
Last edited by SilvercatMoonpaw2; 28th April 2009 at 03:40 PM..
I am saying that the point of playing a non-human is to contemplate what it would be like to be them from the inside. What you seem to be saying is that if you are not something you should never try that, you should only look at a subject from the outside. Based on that logic no one should ever play a character that is not very similar to themselves.
I am just saying what seems to naturally appeal to me. And I understand there is something to it more than what you are saying since Dragonborn were made with breasts for a reason.
When you are saying "to play a character", "play" may hold many meanings some of which are valid, some not so. For gaming-gamist reasons races a variety of races as a choice could hold some interest for example.
OTOH to socialize with other humans (players) as if I were a different creature, while a human being passes on relevant information (DM) is something really impossible IMO.
Okay, that was stupid of me to say. What I really meant was that there are some people who aren't comfortable with their current bodies (including its humaness) and like to explore what another kind of body would be like.
Thanks for having the courage to admit to that, and for explaining further. I was about to hit the 'off switch' otherwise, to be honest.
And hey, FWIW, I have no issue at all with people (including me, or at times, my players) playing nonhumans. Also, yeah, there are some very interesting aspects to doing that, among them exploring the nature of such beings, from the inside out, as it were.
But, there are times where - in my opinion - 'humans only' is equally not only a valid decree, but indeed, more appropriate. Sometimes, singularly appropriate. Which, again IMO, is the worldbuilder's and/or GM's call.
Er, or game designer's. . .
Last edited by Aus_Snow; 28th April 2009 at 03:47 PM..
Reason: oh yeah, that too.
Thanks for having the courage to admit to that, and for explaining further. I was about to hit the 'off switch' otherwise, to be honest.
Yeah, I'm quite guilty of doing this a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aus_Snow
But, there are times where - in my opinion - 'humans only' is equally not only a valid decree, but indeed, more appropriate. Sometimes, singularly appropriate. Which, again IMO, is the worldbuilder's and/or GM's call.
I agree that it's a perfectly valid setting idea, I can understand that, even if I prefer another way. I was trying to give someone who didn't understand non-human races a similar insight into the opposite playstyle.
Sure, because your life is exactly like a human's might be in say, Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Forgotten Realms, Eberron. . .
And only some people (i.e., humans) 'are acutely aware of what it's like to be human'. . .? Niiiice.
The human condition weighs much heavier on some of us, Aus Snow, and makes us long for the Shakespearean pathos of roleplaying a monotreme dragonman with dragonmanboobs.
Personally, there's no other outlet for the angst I feel every minute of every day, in this mortal coil, living like Conan, having to fight off giant snakes in the supermarket on the way to the milk aisle. The alternative is to have to cry into my pillow at night while whispering "oh the humanity" to the sound of the ever ticking clock, over and over again.
You wouldn't understand. You wear your humanity lightly, and skip with gaiety under it's purvue, whereas for some of us it weighs beyond measure and brings us down, down, down.
__________________ "They've taken all the fun out of slaying things and stealing treasure!" - Bolt
Copy, paste and redesign your way to your own ideal custom game with the Swords & Wizardry.doc file. Renovate the elf, build a rogue or thief, and make all your favourite rules and splat core.
I was trying to give someone who didn't understand non-human races a similar insight into the opposite playstyle.
Well my-life-with-master (an indie game) or even white wolf games where dramatics are more focused and established make more sense to me than following the adventuring career of an elf as an adventurer-elf. In fact while D&D wants to provide some rules and fluff for this it really can not play like this: people play and follow the adventuring career of an elf as an adventurer, not as an elf. This means that "elf" is a trait of their "adventurer" identity, not the other way around.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
