Human Fighters Most Common Race/Class Combo In D&D

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mephista]

Its pretty much an old argument at this point. Some people are "purists" for lack of a better term, and have a strong dislike of anything that varies from human / pointy eared human / short human / stout human / crazy human. Others see this as a fantasy world and like engaging in all the various fantasy elements. Its like the Survivor Volo Races thread - the Tabaxi had a lot of love and a lot of insults / hate in equal measure in no amount because it was so different from human.

I'm not going to pretend to understand why the difference, but its clear that everyone has their own comfort zone while playing. I personally find it a bit annoying to be banned from a race I like because a GM wants to call it a monster and something to kill. That reeks of forcing what they want to play on others. If you don't like to play the race, then... don't. Banning others, if they're not disruptive, is kind of heavy handed in my mind.

 

[MiraMels]

The main thing I have against Tieflings or part-Demons or whatever, along with Dragonborn/half-Dragons, Drow-as-PCs, and all the rest of those "monster" races being baked into the game as PC-playable is that those sort of creatures are supposed to be what the PCs go out and fight! I don't mind an occasional rare exception for RP reasons or whatever, but when I see a party lineup consisting racially of a couple of Tieflings, a Dragonborn and a Goliath my first response is "why is everyone playing monsters?".

That's what 4th edition tried to address with their changes to the origins of dragonborn and tieflings though. By giving them a culture, and a history in the world, they cease to be "monsters" while still being marked as "other". Human villagers don't have to *like* dragonborn or tieflings, but with the 4th and 5th edition origin stories, those villagers all have a context for their existence.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

More than once, I've had people tell me that they don't want tieflings because then people would freak out about them being devil people. I'm all like, "sure, that's great. I'm all for it." And they look at me blankly, not getting I -like- that part of the rp.

Heh. Yeah, if someone wants to play a tiefling but then complains about their character being presumed evil, that's when you start making... pointed critiques of their choices and tastes.

 

[Alexemplar]

....Can't really comment, tbh. Never played in Eberron and frankly just don't hear that much discussion of Warforged, Shifters, Changelings, or the like. Dragonborn are the hot topic, and it seems like their detractors literally can't stop talking, not just about how much they dislike them, but how justified they are FOR disliking them.

When Eberron first launched, the races were popular and write ups in DMGs have tips on how to integrate them into other settings. In 4e, when "everything became core", they even made it into the later PHBs.

I think Dragonborn are more of a hot topic because they were in the first PHB for 4e and 5e. The classes/races in the first PHB always tend to receive more support/exposure/attention than those that appear later.

 

[Erechel]

This doesn't surprise me at all. All my tables had at least 1 fighter and 1 human, many times in the same character. Heck, when I get bored of DM'ing, I begin to play... guess what... a Human Fighter! A beefy Folk Hero shieldmaster. Plenty of RP to do, plenty of ground covered by skills alone (Athletics is one heck of a skill, and as a Folk Hero I've chosen Smith Tools, so more often than not instead of picking locks we cut the chains or force the doors), and a total beast in combat (with 281 different Saving Throws between MM and VGTM, by far the most common along with the Barbarian, and followed far behind by the Ranger and Monk with 201); my action economy is great and I never run out of things to do, and if I want to go boring and only doing damage, I'm the best at it also.

I would not dare to say that fighters are bad designed... at all. I'm a bit surprised of the half-orc lack of popularity. They are very popular in Argentina (and I know a LOT of different tables).

 

[Lanefan]

That's what 4th edition tried to address with their changes to the origins of dragonborn and tieflings though. By giving them a culture, and a history in the world, they cease to be "monsters" while still being marked as "other". Human villagers don't have to *like* dragonborn or tieflings, but with the 4th and 5th edition origin stories, those villagers all have a context for their existence.

Orcs have a culture and a history. So do Hobgoblins (and in my game their history goes back way farther than anyone else's). Both are basically Human-ish variants, no more so than are D'born or Tieflings or Elves.

Doesn't make 'em PC-playable races.

I can only refer to my Human Ranger's reaction in a 3e campaign when a half-Dragon PC came into the party: "I've spent most of my adult life learning how to kill things like this and now I'm expected to run with one and trust it with my life? You're kidding, right?"

Of course, it didn't help that our alignments were almost diametrically opposed...

Lanefan

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The main thing I have against Tieflings or part-Demons or whatever, along with Dragonborn/half-Dragons, Drow-as-PCs, and all the rest of those "monster" races being baked into the game as PC-playable is that those sort of creatures are supposed to be what the PCs go out and fight! I don't mind an occasional rare exception for RP reasons or whatever, but when I see a party lineup consisting racially of a couple of Tieflings, a Dragonborn and a Goliath my first response is "why is everyone playing monsters?".

Lanefan

Honestly, a serious problem here is simply that you refuse to see them as anything other than monsters. That is, it sounds like you literally can't understand how someone can look at a Dragonborn or Tiefling and not immediately, intuitively, and without the tiniest shade of doubt think "that's a monster." If you truly can't understand that, you'll never be able to grok a group that wants those things. I find that kind of...disappointing, I guess. As I have said before, we have a game which lets us imagine any world we choose, and so of course we always imagine perfectly identical ones...

Orcs have a culture and a history. So do Hobgoblins (and in my game their history goes back way farther than anyone else's). Both are basically Human-ish variants, no more so than are D'born or Tieflings or Elves.

Doesn't make 'em PC-playable races.

Then what does? Seriously. How do you get into the club?

I can only refer to my Human Ranger's reaction in a 3e campaign when a half-Dragon PC came into the party: "I've spent most of my adult life learning how to kill things like this and now I'm expected to run with one and trust it with my life? You're kidding, right?"

Of course, it didn't help that our alignments were almost diametrically opposed...

Lanefan

Which is fine...for that character.

But what about worlds where the next fishing village over was established by dragonborn refugees from some horrible war or other that never mattered to your apprentice-of-the-village-elder? Or ones where a peaceful merger of two kingdoms means that, technically, there are two royal families that always ritually marry each other--one human, one dragonborn--but must seek gigolos/concubines because they're not interfertile? Does literally every character you make grow up "learning to kill these" sentient beings with a cultural penchant for honoring their deals? Does literally every world ever consider them "things" and not people?

The antithetical alignment stuff certainly doesn't help. Especially if one of you was Good-aligned and the other Evil. Of course, this also means you actually gave them a chance to act, rather than immediately saying "MONSTER, KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!" (Though, frankly, I cannot square being "Good" and being 100% okay with instantly resorting to lethal force upon encountering a sentient of unknown disposition, regardless of how much one's been taught not to trust them.)

Heh. Yeah, if someone wants to play a tiefling but then complains about their character being presumed evil, that's when you start making... pointed critiques of their choices and tastes.

See, I don't even necessarily think this is correct either. Tieflings aren't assumed to be evil in Planescape, as I understand it--no more than Aasimar are assumed to be good. Because Planescape is intentionally a cosmopolitan world (in several meanings of the term!). I can certainly grant that "I physically look like a demon, a creature known to be Pure, Living Evil," is going to mean that *many* settings will produce exactly this kind of knee-jerk distrust. At the same time, assuming that 100% of all worlds that anyone could ever imagine WILL have that feature? How small the sandbox we choose to play in, when given all the beaches the mind might summon!

 

[Mephista]

See, I don't even necessarily think this is correct either. Tieflings aren't assumed to be evil in Planescape, as I understand it--no more than Aasimar are assumed to be good. Because Planescape is intentionally a cosmopolitan world (in several meanings of the term!). I can certainly grant that "I physically look like a demon, a creature known to be Pure, Living Evil," is going to mean that *many* settings will produce exactly this kind of knee-jerk distrust. At the same time, assuming that 100% of all worlds that anyone could ever imagine WILL have that feature? How small the sandbox we choose to play in, when given all the beaches the mind might summon!

While its true that tieflings aren't assumed to be evil, it is also true that the official details of the race have always included "distrusted by many." Tieflings are, and always have been, the target of fantasy racism. They're forced to the fringes of society, where they have to pick up favored occupation Rogue and learn to lie really well (bluff bonus), which in turn increases distrust... its a vicious cycle, but one humans have engendered throughout real world history. Half-orcs tend to face a similar prejudice from humans, though ironically not from the orc tribes.

That said, its pretty nice that tieflings favor warlocks in 5e, because you can just pick up the Disguise Self Invocation. Want to avoid trouble? Snap, I look like an elf. Oh, look, Friends cantrip. Now you like me for a minute, and when I walk away, snap, I'm now human that looks nothing alike to the elf. So, its not like hiding from people isn't easy to manage to facilitate rp either, even in the most prejudiced setting.

Side Note - aasimar were said to face a similar prejudice, but I always found that a bit strained outside Planescape. In Planescape, I always assume Paladins to be part of the Mercy killers, so the association of aasimar to fanatic kill-them-all types is pretty strong, and that kind of bias is reasonable. But in other worlds, paladins tend to be highly regarded, so having them suffer prejudice from humans feels... odd.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Its pretty much an old argument at this point. Some people are "purists" for lack of a better term, and have a strong dislike of anything that varies from human / pointy eared human / short human / stout human / crazy human. Others see this as a fantasy world and like engaging in all the various fantasy elements. Its like the Survivor Volo Races thread - the Tabaxi had a lot of love and a lot of insults / hate in equal measure in no amount because it was so different from human.

I'm not going to pretend to understand why the difference, but its clear that everyone has their own comfort zone while playing. I personally find it a bit annoying to be banned from a race I like because a GM wants to call it a monster and something to kill. That reeks of forcing what they want to play on others. If you don't like to play the race, then... don't. Banning others, if they're not disruptive, is kind of heavy handed in my mind.

I like many/most of your posts, but I think this one is a little unfair.

I limit races in most of my games, not out of some kind of "purism" but rather because the idea of a super-cosmopolitan world in which exotic races are a common sight is aesthetically unappealing to me. I will usually switch up which races are allowed (and thus also which the party encounters as NPCs.) I have nothing against Tabaxi and Aarakocra and Gnomes and Dragonborn and Tortles...I just don't want them all appearing at the same time. The races are like a palette of paints: you don't use all the colors; you pick a different subset for each piece. A hodge-podge of every idea under the sun works great in Star Wars cantinas, but I like my fantasy worlds to involve limitations in communication and travel, at least for the masses, and too much cosmopolitanism undermines that.

So maybe that does make me a "purist" by your definition, in that my aesthetic preferences run a certain way. But when I see the word "purist" it evokes intolerance, that somehow the game shouldn't include these things. And that's not at all the case.

 

[Satyrn]

So maybe that does make me a "purist" by your definition

I don't think you do.

I don't think she was talking about banning a race from a setting. Rather, those who would ban the race from their game no matter the setting.