Deciding your PC race.

[S'mon]

I guess I'm the kind of guy who reads this thread and thinks, "Why not just pick a race/class combo that you want, regardless of edition, and ask the GM if you can simply optimize the race in your case for the class, so you aren't left behind on the battlefield.

Case in point (I'm talking about 4ED&D) Make a Goliath Psion because you think it would be cool, and take the Goliath's +2 to Strength and Con and make it a +2 to Int and Wisdom or Charisma, instead.

Doesn't it make sense that your Goliath became a Psion because he was oddly suited for it? Maybe your character is the odd one out of the race or maybe you just ignore that technicality and play the game.

That would make Humans by far the weakest race, then. I guess if you gave humans +2 to any 2 stats to match up with your non-humans getting the same, it'd work out.

 

[prosfilaes]

Playing a boring character that will somehow let me "win" the game more easily holds no appeal for me. Playing a character that's interesting and fun is all I care about.

One of the things that most frustrates me when playing is when I'm playing a character that just isn't effective. If I'm sitting here pinging monsters when other people are killing one a turn, or casting spells that have no effect, or continually failing skill checks, it's just not fun.

I fight the compromise between optimization and theme with every character. I'm currently playing a goblin wizard; I suppose with the Dragonlance races available, that's not terribly suboptimal. I have a potential future character being worked on, but I'm fighting between a half-ogre (+1 LA) or the mechanically similar but thematically wrong LA 0 minotaur.

 

[Summer-Knight925]

No, I tend to choose the character concept as race AND class while thinking of what to do, its a choice made at the same time...

only time I did this was with an orc barbarian, he wrestled a stone giant and pinned him for three rounds, at the end of which the giant broke free and was shot to ribbons by the archers.


yay strength

 

[steeldragons]

That would make Humans by far the weakest race, then. I guess if you gave humans +2 to any 2 stats to match up with your non-humans getting the same, it'd work out.

Well...if you have a race of super/meta-humans I guess that makes sense.

But, and correct me if I'm mistaken, isn't that kind of the point of ability bonus/penalities for non-human races? Humans are, and are supposed, to be the "weakest" race.

From the ancient times of the game on through, the bonuses (and penalties) for races in certain areas are BECAUSE they are not human.

Humans are the baseline if you would.

Before ability bonuses, this translated (in B/X,BECMI) to the fact that you could not be (or rather weren't supposed to be according to RAW) a demi-human character if your ability score for this or that was under "X."

As the game grew/advanced/changed, bonuses and penalties became the way.

So, yes, a dwarf is automatically +x in this and and elf is automatically +y in that better than the "normal" (unaltered) score/roll...which would be a human's score.

At least, that's my take on that...which isn't really the point of the thread.

As to the point of the thread, decision is based on Character concept all the way! This usually is automatically a race/class combo from the start.

"Optimizing" has no influence on the decision of the concept at all. If I get some with a certain combo, great. But I'm not not going to play a concept I think will be fun because a mechanic tells me I'm going to suffer "-whatever" or "+who cares".

As always, play what/how you like.
Have fun and happy racing.
Carry on.
--Steel Dragons

 

[Pentius]

Well...if you have a race of super/meta-humans I guess that makes sense.

Well, that tangent is 4e centric, and humans in 4e already get +2 to any 1 stat. I don't think an extra +2 to any one stat for PCs is going to require fluffing in a race of super people.

But, and correct me if I'm mistaken, isn't that kind of the point of ability bonus/penalities for non-human races? Humans are, and are supposed, to be the "weakest" race.

What? I can't think of any edition where playing a human was a mechanically weak choice. In AD&D, they were the only ones with unlimited advancement. In 3e, they got extra skill points, an extra feat and free choice of favored class, these were hefty benefits. In 4e, they get +2 to any one stat(compare to other races +2 to 2 specific stats), an extra skill, an extra feat, extra defenses, and an extra power(or a human-specific racial power that is pretty good).

The running trait for playing humans in D&D is that they are flexible, always a good choice for any class.

 

[C4]

That would make Humans by far the weakest race, then. I guess if you gave humans +2 to any 2 stats to match up with your non-humans getting the same, it'd work out.

This is exactly how my 4e clone works. Well, the bonuses are attached to the classes, and I call them training bonuses, but same difference eh?

What? I can't think of any edition where playing a human was a mechanically weak choice. In AD&D, they were the only ones with unlimited advancement.

Isn't AD&D also one of the editions where you can wish yourself human, in the unlikely event that you ever hit your level cap?

Anyway, I agree that humans haven't been a weak choice since AD&D at the very least, nor are they meant to be. Giving humans an extra stat boost hardly makes them superhuman. It's just a +1 bonus.

 

[billd91]

I usually go concept first, though there are exceptions. Sometimes I don't have a very detailed concept beyond "I want to play a rogue" and then I'll look about at options and see what sticks in the brain. There are other times in which I know the game's going to be mechanic heavy, then I might pick the race for special class-oriented benefits. But that's pretty rare.

 

[tuxgeo]

I'm going to fudge on this one: my default RPG race is Human, so that's already partly optimized regardless of character concept.

However, I don't rely solely on optimization; instead, the character concept is much more important to me. For example, my elf bard/wizard ("wizbard?") only had CHA and INT of 16 at 1st level -- the two attack stats for those classes, after racial adjustments. That was less of a drawback than the fact of only getting one Majestic Word per encounter instead of two. (Fortunately, the warlord in the party more than made up for the lack of healing.)
This character concept required having Cantrips early, and that's the only thing that changed this character from being (in plan) a Bard to being (in play) a Wizbard. (Cantrips are hard to get, aside from pure Wizards.)

 

[Elf Witch]

I choose character concept first and decide which race would be the most fun to play with it. I don't worry about optimizing I have found that it is not that important as long as the character is not a lame duck.

I tend to go human most of the time mainly because it seems to fit best for most of my concepts. There are certain races I don't think I will ever play I am not fond of dwarves or half dragon types.

I have never played a half elf mainly because I think they are a weak class and more fun can be had playing either a human or an elf. Now if a concept came to me with a half elf then I would play it regardless of how weak I find them. But so far it had not happened.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not a big fan of the "Half-" races, but did have one particularly fun Half-Orc PC wheee being a mongrel helped refine the character: he was a bounty hunter (Ranger) whose chosen enemies were Orcs...AND Humans.

Fun PC- Sword & Board TWF Ranger, main weapon was a flail, and his shield was spiked.

Unfortunately, it was a short-lived campaign because...well...he was short-lived. Took a header into an underground chasm (I rolled 2s & 6s on the various checks the Adm gave me to save him...). Since he was THE meat in a party full of casters, a hasty retreat was beaten.

And that group never actually met again.