Bugbears as PCs balanced??

[kaomera]

Well, sure, but it still seems like DM antagonism to allow a 'monstrous' PC and then kick him repeatedly because of his choice. I know I'd never do it.

I ended up snagging a pirate-y Bugbear Sorcerer (who had been a party-neutral NPC) as a replacement character in a 3.0 game. The DM pulled me aside before the next session so we could figure out how to work things so that the character would be socially acceptable. I wasn't exactly flabbergasted (it was a reasonable thing to do on his part), but I made it clear that half of the fun of playing such a character was going to be dealing with the prejudice this character was sure to draw...

Now I should add that as we had not come to a 100% agreement on the character I had a second rolled up, and I would have played that (or the Bugbear without the prejudice) if the DM wanted ~ he deserves to have fun too. But I would have been pretty let down if he had just decided to smooth things over without saying anything to me or the other players.

My point is: it's important to communicate about these decisions, rather than just unilaterally making them, regardless of which way you choose to go. Never assume that you know exactly what the players want from your game. (Even if they tell you... players are a bunch of filthy little liars! =P Worse than halflings, if you ask me...)

 

[That One Guy]

Honestly, the big bastards will put out a decent amount of hurt, but it isn't as bad as a bugbear fighter who one-hands two-handed weapons w/ the right feats. Just sayin'. Or a bugbear rogue who uses a large rapier. But yeah... prejudice is the way to balance his character, but as everyone else says - be up front w/ it.

 

[doulos05]

Well, I talked it over with the rest of the party, and I'll be talking it over with him tonight. When I mentioned it to the rest of the party, the response ranged from "Why can't he just play something normal?" to "Well, in that case I'll play one too, since it's more optimal for my role as well."

Since I expect this game to involve a lot of roleplay, particularly diplomacy and high-level negotiations with the rulers of countries, I decided I couldn't say "Yes" to one and "No" to everybody else, so I pulled it back to PHB races only. I mainly did that because I don't want two party members completely to mostly shut out of what I hope to be a rather important part of the game, simply because of their race.

We've played games where there was one character who, by virtue of his build and demeanor, was excluded from social settings (It was in Traveller, he was a Human who openly hated Vilani working in the Vilani empire. My favorite quote from that was him talking to a Vilani policeman, "Aren't you guys like Vampires? Don't you have to be invited in? Who invited you on my ship?") But even in that case, it was his choice whether the encounter went poorly or not because it was his prejudice. But having two people who are feared or despised by most of the known world will be too much. Besides, that makes the encounters where they are trying to gather armies to face the Goblinoid horde all the more awkward. "Wait, you're telling me a massive Goblin is coming and that to beat them we need to assemble here? I'm sure you Goblin scum would love to bait us like that, but I'm no fool! Guards, arrest those traitors!"

 

[Ferdil]

The bugbear has higher damage dices but it is a racial trait. Dwarves, for example, use their second wind as a minor action. It IS balanced because the bugbear has just Oversized and Predatory Eye, nothing else. Other races have more benefits.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Not IMO.
If somebody wants to play a monstrous race that is typically an enemy of the local civilisation then the player shouldn't be surprised if the pc faces up to hostility.

How much hostility is open to question and will vary from place to place.
(A drow would probably get more hostility from elves than halflings with dwarves somewhere in between - and if get to somewhere that the drow raided for slaves last month then expect real problems)

But by allowing the character in the first place you're implicitly saying that the prejudice isn't going to make the game less fun to play. This might be because the game takes place mostly in uncivilized regions where a monsterous PC can get away with wandering around or because there's some acceptable social role they can take in civilized regions. (Bugbears are okay if they're serving as bonded bodyguards to a wizard, for instance.)

If a PC being a member of a monsterous race is going to interfere with the player playing the game by making him sit out on a bunch of encounters or constantly derail the plot by making the whole group spend game time every session on working around it, then the DM ought to just ban the character form the start. There's no percentage in making everybody unhappy so that you can turn around and say, "I told you so."

 

[Regicide]

But by allowing the character in the first place you're implicitly saying that the prejudice isn't going to make the game less fun to play.

You can turn that around and say that by taking the race the player is implicitly accepting the fact that they're basically playing a baby-eating serial killer who any civilized person would kill on sight, and WANT to play it BECAUSE of the consequences. Otherwise, why are they picking a monster race that any adventuring party would immediately attack when they are encountered in the first place?

 

[Kaelkatar]

Anyone playing this game should know that bugbears are monsters and that often there are social consequences with playing them. The player should have an idea that their ability to act like all the other PCs will vary depending on if they are in a major city with a goodly king, or of they are in some frontier crap town. If not, they likely don't understand what a bugbear is and are taking it 100% for stats. Never let this happen.

 

[Wolfwood2]

You can turn that around and say that by taking the race the player is implicitly accepting the fact that they're basically playing a baby-eating serial killer who any civilized person would kill on sight, and WANT to play it BECAUSE of the consequences. Otherwise, why are they picking a monster race that any adventuring party would immediately attack when they are encountered in the first place?

A player might also want to play a 30th level demigod in a 1st level game and WANT to play it BECAUSE of the consequences. You wouldn't allow that, would you? It's not a DM's place to judge the player's motivations for wanting to play a character. It's only a DM's place to judge if a particular character is going to disrupt a campaign to the point of making it less fun.

If a bugbear works in the context of a campaign with racial prejudice just providing an interesting roleplaying flavor, then allow it. If a bugbear PC is going to be attacked on sight and/or the fact of his race is going to completely dominate every social encounter the PC is part of, then don't allow it.

Allowing a concept in so that it can fail and you can point a finger and yell, "HA-HA!"... not cool.

 

[Engilbrand]

I disagree. Bugbears are noble warriors who are known for their ability to whittle. Gnomes, on the other hand...
See what I did there? I changed the flavor for my game. Are Bugbears in the back of the MM? Yes. So are Warforged, Gnomes, and Shifters. Are those automatically evil? What about in Eberron? Bugbears make sense as a PC race in Eberron. In some areas, they might be looked down upon, but they aren't kill on sight.
In the game that I'm running, I let the players know that the PHB races were OK, told them that their area is very racially tolerant, and Orcs, Goblins and Kobolds were kill on sight. Bugbears are a form of Goblin, so they're still KOS. The other MM races? When someone asked for Minotaur, I found a spot for them. Why are the Orcs, Goblins and Kobolds KOS? Because that's what I decided for my game. It's a simple default.
If a player is asking if it's possible to play a Bugbear, though, they're also asking what the default assumption is for the world. The conversation should go like this:

Player: Can I play a Bugbear?
DM: They're seen as monsters and most of the civilized world will kill them when they see them.
Player: So, is that a yes?
DM: Shut up. Stupid question.

OR:

Player: Can I play a Bugbear?
DM: I hadn't planned on it, but I'm willing to sit down with you and come up with their place in the world. We can figure out some campaign-specific history and how people see them.
Player: Sounds good.

But, it shouldn't go:

Player: Can I play a Bugbear?
DM: Sure.
DM a little later to the other players: Your town was just attacked by Bugbears. You see one to the East that is dressed like- (What do you look like?
Other players: We attack it.

Numbers 1 and 2 are acceptable. Number 3 is the sign of a douchebag.

 

[Kaelkatar]

I'm not saying that DMs shouldn't consider making bugbears a legitimate race, I'm saying that no DM should feel obligated to change the world in order to suit the PCs. Furthermore, a simple saying of "Life will be tough as a bugbear" is enough to allow throwing as much racism his way as you like.