Deciding your PC race.

[SnowleopardVK]

I always go based on concept.

I didn't even consider that going based on optimization was possible until (a long time ago) a player of mine said they would never play certain class/race combos because of the penalties. I forget which combo was in question at the time. I didn't really agree with that player.

 

[S'mon]

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?

That's what Thrin (Upper_Krust's PC), the highest level PC in my 1e game, did. He doesn't like people to know he used to be an Elf!

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I always play human (or in when I create my character, it can change during game sometimes). When I played earlier editions human sucked (sure it could level higher, but no multi-classing, and most games stopped at lv 6 anyway). So humans kinda got short stick. 3rd edition they kinda got better. Extra feat is nice and skill points.

I like min-maxing but mostly when I dm. I am evil that way.

 

[steeldragons]

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.

I did not mean, nor do I think I said, that choosing to be human was a "mechanically weak choice."

Yes, that they are the most flexible. They were, originally, the only race capable of being any class and the only race able to have "unlimited" levels in all classes. D&D was developed as a humanocentric game to be sure.

Which made Humans, as I said, "the Baseline" against which other racial abilities were tweaked.

Currently, if I'm getting this right, humans can add +2 to any stat they want whereas other races can't do that.

So they are still the most "flexible" choice...and I believe most game worlds still hold humans to be the largest population (they live for so short a time, but breed so quickly!)

Saying they are the "weakest" race is not tantamount to saying they are "mechanically weak."

But they are the baseline...which makes sense since all of our starting reference (when we first come to the game, I mean) only tells us what a human is capable of.

Non-human races have abilities that are, on average, better (or worse) at certain things than what, on average, a human would be.

Dwarves are, on average, "tougher". Elves are, on average, more intelligent/quicker reflexed...Every race has better senses than what we, as players, know an average human can sense. (better sight, "noticing" secret doors, stonework stuff, hiding, not being surprised/snuck up on, resistance to magics, etc. etc.)

In the example above, a Goliath getting +2 to their Str and Con makes total sense and in no way, to my thinking, leads to "the rules" demanding a human be allowed a similar bonus...to make them mechanically comparable, least of all.

A "weakling goliath" should still be well larger and stronger (+2) than all but the most exceptionally large and strong human.

And, as [MENTION=6671274]onedtwelve[/MENTION] so astutely suggests, "exceptions" to a racial norm are always possible (well, if you'll allow "always" to equal "DM's discretion"/"sanctioned rules tweaking")...a physically weak but mentally gifted goliath or an especially clumsy (low Dex) but especially tough (chart topping Con) halfling, just for a couple examples.

This is certainly not, imho, a disagreement about mechanics, per se...and will harken us back to the point of the thread, I hope...but a basic fundamental difference in personal perspective and preference to how one approaches the game.

IOW, Does one look at the "numbers on the sheet", concerned about how they [the numbers] optimize their "character" to the "best it can be at what it does"...

OR does one look at a "character" and how the "numbers on the sheet" translate into that character's "reality" in the game world (are they clumsy, are they attractive, are they stronger than your average bear?)

...either/any of which is completely valid as long as it offers one the enjoyment they're seeking in their game/play.

It is at the base of the original poster's question: Do you start with [and, one can extrapolate, then go through the rest of the game with a...] concept [i.e. "character"] or optimizing [i.e. "numbers"]?

That's all I mean/am saying.
Have fun and happy character...creating or building.
--SD

 

[Pentius]

I did not mean, nor do I think I said, that choosing to be human was a "mechanically weak choice."

Clarification noted.

Currently, if I'm getting this right, humans can add +2 to any stat they want whereas other races can't do that.

Yes. Specifically, in 4e, Humans get "+2 to any one stat" whereas the other races get "+2 to X stat, +2 to Y or Z stat". The Dwarf, for example, gets +2 Strength, +2 Constitution OR +2 Wisdom.

So they are still the most "flexible" choice...and I believe most game worlds still hold humans to be the largest population (they live for so short a time, but breed so quickly!)
In the example above, a Goliath getting +2 to their Str and Con makes total sense and in no way, to my thinking, leads to "the rules" demanding a human be allowed a similar bonus...to make them mechanically comparable, least of all.
A "weakling goliath" should still be well larger and stronger (+2) than all but the most exceptionally large and strong human.

And, as [MENTION=6671274]onedtwelve[/MENTION] so astutely suggests, "exceptions" to a racial norm are always possible (well, if you'll allow "always" to equal "DM's discretion"/"sanctioned rules tweaking")...a physically weak but mentally gifted goliath or an especially clumsy (low Dex) but especially tough (chart topping Con) halfling, just for a couple examples.

Well, yes on the first bit. Goliaths get strength and constitution bonuses because they are bigger, and it is balanced against humans and their flexible +2, more or less. No one is asking for redress on this. But onedtwelve mentioned giving a Goliath bonuses to Intelligence and Charisma instead of Strength and Constitution, should the player want to play a Psion, which uses those. Basically, he suggested that any race should just be given the 2 stats that work best for their class by the DM. The objection was that this just flat out trumps humans and their single floating stat bonus. That is where "the rules demanding a redress", so to speak, comes in.

This is certainly not, imho, a disagreement about mechanics, per se...and will harken us back to the point of the thread, I hope...but a basic fundamental difference in personal perspective and preference to how one approaches the game.

IOW, Does one look at the "numbers on the sheet", concerned about how they [the numbers] optimize their "character" to the "best it can be at what it does"...

OR does one look at a "character" and how the "numbers on the sheet" translate into that character's "reality" in the game world (are they clumsy, are they attractive, are they stronger than your average bear?)

...either/any of which is completely valid as long as it offers one the enjoyment they're seeking in their game/play.

I don't think one of those things excludes the other, honestly. I can tell you that I do the first. I don't do the second. The translation doesn't go that way. I translate my character into my sheet, but I don't look to the sheet to tell me about my character.

It is at the base of the original poster's question: Do you start with [and, one can extrapolate, then go through the rest of the game with a...] concept [i.e. "character"] or optimizing [i.e. "numbers"]?

That's all I mean/am saying.
Have fun and happy character...creating or building.
--SD

I don't do anything that clear cut. I don't stop optimizing or conceptualizing(?) at any point. When I first make a character, some of the choices are made for optimization purposes, some for the concept. If I find that the balance of the two doesn't work, that I can create a mechanical monstrosity with no heart and soul, or a wonderful concept that comes across poorly in the mechanics, I scrap it and start over. I've always got more character concepts than games. If a character isn't going to rock out on both mechanics and flavor, there are other concepts I could be playing.

And once the game has begun, the line between the two is tenuous at best. Am I having my Barbarian Samurai take Weapon Focus(Heavy Blades) because I want to do more damage, or because he really has focused on the katana? Both are true.

 

[was]

character concept

 

[Lord Ipplepop]

I ALWAYS choose everything on my characters to fit the character concept. I have absolutely no hassles having an 8 stat if there is a valid reason for the character to have it, and I can effectively role play it.

 

[Jhaelen]

I start with a character concept without thinking too hard about mechanics. But I tend to adjust the initial concept to make sure it's mechanically viable later on.

So far I've never had a character concept that I didn't manage to turn into a playable pc. I enjoy employing my optimization skills to turn 'exotic', non-optimal race/class combinations into something that 'works'.

This works well for me because most of my fellow players are either equally uninterested in playing fully optimized characters or aren't any good in optimizing characters.

 

[Desdichado]

Always character concept, regardless of edition of the game.

The only time I care about if the race is a good fit mechanically for the class is when my concept is rather vague and more centered on the class than the race.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well for me some concepts are RP, some are crunch.

Some concepts work with multiple races, like my Temp hit point 4E machine.

Some gotta be one race.

But as I said upthread, I find the newer the D&D edition, the more race matters. WEll, after races stopped bieng classes too, that is.