Bullgrit
Adventurer
Over the years, pre-D&D3 and post-D&D3, I've joined many different new gaming groups. I've created many new characters to join either groups already in the middle of a campaign or to join a newly forming group of PCs.
And one thing that is often troublesome is making a character that 1- isn't house ruled somehow by the DM, and 2- fits with the other PCs. It seems that the only character you can be assured is not somehow altered (nerfed, empowered, changed, misunderstood, whatever) in any game is the light-armored, greatsword-wielding human fighter.
The fighter class has no alignment issues to make things confusing/aggravating with Player-DM disagreement; has no special abilities to get changed; has no spells to be changed; etc.
The human race usually has no serious cultural changes to contend with.
All the other classes and races can have problems in a campaign, even if the DM and Players aren't making them on purpose. I had a wizard in a campaign where we never had any downtime - could never scribe scrolls or brew potions or acquire new spells beyond the two allowed for free. I've played a cleric who basically got led around by the nose by his god and his temple.
Paladins, of course, seem to always be problematic because of their code. Bards get screwed when the DM insists on basing NPC reactions on the Player's charisma and social skill instead of the character's. Barbarians get treated like dirty rats in a ballroom even when they don't dump Charisma. Druids get shut down when the whole campaign stays in a city. Rogues get nerfed when the main monsters are undead and constructs. Etc., etc., etc.
A heavily armored character hinders the party when they want to be stealthy. He also is screwed when attacked in cities or in night ambushes. In at least two campaigns, I've had a heavy-armor-type who either ticked off the other PCs with his "noisy" movement when trying to sneak, or he was cut to ribbons when not wearing the armor.
Many times, a campaign world has alterations to the races. You pick a dwarf character out of the book, but then learn that dwarves are disliked by the other races in the world. You pick a halfling character out of the book, but then find that halflings are slaves in most of the civilized world. You pick an elf and end up with all kinds of cultural strangeness because of their "alien-like" place in the world. And I probably don't even have to mention how half-orcs can be twisted.
Each character type can be altered either by house rules or by the campaign style or by the other PCs. And I don't mean that every campaign I've played in or seen has all these house rules or group styles that messes up all the classes and races. It's just that there is a good chance that I'll pick the class and race that gets screwed up (directly or indirectly) or doesn't fit well.
I mean, even in a game that is straight core rules (like I prefer), if I pick a wizard, we'll end up with no downtime -- no PC wants to wait a week for magic studies; if I pick a rogue, our campaign will revolve around undead; if I pick a gnome, the NPCs will treat him like vermin; if I pick a halfling bard, the campaign will be based in an area that eats halflings and my "duties" as the party faceman will fall flat. Etc.
So, I've decided that when creating a new character for a new game, I'll stick to lightly-armored human fighters. I haven't seen a game where a straight lightly-armored human fighter couldn't fit in perfectly fine with no problems.
[You would think the human monk, with no need for armor and weapons, would be even better than the human fighter, but I've never seen a monk actually do well in a campaign. Monks are just cursed by the game gods that control combat fate.]
Bullgrit
And one thing that is often troublesome is making a character that 1- isn't house ruled somehow by the DM, and 2- fits with the other PCs. It seems that the only character you can be assured is not somehow altered (nerfed, empowered, changed, misunderstood, whatever) in any game is the light-armored, greatsword-wielding human fighter.
The fighter class has no alignment issues to make things confusing/aggravating with Player-DM disagreement; has no special abilities to get changed; has no spells to be changed; etc.
The human race usually has no serious cultural changes to contend with.
All the other classes and races can have problems in a campaign, even if the DM and Players aren't making them on purpose. I had a wizard in a campaign where we never had any downtime - could never scribe scrolls or brew potions or acquire new spells beyond the two allowed for free. I've played a cleric who basically got led around by the nose by his god and his temple.
Paladins, of course, seem to always be problematic because of their code. Bards get screwed when the DM insists on basing NPC reactions on the Player's charisma and social skill instead of the character's. Barbarians get treated like dirty rats in a ballroom even when they don't dump Charisma. Druids get shut down when the whole campaign stays in a city. Rogues get nerfed when the main monsters are undead and constructs. Etc., etc., etc.
A heavily armored character hinders the party when they want to be stealthy. He also is screwed when attacked in cities or in night ambushes. In at least two campaigns, I've had a heavy-armor-type who either ticked off the other PCs with his "noisy" movement when trying to sneak, or he was cut to ribbons when not wearing the armor.
Many times, a campaign world has alterations to the races. You pick a dwarf character out of the book, but then learn that dwarves are disliked by the other races in the world. You pick a halfling character out of the book, but then find that halflings are slaves in most of the civilized world. You pick an elf and end up with all kinds of cultural strangeness because of their "alien-like" place in the world. And I probably don't even have to mention how half-orcs can be twisted.
Each character type can be altered either by house rules or by the campaign style or by the other PCs. And I don't mean that every campaign I've played in or seen has all these house rules or group styles that messes up all the classes and races. It's just that there is a good chance that I'll pick the class and race that gets screwed up (directly or indirectly) or doesn't fit well.
I mean, even in a game that is straight core rules (like I prefer), if I pick a wizard, we'll end up with no downtime -- no PC wants to wait a week for magic studies; if I pick a rogue, our campaign will revolve around undead; if I pick a gnome, the NPCs will treat him like vermin; if I pick a halfling bard, the campaign will be based in an area that eats halflings and my "duties" as the party faceman will fall flat. Etc.
So, I've decided that when creating a new character for a new game, I'll stick to lightly-armored human fighters. I haven't seen a game where a straight lightly-armored human fighter couldn't fit in perfectly fine with no problems.
[You would think the human monk, with no need for armor and weapons, would be even better than the human fighter, but I've never seen a monk actually do well in a campaign. Monks are just cursed by the game gods that control combat fate.]
Bullgrit
