Why would you want to play *that*??

[The Shaman]

I will say, in defense of the OP's position, that I get kinda sick of dealing with oddball parties all the time.

Some players don't seem to be happy unless their character is deficit-spending SAN points. :\

More generally I think ChristianW's post provides a spot-on guideline: play the setting, not the rules.

If the "weird" character makes sense in the context of the setting, then it's probably not really all that weird. If the character doesn't mesh without folding, spindling, or mutilatiing the setting to make it fit, then the player should come up with something else.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Someone on EnWorld once suggested that unusual character types should cost a feat. I allow a number of unusual character types IMC; anything more unusual costs a feat.

What's the point of that? Unusual character types are already rigged to be behind the power curve. Putting them even further behind the power curve just means more of a burden to the rest of the party.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What's the point of that? Unusual character types are already rigged to be behind the power curve. Putting them even further behind the power curve just means more of a burden to the rest of the party.

Not really that much of a problem in a game which is not composed purely of sequential combats.

The point of it is as follows:

(1) The player has to decide if it is really worth it.

(2) It provides a motivation to play the setting, not the rules. As The Shaman pointed out, if the "weird" character makes sense in the context of the setting, then it's probably not really all that weird, and no feat is required. DM's call.

(3) If you constantly make characters that are a burden to the rest of the party, it is the purview of the party to deal with it.

RC

 

[Psion]

(2) It provides a motivation to play the setting, not the rules. As The Shaman pointed out, if the "weird" character makes sense in the context of the setting, then it's probably not really all that weird, and no feat is required. DM's call.

I don't like it. I prefer carrots to sticks in this situation, and I think that a feat is too big a stick if you are going to use a stick.

I am all for giving little kickbacks to players who play to the setting (frex, in my game, if you take a feat appropriate to your background, you get a bonus skill point or modifier). But a feat's too much and punishing the players is a bad way to go about it IMO.

 

[Henry]

What's the point of that? Unusual character types are already rigged to be behind the power curve. Putting them even further behind the power curve just means more of a burden to the rest of the party.

Same reason that Clerics are some of the most powerful characters in the game: you reward behaviors you want to see, you punish behaviors you don't want to see. If every single game there's a party of misfits, then if the DM sets a ground rule to make it cost something to be something outside the PHB, it costs a feat/XP/something else. I may not agree with it, but it's a perfectly valid way to subtly influence behaviors in a campaign - kind of a reudimentary version of Spycraft's "Campaign Qualities."

 

[ThirdWizard]

I don't like it. I prefer carrots to sticks in this situation, and I think that a feat is too big a stick if you are going to use a stick.

I'm fairly certain RC is the one who has a feat for PCs who come from far away strange locations to encourage PCs to come from nearby areas (correct me if I'm wrong) and thus we've already have this very long conversation already. Beware.

 

[Vlos]

Are people playing Warlocks (for example) because they want to explore the sorcerous angst and natural disdain of a character and they have a great concept for a backstory, and want to work out a really interesting story - or do people play a Warlock because they can blast things forever, and get really cool abilities, and have damage reduction, and are just really kewl!

If people want to play D&D because they want to recreate FINAL FANTASY, then so be it, but I think there are probably better ways of doing that.

What you have to grasp kluge is people like to role play different things. Just because you don't like FINAL FANTASY doesn't mean others don't.

I have to assume you read books or watch movies. When a person sees a movie or read a book, they may want to play a character like the one in the book. Even if they are playing exactly like the one in the movie they are "role playing" because they are not playing themselves.

Role playing is taking on the role of someone other than yourself.

Now you may like to play all different types of roles, but some people may just be happy playing a single type of role. Or some may like playing weird roles of strange powerful creatures. The great thing about 3.x is it now gives us the ability (mechanics) to do just that.

Playing a sterotypical wood loving, magic using elf may be a challenging role playing experience for some people. Especially newer people who haven't been playing as long. Or maybe someone who is shy or isn't as self confident as some. That shouldn't be looked on as a bad thing. They are giving it a try. And it may take years for them to move onto the next step. I know I've been playing since '84 and I played only elves my first 6 years of gaming.

I still don't play a humans, you may ask why, because I am a human. I live the life of a human. I find them boring. I want to live the life of something else, gaming allows me to do that. All the roles you can apply to your humans, you can apply to a elf.

As for stats? I have approached my GMs and asked that if I could take a race and apply human stats and gain human feats, skills and such, because personally (as pointed out by another post) they are much better than any +LA. Bonus feats, skill points, any favored class. These easily outway stat adjustments in 90% of cases. Sometimes they allow it, sometimes they don't.

So why don't you take the next step, and take all your roles you talk so much about and try them on a tiefling or a half dragon? Expand your "role playing"...

 

[Raven Crowking]

Same reason that Clerics are some of the most powerful characters in the game: you reward behaviors you want to see, you punish behaviors you don't want to see. If every single game there's a party of misfits, then if the DM sets a ground rule to make it cost something to be something outside the PHB, it costs a feat/XP/something else. I may not agree with it, but it's a perfectly valid way to subtly influence behaviors in a campaign - kind of a reudimentary version of Spycraft's "Campaign Qualities."

What he said.

And, of course, ThirdWizard is wise to warn you all.

Mwah hah hah hah hah!

 

[Raven Crowking]

What you have to grasp kluge is people like to role play different things. Just because you don't like FINAL FANTASY doesn't mean others don't.

Equally, though, if you despise Final Fantasy (or whatever) you don't have to let it creep into your game.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Equally, though, if you despise Final Fantasy (or whatever) you don't have to let it creep into your game.

To actually keep it out, though, you'd have to know at least a little bit about it.