Post/Author/DateTime	Post
shadowoftreefrog 03-14-07, 12:23 AM	I'm the back up DM for my group, we have a big DM who we usually do the published mega campaigns with (maybe 1 more session in Rhod, and we did play through both an updated version of temple of elemental evil, and later with updated characters Return to Toee) and recently as I've started to peruse these boards I've noticed something. Everybody In my group always play's "boring" characters, most of the specs I see on here are much more varied. I put the boring in qoutes for a couple reasons, first everyone has fun otherwise we'd stop playing, and I like to think we do fun stuff with them, but...... Our stuff is almost always single class core material. We've gone through a number of human fighters, elf rangers, dwarf clerics and the like. Even when I ruled in one of my campaigns that if you died (I sometimes run... rough.... adventures where everyone gets their character dead more than once) you couldn't use same class or species (or subspecies) as any of your last 2 characters... Trying to get some variety in there. I got a weretiger barbarian, and a half-orc monk. That was as far as they got from the standard fantasy archtypes. I even find myself getting in this rut, I didn't even realize I was in it. weirdest thing I've done was a dragonkin (don't remember what kind, couple years ago) samuri in a dragonlance campaign and I felt like I was stealing the spotlight and felt bad. So, is this a problem? Are Aasimar favored soul/knight or some other nonstandard species/ non-core class more fun to play. And if so is there a way I can coax some of my players into maybe trying something like that? Edit: changed the wording so I got the question I originally intended across about my party, I didn't mean to say everyone on here is boring, I'll read my posts from now on.
Archangel_James 03-14-07, 12:42 AM	No. Obscure races and characters are not, as a rule, more fun to play. My favourite character ever was a gnome bard NPC. He was fun, not because he was mechanically interesting, but because his personality was interesting. I also enjoyed playing my half-elf paladin. The elf druid I came up with was so much fun, he ended up being an antagonist. My elan psion (pretty much the most boring psionic combination you can get) was terribly interesting because of his completely off-the-wall back story and personality. I just made a group of NPCs who seem to be interesting because they are so boring. I think it's safe to say that the obscure PCs (like atheist paladin) and NPCs (like the town full of Good savage humanoids) are the more forgettable characters, since their uniqueness relies on mechanics and numbers, rather than human emotion. Every story ever told is in the Bible. In the same way, every character can be made with the three Core Rulebooks. Through creativity, not mechanics, are fun characters discovered.
CharlieRock 03-14-07, 12:43 AM	Hey, now! :P My team has a Half-Elf Bard and a Halfling Rogue. How's that for deviant class/race combos. In the recent past our team has also included such originalities as the Elf Druid, and the Human Fighter. Now here is what I wanted to add: almost all (save one) of the non-core "more fun" class/race combos have been very one-dimensional. The Half-Dragon Fighter (no backstory), the Goliath So-Boring-I-Can't-Remember-Class that didn't get killed so much as wandered off into the Fields of Mediocre Character Concepts, the Ninja/Swashbuckler/Scout (talk about far-fetched "boring" concepts), even the Tiefling Sorcerer (too angsty to be fun). I get more mileage (story-wise) from the core classes.
Gamili 03-14-07, 12:49 AM	I actually have no idea where you're coming from on this one. Do all your fighters seem to act the same or all your elves have the same personality and outlook? It's the only sort of explination I have for it. If the people in your group aren't able to play Half-Orc Barbarians differently every time they get rolled up, then I suggest hold role-playing lessons.
DarthMarasmus 03-14-07, 01:00 AM	My first point is that under normal circumstances, I don't see anything wrong with single class characters. The only times that I multiclass (excepting prestiges in the rare cases that I find one which I like) are when we have a small party (<4) or we've got two of the class I'm playing. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with multiclassing, just that I don't see that it's so great. Anyway, climbing back down from my soapbox, there are plenty of ways to play an interesting character that fills a sterotypical role (e.g. dwarf cleric, elf ranger, halfling rogue). For one thing, if everyone develops a distinct personality for each character they play (not each character type), then that immediately makes the character more interesting than the plain vanilla character. Personality can consist of many different things, from the mundane (a pious cleric or hard-drinking fighter) to a little different (a paladin with a sense of humor) to the downright bizarre (a hyper-active monk with OCD that heals his enemies until he executes his attacks PERFECTLY, well, perhaps that is a bit over the top). Backstory can help a lot, for example, Hagiss Anvilsplitter (my dwarven cleric of Clangeddin Silverbeard) is outwardly jovial for a dwarf, but the mistakes of his past haunt him (falling asleep while on watch with the first adventurers he left Mithral Hall with, causing them to be killed in their sleep by a band of orcs). He was critically wounded (he lost his right leg) and was left for dead. He dragged himself back to the nearest town, where a gnome wizard built him a prosthetic leg. It doesn't take much to give a character at least some personality. Finally, there are the odd race/class combinations and non-standard races. I really like both of these. Whether it's a dwarf rogue, a halfling fighter, a half-elf barbarian, whatever, it immediately says "this isn't ordinary." As for non-standards, whatever you as a DM are comfortable with allowing is game. I've personally never had a half-dragon in any of my games, but I have had drow, a centaur, and I even had a thri-kreen once. However, I do realize that your concern over a non-standard stealing the show is a logical concern. The centaur that was in my last game was a death dealing machine, even though she was played by a VERY inexperienced player (even though it was a REALLY odd race to be a monk, I think that I did make a bit of a mistake allowing that one). Yes, non-standards can be very fun to play, but only allow things that you are comfortable with. If you don't want to deal with a minotaur barbarian or an ogre fighter, don't allow them. Thank you and good gaming.
Cromage 03-14-07, 01:09 AM	As a backup DM, maybe not. But if you want to see a little variety in what the players do, vary your own style. Offer flavors that can't be expressed by standard archetypes, and let them fight awesome NPCs with powers the players have never seen, and the philosophies they express (best done with stuff like ToB). As you introduce new concepts, players will take them and run with them if they find them interesting. And if not? Not the end of the world.
Otherguy 03-14-07, 01:21 AM	I hardly ever have played non-core races/classes. Scratch that, I don't think I've EVER played non-core. I could, but I'm familiar with the core, and my favorite race is the half-elf (even in 3.0 where they were, sorry to say, laaaaame from a mechanic standpoint). I just recently played in a, unfortunately one-shot, game with a paladin (second edition) under that god of martyrs, whose name I can't remember. Anyway, that was an unfortunate omen for me as in each of the three encounters we got involved in I got whomped protecting my allies. Spiders, gnolls, and something I can't remember, thieves maybe. Anyway, in addition to this, we were ask to help evict the gnolls by a druid, who happened to be a werewolf. Moral crisis. I attacked the druid (after a die roll). Oh, yeah, I got my ass handed to me, but my comrades...spared. I don't think I'll forget the character (though I have forgotten his name). Anyway, if you like the core classes, use them. If you see a class in a splat book you or another player wants to use, use it. I was in an Arcana Evolved game where we all happened to make humans, whatev. Even if you play a halfling rogue, if you like it, use it. The game is about fun, and the core is all you need anyway.
shadowoftreefrog 03-14-07, 01:27 AM	I'ts not so much that I'm uncomfortable with them. It's more that I do kind of feel like we've grown stagnant. I will straight up admit we are not the best roleplayers out there, sometimes we are fantastic, sometimes were not. and alot of our senses of humor run along similar veins (we've all been friends for a number of years) so we frequently end up running classes similarly, John's dwarf cleric from the adventure were finishing, plays the same as Mike's gnome cleric from three years ago sorta thing. (is it bad that all our clerics are alcohalics, and most are womanizers? are we broken?) I quess sometimes it just feels like were missing out on a lot of stuff, we've got tons and tons of books that we've put so much money into, but seems like the only stuff we use out of them are feats, items and some spells. And its not like we don't have time to use the stuff, I mean we've been playing pretty consistentl once a week for prolly 3 or 4 hours on average, for like 8 years. but it is just starting to feel like the same stuff over and over again. (the mega adventures do take some time, I think RToee took like a year and a half, and we rezzed during that campaign so no new chara's) You guys are being real supportive about this though, I guess not everybody plays wierd stuff, they're just normally the only ones you hear about (kinda like the crazy people in the news, not everybody is crazy, those people just draw more attention)
Critalondel 03-14-07, 07:46 AM	There's nothing "boring" about admiring the classics. The core books have the core races and classes for a reason -- they're supposed to be the default choices.
Muspelheim 03-14-07, 09:06 AM	Every story ever told is in the Bible. In the same way, every character can be made with the three Core Rulebooks. Through creativity, not mechanics, are fun characters discovered. I don't really think this is the case. Sure, you might argue that all major, literary themes are covered in the Bible (personally, I wouldn't agree with that, but still), however that doesn't mean that everytime something new, story-based appears (be it a book, movie or whatever) that you can just dismiss it with a "the Bible already did that, not interesting" comment. As far as characters go, you are absolutely right in saying that single-classed (or core-only) can be just as fun and interesting as any other characters in a roleplaying sense. Mechanically, however, there are certain problems. The most classic example is the gish archetype, but there are others as well, which simply are not valid with core only. Sure you can build a fighter/wizard/eldritch knight - that's certainly a gish. Problem is that he is not very good. So in order to play your concept, you have to mechanically handicap yourself in a quite severe way, to the point of unplayability. The thing is, that instead of being able to fight a little less well than the fighter and do magic a little less well than the wizard, you end up pretty much sucking at both because of the way the rules work. It's certainly true that a character doesn't have to be a feral half-fiendish phrenic dracolich with 9 different character classes in order to be interesting - however, it is too simplistic to just claim you can build any concept you could ever imagine with core only.
Sereno 03-14-07, 09:07 AM	It might *sound* cool to be playing a half-fiend, half-dragon, phrenic, feral Penguin of Legend Psion1(egoist)/Barb1/Sorcerer1/Ninja6/Warlock1/BladeDancer10 to get all of the 1337e5T p0ww3rz!11!one!1, but the fact is that this kind of "build" can be just as boring as a human fighter if all they are is stats-on-a-page with no concept of personality. What makes a character exciting is not the "build," but the way that it's played. A humble human fighter with a fully realized personality -- who acts like a "real" person in a "real" world -- will always be 100X more interesting than any "build."
EffigyOfFaith 03-14-07, 09:18 AM	If you've stagnated it sounds like it's time to try something different. Try d20 modern or do a straight horror game. Go sci-fi, planscape or something you've never done before. Make everybody commoner fighting a zombie plage and see how creative everyone gets with almost no mechanics in thier charcters. my :twocents:
KJW 03-14-07, 09:35 AM	Most players can't even roleplay humans properly. ;) Therefore, there is little gained beyond mechanical advantage with more exotic builds. Personally, I find that more experienced roleplayers go with simpler builds because like Sereno says its the roleplaying not the build that makes the character. A human fighter has as much roleplaying potential as the half-pixie half-fiend paladin/sorcerer/scout/wu jen character, I would argue the human would have more potential as it isn't as muddled in design.
Critalondel 03-14-07, 09:44 AM	It's certainly true that a character doesn't have to be a feral half-fiendish phrenic dracolich with 9 different character classes in order to be interesting - however, it is too simplistic to just claim you can build any concept you could ever imagine with core only. Really? It worked pretty well for two other editions.
geekling 03-14-07, 10:18 AM	Well you see, to me those weirdo races are the boring ones. The ones where personality and style is replaces with being an oh! so! spehuuuuul! snowflake just down to being a half dragon/half catgirl/half undead were-meal worm/half fairy princess and just flat as a paper cut out and as boring as one too. So give me an all human party anyday.
Sereno 03-14-07, 11:46 AM	however, it is too simplistic to just claim you can build any concept you could ever imagine with core only. I know a lot of players are going to disagree with me on this, but I think "any concept you could ever imagine" is really an overrated feature of the game. Not all concepts are equal. Personally I *don't* think that a concept built as an excuse for mechanics is as "valid" as a concept that isn't. Stormwind Fallacy notwithstanding, it seems to me that the weirder the concept the more the focus is on the mechanics. Most of the half-this, half-that, half-this-other-thing (usually more than 2 halves, in any case!) isn't a matter of "this would be really cool" but "I get this ability from this half, and that ability from that half ... I'm gonna totally PWNZ0RZ!!one!1!" Very little thought ever seems to be given to how something could possibly be a half-fiendish/half-pixie/half-dragon Penguin of Legend. But, that doesn't matter 'cause it's kewl and powerful and kicks butt in combat. Most of what I think of as a "true" concept *can* be built just fine with Core material. Sure, it might not be as powerful as something with half-a-dozen templates and class dips, but in the end, the effectiveness of a character is not always a measure of it's "power."
Muspelheim 03-14-07, 01:22 PM	I know a lot of players are going to disagree with me on this, but I think "any concept you could ever imagine" is really an overrated feature of the game. Not all concepts are equal. Personally I *don't* think that a concept built as an excuse for mechanics is as "valid" as a concept that isn't. Stormwind Fallacy notwithstanding, it seems to me that the weirder the concept the more the focus is on the mechanics. Most of the half-this, half-that, half-this-other-thing (usually more than 2 halves, in any case!) isn't a matter of "this would be really cool" but "I get this ability from this half, and that ability from that half ... I'm gonna totally PWNZ0RZ!!one!1!" Very little thought ever seems to be given to how something could possibly be a half-fiendish/half-pixie/half-dragon Penguin of Legend. But, that doesn't matter 'cause it's kewl and powerful and kicks butt in combat. Most of what I think of as a "true" concept *can* be built just fine with Core material. Sure, it might not be as powerful as something with half-a-dozen templates and class dips, but in the end, the effectiveness of a character is not always a measure of it's "power." Somewhat true, however what I responded to was the claim quoted in my previous post that held that just as the Bible tell all stories, with core-only you can build any character. This is definitely not the case - certain pretty well-established archetypes like the fighter-mage and the jack-of-all trades are very hard to emulate while still being effective mechanically. And when I'm talking about 'effective' I don't necessarily mean that they have to be as good at certain things as specialists in the area; however, they should be able to contribute in a meaningful way corresponding to their concept and not drag the rest of the party down, so to speak.
Sereno 03-14-07, 01:44 PM	This is definitely not the case - certain pretty well-established archetypes like the fighter-mage and the jack-of-all trades are very hard to emulate while still being effective mechanically. And when I'm talking about 'effective' I don't necessarily mean that they have to be as good at certain things as specialists in the area; however, they should be able to contribute in a meaningful way corresponding to their concept and not drag the rest of the party down, so to speak. I guess it all comes down to campaign style ... I have played, and felt very much that I was contributing in a meaningful way, a fighter/wizard and even a barbarian/wizard. Being effective, IMO, has a lot more to do with how you make use of the resources and abilities you have rather than overall power-level. However, I could certainly conceive of a campaign where that would not be the case. I might be spoiled by having always had a group that was not very interested in optimization; we all seem to prefer the organic-growth style of play. When you're not competing with skilled optimizers, there's a much greater breadth of "effective" in character creation. Personally, I don't like playing with optimizers or anyone who'd come to the table for a 1st level game with a complete 20-level build that they're planning on achieving. It's one thing to have a concept that "I want to be a ranger who eventually becomes a great archer" and another to have the 20-level build designed to eek every last advantage from the rules. A group of all optimizers can work very well. A group of all-organics can work very well. Mixing the two, usually not so good.
Critalondel 03-15-07, 04:30 AM	Exactly my feelings on the matter, Sereno. Folks that show up with their levels and skill points and feats all plotted out ahead of time always strike me as the sort that are missing the point. It's not being level 20 that's fun -- it's getting there that's the point of the game.
Ack 03-15-07, 05:04 AM	I have several dwarf characters, and have played several more in the past. They are all different. I have no trouble in distinguishing Durok Harash (scarred veteran from a war that saw his home planet overrun) from Arak Stronginthearm (experienced dungeon-delver who speaks in a mix of archaic and Scottish accents) from Faldon Stonehewer (a mild-mannered cleric with an insane brother) from Sirron (level 6 gestalt culminating in Thrasher/\Monk) who doesn't use weapons or armour at all, and with DEX 10 has speed 40 and Defense 27+ :D You get out of them what you put into them.
Sereno 03-15-07, 08:53 AM	It's not being level 20 that's fun -- it's getting there that's the point of the game. HUZZAH!!
Cantankerous 03-15-07, 09:44 AM	For me the penultimate boring character is the one with an odd base race, two templates stacked on, three weird prestige classes that have no reason for being there other than kewl powerz and no personality. But then with me, any day of the week, I'd rather have a player present me with a human Fighter with a good, well thought out backstory and feasible personality develpement than the above abortion who also has a backstory and a personality. Why? Because one will be easily feasible and something you can count on being role played well by a Player capable of presenting it, while the other is a munchkins delight, even with a backstory and personality, and will VERY LIKELY be poor at representing what it proports to be because the Player most usually can't begin to understand the personality of such a being. Isshia
SilverFoxKnows 03-15-07, 11:42 AM	We have a Human Fighter, an Elven Druid with a minor Silver Dragon bloodline (she picked it for flavor, certainly not an uber template) and a Dwarven Barbarian. No PrCs yet and we're 14th. The Druid's player is looking at a 3rd party PrC that was inspired by, and fits in with, a long story arc. I guess we're all organic growth players. Boring, huh?
BW0222 03-15-07, 11:58 AM	shadowoftreefrog, So, is this a problem? The world may never know. Are Aasimar favored soul/knight or some other nonstandard species/ non-core class more fun to play. I actually find the opposite is often true in terms of interesting characters. First, if your players can not come up with interesting characters using standard races/classes, then they likely won't be coming up with interesting non-standard race/class characters. Second, unusual races just tend to get a "bizzare" reaction rather than interesting. No one can relate to them. They don't seem unusual because there is less of an understanding about what unusual is. Third, since the player doesn't have a good understanding of the race/class, it tends to fall into stereotypical roleplaying. For example, I can guess what a were-tiger barbarian is like. Forth, it tends to get players more interested in the mechanics of the classes rather than using imagination to get a character who, while not optimal, is usual in their choices. And if so is there a way I can coax some of my players into maybe trying something like that? If you are looking for recommendations... Backgrounds Prior to starting the campaign, have each player provide you with a copy of their character sheets and a e-mail you with a background (at least a half-page). Include where they were born, family, friends, occupation, etc. Make any alterations which don't fit the starting campaign settings. Start the Adventure with a One on One Prior to adventuring as a good, try getting each player out for a 1-2 hour introduction. Have them start out where they normally would be. Each should meet and interact with several folks from their past/backgrounds -- a sister, a mentor, coworkers, etc. Finally, each should be given some reason to meet up. No Discussing Charactera One easy way to make characters interesting is for players not to discuss them at the table. Do not reference classes, feats, stats, etc. Have folks describe themselves as "guides", "healers", "ex-soldiers", etc. Allow the players to go a few sessions feeling each other out and 'guessing' at what classes their folks might be. The unknown is far more interesting. Introduce PC Specific Plots Every few sessions, one PC should have some plot specific to them. The sister-in-law of one of the PCs comes along inviting the PC(s) to the PCs nieces wedding, one of the PCs gets a letter from his mentor asking for him to research something at a nearby library, a guild member of one of the PCs wants to get a description of a shopmaster's kid, etc. Allow certain plot to occationally give other PCs hint about that PCs life or background. "Gee Gront... you have a sister-in-law whose kid is getting married? That means you have a brother right?" or "Gee Siltar... can you let us know why you need so much time at that library or is this some secret wizard stuff? Maybe we can help?"
ajb47 03-15-07, 01:26 PM	It's not being level 20 that's fun -- it's getting there that's the point of the game. Actually, having fun getting there is the point of the game, isn't it? Some people may have fun planning out how they will be useful at each step of the way. I usually run games, so I haven't had many characters to run over my RP'ing life. One of those have I planned out mostly because our group consists of a human barbarian, a giant (from Arcana Evolved) fighter, a half-elf Cleric/Fighter, a human Fighter/Rogue, a human Fighter/Rogue, and a human Fighter/Rogue. If you want to talk potentially boring... So one Fighter/Rogue is basically a Mongol-Light cavalry guy. One fighter/Rogue is an organized crime family smuggler type. And mine is heading into a Nightsong Enforcer PrC. The others will probably end up being more fighters than rogues while mine is definitely going to be more rogue than fighter. Still, once I heard everyone else's classes, I wanted to make sure my character had a place in the party at each level, so I planned out what feats to take at which levels and when to get into the PrC. My PC also stands out because he has some of the Guttersnipe personality from PhBII and has a very foul mouth, but knows he works best as part of a team. His goals are advance the interests of his Guild (for which we used the Private Security Firm under adaptation for the Nightsong) and get fabulously wealthy (because he grew up poor). So you can plan to get there and have fun and not be boring all at the same time. AJ
Someone 03-15-07, 01:41 PM	I'm piling onto the suggestion that this is a player problem, not a character problem. You can get plenty of milage out of just the fighter. You could have a strength-based one, with stuff like power attack and a big honkin' sword. You could have a dex-based one, with weapon finesse, two weapons, or a bow. You could have a con-based one, able to withstand incredible punishment, a veritable "tank". You could have an Int-based one, with combat expertise and a broad range of skills. You could have a Wis-based one, though that's easier to do with a monk. You could even have a Cha-based one, as a great leader of others, a social dynamo, or just a feint monkey. That was just one class, and was regardless of race. It goes to show you could come up with plenty of personality based on what their highest (or lowest) stat is.
Vharuck 03-15-07, 02:02 PM	I once played a shifter (Eberron setting race, sort of a watered down lycanthrope) fighter in a play-by-post game. He didn't like to shift (it caused his behavior to become more bestial and this scared him), was soft-spoken, average looking, and wielded a longsword and heavy steel shield. The other players chose more exotic race/class combinations. The DM later sent me a private message thanking me for my roleplaying, saying I'd created an interesting character. Now that I've tooted my own horn, the thing is that, if you're all roleplaying, you could roll an entire party of human Experts working as merchants and have tons of fun with exciting game play. Novel doesn't always mean fun. Simply being contradictory to the norm (which is fast becoming a norm itself) doesn't take any imagination.