TheRejectionist
TheRejectionist
I still have to read the first three.
Do you create non-human characters in games?
- Thread starter Val the Moofia Boss
- Start date
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Yeah, they retconned a lot of charms over time.
bintananth
behind a desk
They did let some people who didn't understand the system write charms ...
It seems as if you want to put non-human characters in a game they shouldn't just be humans that look different. An otterish creature should be exceptionally good at swimming for example. As far as I know the only thing dragonborn have going for them is breath weapon, but other than that why not just play a human?
Blasterbot
Well-known member
not even that. they included a option in one of their new splat books that makes it so everyone can just play the human feat variant by giving up the rest of the race abilities. thats right all races are now human.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
To some degree, but go to, say RPoL and post you're running a game where every player is a dragon or other monster and you'll be buried in applications.
For non-humanoid characters you run into balance issues fairly quickly. DnD is heavily balanced around the constant grinding for new loot. If the PC, is, say, a giant tiger how do you manage to roll up a longsword of flame +3 they can use? It makes for more complexity and difficulty for the GM. This is, in part, why the demand for non-humanoid-centric games greatly exceeds the supply.
Other game designs like Exalted actually work really well with non-human PCs, as the system has no focus on loot or equipment but rather on personal enlightenment and cultivation. However ironically Exalted allows no non-human PCs at all, aside from a blurb in Lunars about playing an all-animal team after humanity goes extinct.
For non-humanoid characters you run into balance issues fairly quickly. DnD is heavily balanced around the constant grinding for new loot. If the PC, is, say, a giant tiger how do you manage to roll up a longsword of flame +3 they can use? It makes for more complexity and difficulty for the GM. This is, in part, why the demand for non-humanoid-centric games greatly exceeds the supply.
Other game designs like Exalted actually work really well with non-human PCs, as the system has no focus on loot or equipment but rather on personal enlightenment and cultivation. However ironically Exalted allows no non-human PCs at all, aside from a blurb in Lunars about playing an all-animal team after humanity goes extinct.
UberIguana
Well-known member
D&D is balanced around whatever the DM throws at you and what rewards they hand out afterwards. If there are almost no magic items, then you don't need to worry about whether or not you can use them. Maybe the game is built around spending your gold on founding a kingdom, or a missionary network, or a wizard's university or something. In any case, better hope your encounters are adjusted accordingly. With no magic items the party will be effectively under-levelled in many encounters. The cleric or wizard can't keep the best buffs going all day.
. . . Someone doesn't know the rules well if this is an issue. Since Monks have been a character class forever there's always been ways of enchanting natural attacks to keep pace with magic weapons: Amulet of Mighty Fists. They get enchanted and can be enchanted with weapon effects just like a weapon and can apply them to weapons.
In 3.5 at least a non-humanoid creature would have no issues having a proper magic item kit, they could use most of the generic bonus items, animal Barding was a thing and could be enchanted just like armor, and the aforementioned Amulet of Mighty Fists covered weapons, and since Monks, Animal Companions, and Familiars were things anyway there was always a justification for them being around on a loot table.
The bigger issue is that balancing a person playing an awakened Giant Tiger is actually doing the proper level balancing to make it so that they're not overpowered or underpowered compared to other party members. And those rules are quite complex and difficult to properly implement even by experienced GMs, heck, to this day many people do not actually understand and can apply the Monster Creation Rules outlined in the 3.5 Monster Manual, or understand how Racial Hit Die interact with Class Levels and Level Adjustments. Thing is... these systems ACTUALLY DO WORK, but they take a lot of effort to actually figure out and execute.
Want to know the real reason people didn't get to play those types of things in 3.5? The majority of games took place between levels 1 and 8... going past those levels was rare. An awakened Tiger has 8 HD of Magical Beast and a single level of, say, Fighter, has an ECL of 9... meaning it's considered to be the equivalent of a 9th level PC, placing it above the threshold where most common DnD games were played. And this is for one of the simplest scenarios. If you want to play something like a Dragon, unless you're playing the smallest smol ones, you're looking at ECLs of 15+ really quickly.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
All the items you're covering there are way more expensive as well, the game is not balanced around them. An Amulet of Mighty Fists +1 is 6000GP, where a +1 longsword will run you 2015GP. This is beyond that the Amulet can never give any benefits beyond a +bonus, which are the weakest and least useful ones compared to other weapons.
As far as availability on tables, you have a 0.08% chance to roll up an amulet of mighty fists +1 and no chance of getting higher for a minor item roll. You have a 3.5% chance of getting a +1 weapon, a 0.75% chance of a +2 weapon, and a 1% chance of getting a specific named weapon or a weapon with multiple powers. Barding doesn't even appear on the tables.
This is beyond the roleplaying issues, how does your giant cat even manage to put a plate harness on and buckle all those straps without any thumbs, or keep a pair of spectacles on its face with its ears in the wrong place?
But yeah, the LA and Racial Hit Die rules don't help a bit, the designers admitted they deliberately made monster PCs much, much weaker than standard race PCs just to enforce humanoid player rules. It's deucedly hard to play a competent Aranea when it loses 4 whole levels for being able to cast as well as a 3rd level humanoid PC...
Buba
A total creep
This is the point at which she purrs - "let me slip into something comfortable ... "
No plate - but chain.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
I have my doubts a tiger's going to be able to put on a chain hauberk without thumbs either.
bintananth
behind a desk
Exalted sorta addressed that.
You want play an elf? Have at it and here's the Fair Folk charmset. Do you see that preteen girl over there? If she's a Solar with Lore charms your reality is pretty much whatever she says it is.
Scooby Doo
Well-known member
I pick non human races if they're cute looking (Khajitt from ESO) or Badass looking (Argonian from Skyrim/Oblivion) or are Robots because I love robots.
But if they look like some goblin shit or a stripper Elf no thanks I rather be human.
But if they look like some goblin shit or a stripper Elf no thanks I rather be human.
In my homebrew game one can play humans, humanish (e.g. dwarf, elf), a number of creatures such as red pandas or even dragons since they are not the massive killing machines they are in D&D.
But then you must play them according to what they are. Humans are so varied you can play one in any way your alignment allows, whatever that is. But red pandas are mostly peaceful herbivores with no interest in loot; lesser dragons' desire for shiny loot is mostly instinctive so they would gather up pretty glass fake gems as well (and what they can fly with is very limited indeed as the physics are much more like ours); even good-aligned half-orcs are easily enraged and prefer direct action; picayunafolk will get mashed in melee combat so they avoid it; leofolk despise slavery to the point where they WILL attack any slave market or slaver gang they see, etc.
In D&D you want to play a tiefling sure- but don't expect a warm welcome (pun intended) from most as you are part devil. Dwarfs are stubborn as all out. Elves hate human cities except maybe Gondor. Kobolds are usually murderous, vicious and evil so even if you play a good one you may get a lynching if you show up in a human area. Motivations vary, so you must abide by it.
But then you must play them according to what they are. Humans are so varied you can play one in any way your alignment allows, whatever that is. But red pandas are mostly peaceful herbivores with no interest in loot; lesser dragons' desire for shiny loot is mostly instinctive so they would gather up pretty glass fake gems as well (and what they can fly with is very limited indeed as the physics are much more like ours); even good-aligned half-orcs are easily enraged and prefer direct action; picayunafolk will get mashed in melee combat so they avoid it; leofolk despise slavery to the point where they WILL attack any slave market or slaver gang they see, etc.
In D&D you want to play a tiefling sure- but don't expect a warm welcome (pun intended) from most as you are part devil. Dwarfs are stubborn as all out. Elves hate human cities except maybe Gondor. Kobolds are usually murderous, vicious and evil so even if you play a good one you may get a lynching if you show up in a human area. Motivations vary, so you must abide by it.