How Do You Role-Play That?

[Ruut]

A player is exploring the idea of a Black Blood Cultist, and is looking at feats/grafts to get more natural attacks.

My questions to him was "How are you going to role-play that thing you are going to make? You are going to have horns, tusks, claws, tentacles, and a tail. Are you just going to simply go into town, have a seat at the bar and order a drink? What about city guards? What about children running around? What can you possibly do outside of combat?"

That player then decided to make a spellcaster. I did not mean for him to absolutely stop his entire character creation idea, and now I kind of feel bad because I want him to have fun with his idea.

Any suggestions?

[Vhaidara]

You get stared at. Possibly shaken down and falsely accused of things. And this probably happens a lot. Hell, some towns might reach the point where you're on first name terms with the town guard.

Some towns may not let you in even. Maybe you have to go underground and work with the drow or the duergar.

[Akal Saris]

I once toyed around with the idea of playing an anthropomorphic squid soul eater (a prestige class that deals negative levels with touch attacks).

My idea was to wear a hat of disguise so that he would look like a half-ogre pirate, hiding his cluster of tentacles as a giant beard. He'd give off a briny smell and be creepy/scary sort of like that one guy in the second Pirates of the Caribbean movie...

So yeah, hat of disguise is one idea! Though a back-up story is always good when some child sees through the illusion..

[Dusk Eclipse]

Big cloak/trenchcoat are usually a good first-line of defense, I guess.

[Yorrin]

Big cloak/trenchcoat are usually a good first-line of defense, I guess.

And with enough enchantments they can be a last line of defense as well!

[Anxe]

You warned him about the repercussions of playing something that is effectively a demon. He decided it wouldn't be as fun as a spellcaster. You could offer the disguise ideas, but its not necessarily a build idea that needs to come back if he's happy playing something else.

[Erik Vale]

Hat of Disguise for 1800gp/A large monk's customized with a robe with a hood claiming horrible burns that I don't want to afflict others with the sight of.

[Ruut]

You warned him about the repercussions of playing something that is effectively a demon. He decided it wouldn't be as fun as a spellcaster. You could offer the disguise ideas, but its not necessarily a build idea that needs to come back if he's happy playing something else.

I have noticed a lot of the min/max style of optimizations I see on forums the characers are either so grotesque that they belong in a dungeon somewhere, or you would have so many cross-class xp penalties it would take forever to level up.

I did tell reassure him that with certain spell choices he could achieve about the same thing, if not even better results... and at the end of combat, you go back to being "normal."

[Yorrin]

or you would have so many cross-class xp penalties it would take forever to level up.

Yeah, about that. It's pretty much universally agreed on afaik that multiclassing penalties should never be enforced. I've been DMing for years and I never even teach them to my players.

[Erik Vale]

And, TMK, it only applies once, giving you a 20% penalty, not stacking 20% penalties.

[Spore]

I am imagining a body being taken over by some Lovecraftian horror like an elder one. His body is still under his control but partly infested by aberrations. By level ups his deformations would spread in his body (as the character fears loss of control but the player stacks more feats).

He has to take all his effort into controlling his body and would certainly NOT be ordering a drink in a bar. At least not regularly. On regular occasions you should roleplay the voices in his head whispering to him to give in because what he is trying to hopelessly contain is older than the worlds themselves. Maybe on one or two encounters his body could spawn some monsters, too.

You could always DM fiat his crafts to recede when out of combat.

[Ruut]

Yeah, about that. It's pretty much universally agreed on afaik that multiclassing penalties should never be enforced. I've been DMing for years and I never even teach them to my players.

I don't like them either, to be honest, and I appreciate that Pathfinder removed them. I have always houseruled; for instance, a racial prestige class - is favored; and that core classes are favored.

I don't believe a Half-Orc should be penalized for having 4 levels of fighter to specialize in his greataxe, while leveling up in his barbarian class.

The only reason I have ever remotely enforced them was because of a ridiculous player, having a female drow, take levels of fighter, wizard, and something else, to make a greenstar adept. My eyebrows were making funny twitches when he was trying to come up with backstory on how is particular female drow was somehow above and beyond the priesthood.

I like to have role-playing context in my gaming sessions. I often ask the players to have a good amount of fluff as justification for certain things. Maybe I am just a hard ass. I don't know...

Another example... Underdark Campaign - and a character wanted to make a male Drow Paladin worshipping Heironeous... the party was evil... I asked him to explain to me how he secretly worships a deity he probably hasn't heard of and conceals his lawful goodness from the evil priests in a female dominated society. I then told him that "Because" is not a good enough reason.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

I don't like them either, to be honest, and I appreciate that Pathfinder removed them. I have always houseruled; for instance, a racial prestige class - is favored; and that core classes are favored.

I don't believe a Half-Orc should be penalized for having 4 levels of fighter to specialize in his greataxe, while leveling up in his barbarian class.

The only reason I have ever remotely enforced them was because of a ridiculous player, having a female drow, take levels of fighter, wizard, and something else, to make a greenstar adept. My eyebrows were making funny twitches when he was trying to come up with backstory on how is particular female drow was somehow above and beyond the priesthood.

I like to have role-playing context in my gaming sessions. I often ask the players to have a good amount of fluff as justification for certain things. Maybe I am just a hard ass. I don't know...

Another example... Underdark Campaign - and a character wanted to make a male Drow Paladin worshipping Heironeous... the party was evil... I asked him to explain to me how he secretly worships a deity he probably hasn't heard of and conceals his lawful goodness from the evil priests in a female dominated society. I then told him that "Because" is not a good enough reason.

Um... Fighter/Wizard/Green Star Adept is like the least ridiculous thing that exists, especially with Drow LA. I'd be more worried that such a character is unsuitably WEAK, even in a standard party.

The Paladin... Yeah, I guess I'm with you on that, if only because living and working among the evil peoples is pretty un-Paladinly.

[Dusk Eclipse]

And to add on that, prestige classes never count for Multiclass penalties; no, not even then.

[Phelix-Mu]

Some people do use the multiclass penalties, I'm sure; they are in the book after all. And those people probably still manage to have fun, at least some of the time.

Also, I think they do stack. Been a long time since I looked at them, frankly. And, anyway, it's not like it's an albatross that can't be optimized around. Stupid? Yes. But much better than the crazy restrictions of 2e. Really bugged me back then that I couldn't play a halfing druid.... (At least until I discovered Athasian halflings, whoopee!!)

[Dusk Eclipse]

I think there was a thread a few weeks back that tried to make a character with so many XP penalties it either couldn't level up or "de-leveled" after encounters, I'll try to find it.

Edit:I found three (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313000) different (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=312907) threads (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292844) covering that :smalleek: and all are relatively recent!

[PersonMan]

I have noticed a lot of the min/max style of optimizations I see on forums the characers are either so grotesque that they belong in a dungeon somewhere, or you would have so many cross-class xp penalties it would take forever to level up.

A lot? I've only a seen a few, and to be honest a Mineral Warrior Lolth-Touched Half-Minotaur Half-Troll Human isn't especially more monstrous than, say, a minotaur, or a troll, or any similar thing.

Also, XP penalties don't even apply to the truly absurd multiclassers. Bard 2/Barbarian 2/Cleric 2/Rogue 2/Wizard 2/Sorcerer 2/Favored Soul 2/Fighter 2/Factotum 2/Ranger 2? No problem!

Rogue 2/Fighter 5/Cleric 7 (a street rat dirty figter type who began the adventure at level 3, focused on the stabbing part of his 'stab and sneak' skillset before, after a near-death experience fighting a Big Boss Monster, turned to the divine as a way to cope with the insanity he realized his life had become), though, takes a penalty.

[Wargamer]

I use multiclass penalties, but then I'm the kind of person who gets very suspicious when this "character" that someone wants to "role play" as seems to require an obscure race, three source books, dropping of a core game mechanic and a class bar that reads like the chemical formula for turning lead into gold.

[hemming]

A player is exploring the idea of a Black Blood Cultist, and is looking at feats/grafts to get more natural attacks.

My questions to him was "How are you going to role-play that thing you are going to make? You are going to have horns, tusks, claws, tentacles, and a tail. Are you just going to simply go into town, have a seat at the bar and order a drink? What about city guards? What about children running around? What can you possibly do outside of combat?"

That player then decided to make a spellcaster. I did not mean for him to absolutely stop his entire character creation idea, and now I kind of feel bad because I want him to have fun with his idea.

Any suggestions?

Some game settings might not be an issue for such a character - in heavily mixed race cities with monsters as races. If your setting is one in which people would react strongly to his appearance, then it is fair to warn him and (if he wants) talk through how it might play out and some options for how to deal with it. You could also tweak your preconceptions of how negative the reactions will be (i.e. city guards don't attack you on sight but people stare and actively avoid you in the street) to make the players choice a little less restrictive.

[Jallorn]

Another example... Underdark Campaign - and a character wanted to make a male Drow Paladin worshipping Heironeous... the party was evil... I asked him to explain to me how he secretly worships a deity he probably hasn't heard of and conceals his lawful goodness from the evil priests in a female dominated society. I then told him that "Because" is not a good enough reason.

Now I've got an idea for a Male Drow Paladin of Lolth, drawing power, unknowingly, from his conviction that Lolth is good and fair, rather than from Lolth herself.

[TuggyNE]

The only reason I have ever remotely enforced them was because of a ridiculous player, having a female drow, take levels of fighter, wizard, and something else, to make a greenstar adept.

GSA is enough punishment right there, no need for XP penalties. :smallwink:

[SPoilaaja]

I use multiclass penalties, but then I'm the kind of person who gets very suspicious when this "character" that someone wants to "role play" as seems to require an obscure race, three source books, dropping of a core game mechanic and a class bar that reads like the chemical formula for turning lead into gold.


So you are fine with wizard 20, but choose to penalize sneak attack builds such as Sneak attack thug 3/Rogue 1/Spell thief 1/Prestige class?

[DarkSonic1337]

I use multiclass penalties, but then I'm the kind of person who gets very suspicious when this "character" that someone wants to "role play" as seems to require an obscure race, three source books, dropping of a core game mechanic and a class bar that reads like the chemical formula for turning lead into gold.


Multiclass penalties are rarely a problem for characters that use A LOT of classes (strange isn't it?). This is because typically the character takes small dips of many classes (such as fighter 2/barbarian 2/monk 2/ect) and then takes multiple prestige classes (prestige classes do not suffer any multiclass exp penalties).

You should consider as that many of these Frankenstein builds are primarily martial characters who's class abilities don't really offer much incentive to stay in the class in the first place. They need all the help they can get.

Finally, consider that the player may be not playing "classes" but rather a CHARACTER who has certain abilities. Many players don't really think of classes as an in game construct (a Warblade in game would just be called a "fighter", a Beguiler is just a sneaky "mage", a Targeteer Fighter/Ranger/Deepwood Sniper would just be an "archer"). They could just see classes as building blocks rather than lifestyles.

+1 to the GreenStar Adept is punishment enough vote.

[babus]

I use multiclass penalties, but then I'm the kind of person who gets very suspicious when this "character" that someone wants to "role play" as seems to require an obscure race, three source books, dropping of a core game mechanic and a class bar that reads like the chemical formula for turning lead into gold.

The funny thing is that while some people view each class as a distinct job that someone got and trained for, the actual story behind it can just as easily be a matter of how they acquired the skills individually across a span of time. For instance, I have a Kobold with Barbarian 1/Totemist 1/Stoneblessed (Goliath) 3/Totemist 1. The character began its existence as and still is to some extent, a barbarian, though it learned in its tribal teachings how to emulate the larger and scarier fantastic beasts as a totemist, then decided to go among the Goliaths and learn their secret to being really huge before continuing on the path of the Totemist.

All you need to demand of your players is that their recipe for turning lead into gold is a valid story. I see nothing wrong with 20 levels of all different classes (not that it'd be even vaguely optimal), given that many lives are full of such varied experiences.

In terms of racial obscurity, while you can always just say a race doesn't exist in your setting if you don't feel it fits the tone, or is geographically too far from the campaign start, I've never seen the issue with someone dragging an interesting race out of Dragon, so long as its relatively balanced.

Honestly, for high level characters, some of my players are pulling references from a dozen sources for various feats, spells, classes, PrCs, etc, and I've never minded, so long as they don't need to look stuff up during the actual game.

[Amphetryon]

I like to have role-playing context in my gaming sessions. I often ask the players to have a good amount of fluff as justification for certain things. Maybe I am just a hard ass. I don't know...

Another example... Underdark Campaign - and a character wanted to make a male Drow Paladin worshipping Heironeous... the party was evil... I asked him to explain to me how he secretly worships a deity he probably hasn't heard of and conceals his lawful goodness from the evil priests in a female dominated society. I then told him that "Because" is not a good enough reason.
"Paladins do not choose to serve; they are chosen. I do not know why this strange God from a foreign pantheon chose me, but I know that I have been chosen, and, having been chosen, I know that it is my duty to accept the call."

As for the original question of how you role-play particular concepts that are relatively 'monstrous,' I always find that the first step is to establish the notion that you're not the only one in the known world who looks 'odd' by contemporary Real Life standards. To my way of thinking, the line of thought that folks need to 'look like normal people' in town makes trade or otherwise peaceful interaction with vast swaths of the default campaign world flat-out impossible, and puts a major crimp on the notion that any Character with a Familiar or an Animal Companion could get provisions, let alone a room, at the local inn.

[Socratov]

I once wrote a quick background for a character that combined all of the fighter feat classes (Fighter, Feat rogue, Psychic Warrior) combined with an initiator. Odin knows I created a couple of monstrosities trading away classfeatures with obscure dragon mag content and whatnot. The thing is, a character is more then the description of it's classes and equipment. To reiterate: a build is more then the sum of it's parts. It conveys a flavour that the player seeks whether it's a misunderstood warlock (damn my grandpa to hell and back again), a pacifist bard or a jack of all trades who has taken levels in just about every clas there is. In the face of the greatest monstrosity of templates, classes, ACF's and obscure races you can always claim a wizard did it (Frankestein defence) and argue that you are just trying to find your place in the world. In regards to the OP's question, you are right to question the player's choices and to remind them that choices have consequences. This si a fine line you're dancing however, because if you srcew up in conveying your thoughts (how are you going to play that? have you thought about the implications?) you might insult him or make him feel restricted. This in turn will lead to another of many threads called "My DM won't let me X" or "Is it normal to not be allowed to Y?". It can generate spite and even push someone into making batman wizard so they can deny everyone their fun because they were denied theirs. As always, communication is extremely important. Personally I think you made a good call, but fear for the manner of communication you used.

[Ruut]

As always, communication is extremely important. Personally I think you made a good call, but fear for the manner of communication you used.

I thank you for the well received advice. One of the first times I DM'd 3.5 a player wanted to be an Orc. I said, sure, no problem. There was a dwarf in the party and a human. Well, after looting goodies, they went into town. Of course, I had the city guard ask the intent of the Orc visiting an almost all human settlement, and that he hand over his weapons, and behave himself or be confined to a jail. Out of game he blew up, and said (without using cuss words) "What's the big deal? I am just an orc." I then told him, do you realize that full blooded orcs are one of the most predominant evil bad guys running around outside? Orcs are the type of thing that parents warn their children about, and the city guard isn't going to pay attention while you walk on in, axe in hand, as if you belong there?

It came down to the, "why didn't you tell me beforehand" conversation. So from that point forward I try to look at the party as a whole, what the adventure is going to be, from as many angles as possible, and try to guide the players to have as much fun as possible, with the confines of the story arc.

I consider myself a facilitator and a narrator of a great story, not the overwhelming God that smites the players when they make mistakes. I utilize their alignment choices, their racial choices, their class choices in all quest lines as much as I possibly can.

In summation, After reading what you stated, I am fearing I may be perceived as a prick DM. I will look myself over a few times from now on to make sure that the communication between me and the players is as friendly and encouraging as possible. Thank you again.

[Wargamer]

The latter example, to me at least, smacks of the player being an idiot.

Hell, when I play a Barbarian I expect to be treated with suspicion. Why wouldn't I? Barbarians are typically a guy dressed in furs, covered in tattooes, bristling with weapons and I have the social skills of a drunken Scotsman with a hungry badger stuffed up his kilt. What sane city guard wouldn't expect someone like that to cause trouble?

I blame videogames. Seriously, I do - videogames are full of citizens that don't blink when someone walks through town with a bazooka over each shoulder, or carrying twenty billion dollars, or while stopping to smash every pot, knock over every bin and loot every cupboard in the land. People who grow up on videogames and never play "real" roleplaying games are likely to utterly fail to see where the issue is, because they would equate that to "normal" game behaviour.

[PersonMan]

Hell, when I play a Barbarian I expect to be treated with suspicion. Why wouldn't I? Barbarians are typically a guy dressed in furs, covered in tattooes, bristling with weapons and I have the social skills of a drunken Scotsman with a hungry badger stuffed up his kilt. What sane city guard wouldn't expect someone like that to cause trouble?

Barbarian =/= Barbarian, but I agree, the super-duper-tolerance thing many people have in their settings is a bit odd.

Although to be honest this has nothing to do with anything but character appearance. A Paladin who dresses in black, blood-stained armor shouldn't expect everyone to treat him well because "I'm a Paladin, duh".

[Flickerdart]

Barbarian =/= Barbarian, but I agree, the super-duper-tolerance thing many people have in their settings is a bit odd.
Super-tolerance is odd if you labour under the misapprehension that D&D works exactly like Dark Ages Europe. In a world where the next village over might be composed of pointy-eared weirdos and the one after that is populated with little scaly lizardmen, people are going to be a little more accepting of the occasional tentacley guy - especially when they are all too well aware that these tentacley guys are their line of defence against dragons, trolls, literal actual demons and other threats that want to eat them.

[Thiyr]

Super-tolerance is odd if you labour under the misapprehension that D&D works exactly like Dark Ages Europe. In a world where the next village over might be composed of pointy-eared weirdos and the one after that is populated with little scaly lizardmen, people are going to be a little more accepting of the occasional tentacley guy - especially when they are all too well aware that these tentacley guys are their line of defence against dragons, trolls, literal actual demons and other threats that want to eat them.

This. I don't think its something where players are trained to ignore it, so much as its something a lot of players just don't care to deal with. I only started D&D in college, after a solid many years of video games. One of my first characters was a goblin who was astoundingly concerned about being persecuted while in civilized areas. And it never really came up aside from my trying to hide myself.

Heck, most of our games are in the kitchen-sink style games, where it matters less that you're an ogre with a goblin-in-a-box on his back, and more that you're not dressed appropriately for the party. (We got him dressed up right, s'okay. Ptolus.) Not that every game is like that, but it distinctly shifts the focus of "Don't be monstrous or people will hate you" to "Be whatever you want, its a matter of how you think people view you more than anything", which I find more engaging in the first place.

[shylocke]

Had same situation. Party member played a geomancer(druid one, not mage). We left him in the bushes because that class is goofy looking.