What are your irrational D&D quirks?

[Speely]

I feel like most TTRPG players have quirks that affect otherwise rational decisions they might make in a game or even when creating characters. What are yours?

I can't play shapeshifters. Nope. Not even once. If my character contracted lycanthropy, they would prolly suicide before changing. It's a player meta thing, not a conscious character concept choice. I just have this weird and extreme aversion to my character being something other than my character. Polymorph is a nightmare for me. Always. Predictably, I never play Druids, and high-level Druids are nasty.

A bit more meta: I can't use the standard array for Ability scores, and I need every player present when I roll my scores. My current group has a rule where as long as another player is present when you roll, it's fine, and I can't do it. I am afraid of freakishly rolling very well (even though I famously roll like crap) and then feeling guilty every time I perform well around folks who didn't watch me roll.

I have an aversion to Scrying spells and the Wish spell because I don't like the idea of making the DM guard against them for the sake of the story. This one is very irrational, because those are very natural parts of the game. I guess I try to assist-DM by embracing mystery and/or limited power, which is silly as hell, because a good DM will have considered that already.

Crossbows: Nope. Screw a crossbow, even if there are good builds focused on them. Not once, not never. This one is purely cosmetically-based, which is doubly silly. I just don't like their look. What a weirdo (I am a big "theatre of the mind" kind of player.)

What are some of your silly D&D quirks?

[Rerem115]

I gotta make it Scandinavian. Doesn't matter if it's a Barbarian, a Fighter, a Bard, or a Wizard, I will find a way to make that character a Viking. Granted, I was forced to learn Norwegian in my youth, and still have more than a passing familiarity with both the language and the lore, so that might have something to do with it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have a very hard time not playing LG, regardless of alignment. And not being punny.

[Sorlock Master]

I put dice in the microwave when they don't "preform"

[Speely]

I gotta make it Scandinavian. Doesn't matter if it's a Barbarian, a Fighter, a Bard, or a Wizard, I will find a way to make that character a Viking. Granted, I was forced to learn Norwegian in my youth, and still have more than a passing familiarity with both the language and the lore, so that might have something to do with it.

Well this quirk is both cute and harmless, so I will rate it as a characteristic rather than a flaw ;)


I have a very hard time not playing LG, regardless of alignment. And not being punny.

I have actually seen this a fair amount. I think part of it is that it's easier to play either a character close to who you are or who you WANT to be. I am kinda the same. I can play a CN character (who I am) or a NG character (who I want to be) equally easily, but other alignments, while fun, feel a bit forced.

True Neutral is the hardest, imo.

[Trask]

I can be a bit spergy about "historical accuracy" regarding equipment in the game. It irks me when characters or npcs lug around pikes just, hanging out (which would be 20-30ft long) or describe a character sheathing his sword on his back, the fact that a shortbow is a "simple" weapon and a heavy crossbow is a martial weapon, even though a shortbow requires SIGNIFICANTLY more skill to use and a heavy crossbow requires very little technical skill in comparison.

And dont even get me STARTED about "studded leather"

[MrStabby]

I feel like most TTRPG players have quirks that affect otherwise rational decisions they might make in a game or even when creating characters. What are yours?

I can't play shapeshifters. Nope. Not even once. If my character contracted lycanthropy, they would prolly suicide before changing. It's a player meta thing, not a conscious character concept choice. I just have this weird and extreme aversion to my character being something other than my character. Polymorph is a nightmare for me. Always. Predictably, I never play Druids, and high-level Druids are nasty.

A bit more meta: I can't use the standard array for Ability scores, and I need every player present when I roll my scores. My current group has a rule where as long as another player is present when you roll, it's fine, and I can't do it. I am afraid of freakishly rolling very well (even though I famously roll like crap) and then feeling guilty every time I perform well around folks who didn't watch me roll.

I have an aversion to Scrying spells and the Wish spell because I don't like the idea of making the DM guard against them for the sake of the story. This one is very irrational, because those are very natural parts of the game. I guess I try to assist-DM by embracing mystery and/or limited power, which is silly as hell, because a good DM will have considered that already.

Crossbows: Nope. Screw a crossbow, even if there are good builds focused on them. Not once, not never. This one is purely cosmetically-based, which is doubly silly. I just don't like their look. What a weirdo (I am a big "theatre of the mind" kind of player.)

What are some of your silly D&D quirks?

Are you me in disguise?

Seriously, I think all these might also be on my list (although maybe not with such strong aversion in all cases)

[ZenBear]

I can’t play a squishy backliner. It just goes against every fiber of my being to hide behind other players for safety. I’ve tried a few times as a Wizard, Psion, and archer Rogue. It just grated on my nerves like nails on chalkboard to not be on the frontlines.

I also hate the Wish spell because I think it’s dumb and overpowered. I don’t consider that irrational at all.

[Trask]

I also just realized that I have never played a full caster that lived for more than 1 session. I'm just really a melee person, I like hitting things, I like the fantasy of using a sword and armor and being a warrior. The most casting I've ever really seriously done is being a 13th level paladin.

I just cant get into the headspace of a caster. And for that matter, almost every single character I've ever played has been human. I dislike playing non-humans, I feel like its too hard to not just revert to stereotypes, all my most creative and fun characters have been human.

[Zanthy1]

There are many spells that I strongly dislike, Wish being one of the main ones. As such, I very rarely DM campaigns that get to higher levels, anything above 5th level spells are ridiculous

[Speely]

Are you me in disguise?

Seriously, I think all these might also be on my list (although maybe not with such strong aversion in all cases)

I can't be you because I hate not being me!! ;) But yeah I hear ya. Some of my aversions are a bit extreme in their potency, but I feel like they aren't unheard of.


I can’t play a squishy backliner. It just goes against every fiber of my being to hide behind other players for safety. I’ve tried a few times as a Wizard, Psion, and archer Rogue. It just grated on my nerves like nails on chalkboard to not be on the frontlines.

I also hate the Wish spell because I think it’s dumb and overpowered. I don’t consider that irrational at all.

I avoided squishy backliners until 5e. Lore Bards are too good, though, and I had to jump in.


I also just realized that I have never played a full caster that lived for more than 1 session. I'm just really a melee person, I like hitting things, I like the fantasy of using a sword and armor and being a warrior. The most casting I've ever really seriously done is being a 13th level paladin.

I just cant get into the headspace of a caster. And for that matter, almost every single character I've ever played has been human. I dislike playing non-humans, I feel like its too hard to not just revert to stereotypes, all my most creative and fun characters have been human.

As far as casters go, I am there with you. As I said above, 5E is really the first time I have gone all in on a full caster, but part of that is how they built Bards.

[Rerem115]

I avoided squishy backliners until 5e. Lore Bards are too good, though, and I had to jump in.


Same here. I like smashing face and breaking things while wearing heavy armor, and the thought of trying to manage all my spells seemed a little daunting. 5e Bards looked goofy and fun, so I stepped out of my comfort zone. They have a broad enough pool of spells that they have a reasonable chance of having the perfect magical tool, and even if they don't, good critical thinking can help find a solution, and if worst comes to worst, you can try talking. With 20 Charisma and Expertise in Persuasion, there's a lot of trouble you can talk yourself out of...Or into.

[Speely]

Same here. I like smashing face and breaking things while wearing heavy armor, and the thought of trying to manage all my spells seemed a little daunting. 5e Bards looked goofy and fun, so I stepped out of my comfort zone. They have a broad enough pool of spells that they have a reasonable chance of having the perfect magical tool, and even if they don't, good critical thinking can help find a solution, and if worst comes to worst, you can try talking. With 20 Charisma and Expertise in Persuasion, there's a lot of trouble you can talk yourself out of...Or into.

Oh hell yes. I have talked our way out of some bad stuff. I once convinced a frost giant to let our Exhaustion-laden, resource-depleted level 10 party live because I got a 27 on my persuasion then a 20+ on my performance. My reward was the DM giving me a few minutes to literally compose a short song singing the giant's praises. Possible (easy) TPK turned into a great moment.

I still sing about that damn frost giant at inns.

[BreaktheStatue]

Playing as a human PC. There's no real reason not to - and at least mechanically, variant human usually gets put in the top 3 races on most guides - but I can't bring myself to do it. Every time I try to roll a human, I always go, "Yeah, that backstory is nice and all...but it would probably be more fun if I was a halfling or half-elf or something."

[ZenBear]

Oh hell yes. I have talked our way out of some bad stuff. I once convinced a frost giant to let our Exhaustion-laden, resource-depleted level 10 party live because I got a 27 on my persuasion then a 20+ on my performance. My reward was the DM giving me a few minutes to literally compose a short song singing the giant's praises. Possible (easy) TPK turned into a great moment.

I still sing about that damn frost giant at inns.

I once convinced a port city mayor to make me Admiral of the Navy, then had my allies ransack the keep during my coronation party. They stole a ship to escape, I lead the Navy in pursuit, then scuttled half the fleet to ensure our escape. We sacked an entire city without a single drop of blood! 😋

[Speely]

I once convinced a port city mayor to make me Admiral of the Navy, then had my allies ransack the keep during my coronation party. They stole a ship to escape, I lead the Navy in pursuit, then scuttled half the fleet to ensure our escape. We sacked an entire city without a single drop of blood! 😋

Lmao nice. It's amazing what you can get away with if you just try... and have a good DM. ;)

[Spectrulus]

I have to try really hard to not play a dwarf, and I haven't played any unarmored characters.

[Tanarii]

I can't play full casters that can't mix it up in melee. Which is weird, because when I first started playing I loved the idea of magic-users. I just never got the hang of it. I like to hit things, or use magic to help me hit things.

I'm a sucker for obvious ticks and traps, blatant ploys by the BBEG, or big red buttons marked "Don't push! Ends the world!" If there's a clearly stupid choice, like crawling into the pitch black maw of a howling demon-face portal, or picking up the glowing golden idol on the pedestal, I'll take it.

[Speely]

I have to try really hard to not play a dwarf, and I haven't played any unarmored characters.

Do you do a good Scottish accent (or are you Scottish?) I have noticed that a fair amount of dwarf-focused players tend to favor said accent. It's like the original vaguely Eastern European Tabaxi.

Note that I am not knocking that. I have played numerous dwarven "Scots" and am currently playing a predictably-Russian-sounding Tabaxi (Kensei who is my favorite character ever!)

I am from Florida. Yeesh. I do ok accents at least.

[Tanarii]

Do you do a good Scottish accent (or are you Scottish?) I have noticed that a fair amount of dwarf-focused players tend to favor said accent.
It's common, but I've always found it a little weird. I think of Dwarves as Norse/Viking. Or at a pinch, Germanic, Saxon, or Danish warrior-types.

For elves & half-elf I think Celtic. Probably because that's what I associate with both all things Fey, and for half elves Druids & Bards.

[Catullus64]

No matter what my character's disposition is, I almost always like to take the lead in exploration and social situations, in order to keep things moving at a steady pace.

Chalk this one up to the fact that I spend most of my time as a DM, and trying to set the plot in motion is set deep into my bones.

[BBQ Pork]

5e's "Every race can be every class" doesn't completely sit well by me, nor some of the level-dips for the sheer sake of optimised builds, thematically.

I play Invocation Mages as risk-takers and perhaps a bit explosion-happy.


I didn't like most of the class options in Xanathar's.

[Anonymouswizard]

I have actually seen this a fair amount. I think part of it is that it's easier to play either a character close to who you are or who you WANT to be. I am kinda the same. I can play a CN character (who I am) or a NG character (who I want to be) equally easily, but other alignments, while fun, feel a bit forced.

True Neutral is the hardest, imo.

My character's tend to be Lawful Evil or Lawful Stupid, depending on if the GM has banned evil characters. I seem to be literally unable to play anything else.


Do you do a good Scottish accent (or are you Scottish?) I have noticed that a fair amount of dwarf-focused players tend to favor said accent. It's like the original vaguely Eastern European Tabaxi.

Note that I am not knocking that. I have played numerous dwarven "Scots" and am currently playing a predictably-Russian-sounding Tabaxi (Kensei who is my favorite character ever!)

I am from Florida. Yeesh. I do ok accents at least.

That explains why I tend towards Tieflings! It's the (hilariously stereotypical) British accent.

... No I don't put one on just for the character. Why would I do that?


For me, I can't play stupid characters. They have to have at least a 10 in INT, ideally 12+. It's why I play Wizards so often. Wisdom will, of course, be tanked as much as possible.

[Sariel Vailo]

Im a drow therefore i spend my teenage years being an angsty do gooder. Solving mysteries with my allies,a bard a monk ,a wizard and a barbarian in a wagon named the mystery waggon. Our druid refuses to shift out of this great dane shape and just talks to the hungry monk.

[SpanielBear]

I go for the classic dice rituals.

- at least two sets of dice for each game. Do not use the wrong sets for a game.

- of these two sets, one is private and one is public. Do not share dice from the private set. Only use the public set if multiple dice are required. They will underperform.

- before the game starts, roll the d20/d100 (depending on system) until it has provided a decent roll.

- ignore anyone who says this is pointless. They do not have your best interests at heart. They may even be an agent of the BBEG. <.< >.>

[Spectrulus]

Do you do a good Scottish accent (or are you Scottish?) I have noticed that a fair amount of dwarf-focused players tend to favor said accent. It's like the original vaguely Eastern European Tabaxi.

Note that I am not knocking that. I have played numerous dwarven "Scots" and am currently playing a predictably-Russian-sounding Tabaxi (Kensei who is my favorite character ever!)...


It's common, but I've always found it a little weird. I think of Dwarves as Norse/Viking. Or at a pinch, Germanic, Saxon, or Danish warrior-types...

Being Danish, I tend to take them the Scandinavian route, with a bit of World of Warcraft thrown in. Having a full foot-long beard I regularly wear multiple rings in makes it easy, and when I really want to get into character, I insist on having the shortest table in the house. A bean bag works too.

[username1]

My biggest quirk is as a dm I can have no flaw in my story. Im not saying I don't let my players matter in the world and drive the story, I am saying all my npcs and posters have to act perfectly according to their character. If I make a tiny slip up while we are playing it will bug me for weeks while I look for a way to fix it. Like in one of my campaigns I found the tiniest of flaws in my story, something I know players won't find. But it always feels like my players are going to find it, and I get nervous. When my players talk about the game at lunch and such I always freak out that they will find the flaw. However my players never do and thing the story is realistic and accurate.

[ZorroGames]

Before 5e it was 99.99% Human or Dwarf since 0D&D now it has been a spread Earth Genasi x1, Forest Gnome x1, multiple Mountain Dwarf/v.Human, and now taking up Half-Elf, Wood Elf, and Standard Human.

From the Begining until 5e it was Fighters, Clerics or Fighter-Clerics with one Mage and one (D4) Monk. Now it has expanded to add Bard, Ranger, Paladin, with dip in Warlock. Still no Barbarians, Sorcerers, or Druids.

I had a violently explosive Temper as a child brought under control as an adult so Barbarian kind of weirds me out.

Druids seem a little limiting (I grew up in East Los Angeles, cities are not bad if done properly which mine wasn’t.)

Evil is just flat out not happening as is Zhentarim. Because. Lord’s Alliance? Not this Blue Collar raised kid! Just wrong for me.

Halflings are for other people, not sure way, but they just are. Half-Orc, Dragonborn just sound like snooze fest to play. Tieflings just do not appeal. High Elf’s are meh.

Prefer bashing baddies but learning to fry, electrocute, Freeze-dry, and mentally blast them.

[Tanarii]

Evil is just flat out not happening as is Zhentarim. Because.
The Zhents aren't particularly evil in 5e. They probably have plenty of evil aligned members, the the organization isn't what it used to be.

[Calen]

Playing as a human PC. There's no real reason not to - and at least mechanically, variant human usually gets put in the top 3 races on most guides - but I can't bring myself to do it. Every time I try to roll a human, I always go, "Yeah, that backstory is nice and all...but it would probably be more fun if I was a halfling or half-elf or something."

I also don't play humans, if I am in a exotic world I want to be steeped in that exoticness, playing as a human seems a little mundane to me. Conversely I have a friend that rarely breaks out of the human mold.

[jollydm]

The Zhents aren't particularly evil in 5e. They probably have plenty of evil aligned members, the the organization isn't what it used to be.

Spoken like a true Zhent. ;)

[Eric Diaz]

I don't like playing truly evil characters. I bet that is common enough.

I had great fun playing a self-righteous bastard of a paladin of vengeance, tough. Always willing to cast judgement on others and give his life away for any innocent hobo, but completely oblivious to all the evils his church performed in the near past....

[PrinceOfMadness]

I think my quirks are all dice-related. I use certain dice for certain games, based on color or the pips, and I get intensely uncomfortable if I have to mix them up. I also roll all the dice before the start of the session until they start giving me some good rolls, and once I've determined which dice are 'rolling hot' so to speak, I set the other dice to the side in case they're needed, and turn them all so that their highest-value side is facing up, just to encourage the ones I'm actually rolling.

I know it's all superstition :smallredface: but that hasn't stopped me yet!

[Jamesps]

I prefer playing characters that don't commonly (or ever) kill their opponents. I don't even play good aligned characters most of the time, I just find having a single sentient entity that runs around killing hundreds or thousands of sentient entities to defy my expectations for the world's ecosystem. Also it feels crass.

I like to design entirely non-magical characters that can compete for utility with the magic users in the group. I tend to be very competitive with casters as a non-caster.

[Anonymouswizard]

I prefer playing characters that don't commonly (or ever) kill their opponents. I don't even play good aligned characters most of the time, I just find having a single sentient entity that runs around killing hundreds or thousands of sentient entities to defy my expectations for the world's ecosystem. Also it feels crass.

I find it annoying that many GMs won't have enemies surrender or flee (partially because the mechanics are set up to support it anymore, no morale rolls and encounter guidelines are based on to the death fights). Many other games have significantly more lethal combat, but whenever I've played those fighting to the death has always been a last resort (in rough order: avoid fight, bargain, lay an ambush, flee, surrender, feign death, call the police, make it somebody else's problem, fight to the death).

Anybody who goes around killing as many people as your average PC does should probably be falling off the Evil end of the scale. I mean the PCs are generally more successful at the slaughter of sentient beings than the campaign villains are!

[Rebonack]

I can be a bit spergy about "historical accuracy" regarding equipment in the game. It irks me when characters or npcs lug around pikes just, hanging out (which would be 20-30ft long) or describe a character sheathing his sword on his back, the fact that a shortbow is a "simple" weapon and a heavy crossbow is a martial weapon, even though a shortbow requires SIGNIFICANTLY more skill to use and a heavy crossbow requires very little technical skill in comparison.

And dont even get me STARTED about "studded leather"

Isn't 'studded leather' just two sheets of leather/heavy cloth with metal plates riveted between them?

[Anonymouswizard]

Isn't 'studded leather' just two sheets of leather/heavy cloth with metal plates riveted between them?

I thought that was Brigandine? Which, IIRC, was significantly better protection than what 'studded leather' tends to give anyway.

Really, I'm a bit bored of leather armour. It's always the 'wear to be stealthy' armour, and it stops PCs from ever wearing cloth armour (not in the 4e sense, I mean actual cloth armour such as Gambesons). Cloth armour is cool on it's own!

But really, D&D technology is a real mess in the weapons and armour department. We've got essentially everything from I think about 800ce to about 1500ce bar firearms of any sort (except in optional DMG rules), possibly an even earlier start date.

[Trask]

Isn't 'studded leather' just two sheets of leather/heavy cloth with metal plates riveted between them?

Yes that is what the actual historical armor which we now refer to as "studded leather". But what the game refers to it as, and what most people think of it as, is leather/heavy cloth armor that is "reinforced" with close set metal studs. That is not only ahistorical, but would be completely ineffectual. Its a mistake originally made by Victorian would-be historians, the same people who deduced that a knight had to be lifted on to his horse with a crane (utterly wrong).

It just annoys me that all the little mistakes that Gary Gygax made in his research about historical medieval European warfare has been relentlessly carried forward so many years later.

Also Anonymouswizard is right in that heavy canvas armor, gambesons and the like would be better suited for medieval armor than leather. Leather really isnt all that protective unless its boiled and hardened, and then its not really all that sneaky either.

Part of the problem is that D&D has no kind of established setting where "this" type of armor exists but not "this" type. They mash together lamellar, brigandine, canvas, hide, plate, chain and everything else and balance them against each other, when in reality a lot of these armors were of a regional type and design and really werent that much different from one another and would have been almost identical in their benefits.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But really, D&D technology is a real mess in the weapons and armour department. We've got essentially everything from I think about 800ce to about 1500ce bar firearms of any sort (except in optional DMG rules), possibly an even earlier start date.

No. We don't have any century's equipment. Because it's a fantasy world with its own history and tech levels. Earth is not some multiversal pace-setter.

This is a pain point for me, when people refuse to let fantastic things be fantastic. Not all worlds have to follow the same track Earth did. For one, the presence of large monsters/other races/magic will skew what gets developed when.

Now back to the regularly scheduled discussion...

[Trask]

Not my quirk but my brother is particular about which dice are his "DM dice" and which are his "player dice". He claims that they should never freely used for each other's purposes.

My friends also have a fun, but also a bit of a vulgar, tradition. We use side initiative and before the game we all roll "big b*tch rolls", and whoever rolls the lowest is the least "big b*tch" and must therefore roll all of our initiatives.

[Anonymouswizard]

No. We don't have any century's equipment. Because it's a fantasy world with its own history and tech levels. Earth is not some multiversal pace-setter.

This is a pain point for me, when people refuse to let fantastic things be fantastic. Not all worlds have to follow the same track Earth did. For one, the presence of large monsters/other races/magic will skew what gets developed when.

Now back to the regularly scheduled discussion...

Okay, this is something that annoys me.

People like to claim that realism (and yes I do mean realism, the thing that reinforces verisimilitude for some of us) doesn't have a place in fantasy, but it does. Especially in the case of weapons and armour. Weapons and armour at least partially developed to counter each other.

Yes, I am the kind of person who dislikes katana in his Medieval European Fantasy.

That's not to say that a setting has to develop exactly like Earth. While I like games to feature primitive firearms as a setting element it's something I can live without even if people are running around in full gothic plate. But D&D pretty much goes about it the wrong way, grabbing random items from over half a century, getting half of it's stuff wrong, and generally being rather laughable. It's not the only offender, especially in the case of armour, but it's one of the worst.

Okay, getting into a bit of a mess here.

The point is that realism is important for a game world because the more realism there is the easier it is to suspend your disbelief. This doesn't mean that technology has to advance exactly like Earth's, but it does mean that some things will stand out more than others. If the technology is completely different to Earth's that also works. But being half correct, having a lot of stuff but having it come from half a millennium (which even in pre-modern terms is a long time for technology), is just the most unbelievable state.

Now some things will hang around for millennia because there's no need to replace them. But that works better for spades than swords (for some reason).

One of my favourite weapons and armour systems just gave some qualities to some types of period-appropriate weapon, then stated a bunch of armour pieces you could take for +2 Defence (including a shield). Everybody who wanted armour wore the same stuff, but it actually worked.

[PhoenixPhyre]

@Anonymouswizard--I'm not going to respond (since it's way off topic) other than to say: speak for yourself. More realism hurts my verisimilitude because the inevitable flaws become more glaring.

I did remember another quirk--

I hate penalties. Even though it's sub-optimal, I'd rather not have an negative modifiers. I don't dump stats. And I'll go to great lengths to avoid persistent penalties (like encumbrance, even just the speed penalty).

[Crgaston]

I play mostly Dex based martials but refuse to use rapiers or crossbows. Scimitars, short swords and bows only.

Also, I have an irrational aversion to gnomes.

[Tanarii]

Also, I have an irrational aversion to gnomes.
Definitely irrational to have an aversion to 5e gnomes. They're awesome.

[mr-mercer]

When I make a character I designate two of my sets of dice to be used with that character and then set both of those in front of me during the sessions (one set as default, the other in reserve in case of advantage, disadvantage, or other things that require multiple dice). I'm more than happy to replace a set for the character if I later by a more accurate set, though.

I've never played a gnome, halfling, goblin or kobold, and have no intention to. Small races just don't appeal to any character concepts that I have any interest in ever playing (though that's not to say that they can't be played well: shout out to our rock gnome samurai who is a literal rock that came to life because the sun shone on it for a long-ass time).

I've come up with several concepts for a monk, but I can't bring myself to play one completely straight: I've got a dwarf who emphasises strength over dexterity, a tabaxi who grew up in the wilderness and is more beast than man and a half-mad street tough who's handy with a knife (more than a little bit based on Goro Majima) , but I just can't make a monk who is the standard dexterous and nimble martial artist.

[Potato_Priest]

I hate all fiends, regardless of what character I am. Even my most LE greedy bastards would rather die than make a deal with a fiend. I can't help but go full aggro against all things of the demonic persuasion, and I can barely tolerate tieflings and would never play one.

[Arial Black]

It's common, but I've always found it a little weird. I think of Dwarves as Norse/Viking. Or at a pinch, Germanic, Saxon, or Danish warrior-types.

For elves & half-elf I think Celtic. Probably because that's what I associate with both all things Fey, and for half elves Druids & Bards.

For me, elves are french and dwarves are german. Not the accents, just the language.

[Arial Black]

I know it's all superstition :smallredface: but that hasn't stopped me yet!

You do know that it's unlucky to be superstitious, right?

[Rerem115]

Elves will always be Finns to me. The language just works too well.

[Angel Bob]

I will never play a character with a summons, a familiar, a companion, or any other kind of minion. Rationally, I know that controlling 2+ entities on the battlefield at once does wonders for your battlefield control and action economy. But the idea of having to keep track of multiple entities at once while playing a character just grinds my gears.

This quirk seems awfully strange to me because I DM more often than I play characters. And as a DM, I have no aversion to running multiple complex monsters and/or NPCs at once. But as a player, I can only handle one character at a time.

[Speely]

I will never play a character with a summons, a familiar, a companion, or any other kind of minion. Rationally, I know that controlling 2+ entities on the battlefield at once does wonders for your battlefield control and action economy. But the idea of having to keep track of multiple entities at once while playing a character just grinds my gears.

This quirk seems awfully strange to me because I DM more often than I play characters. And as a DM, I have no aversion to running multiple complex monsters and/or NPCs at once. But as a player, I can only handle one character at a time.

I share this one, after a fashion. Pets/minions/summons are effective, and I know this, but something about sharing the glory with a minion makes me feel at once kinda dirty and less heroic. Maybe I am just a vain player (I do like Bards quite a lot, after all.)

[2D8HP]

Definitely irrational to have an aversion to 5e gnomes. They're awesome.


Yeah I to am Gnome adverse :redface:

I don't remember playing any "race" shorter than Elves, yet I often wind up playing PC's who's personalities seem stereotypically "Dwavish", and I don't remember playing anything besides elves, half elves, half orcs, and humans.

I tend to have my PC's use longbows, even when something else would be better mechanically.

I tend to have my PC'S carry a sword, even when they seldom use one

Despite it really only effecting roll mods, I seldom play PC's that I think of as smarter than me.

I often "dump" CON.

Even when the DM is presenting my PC gaining magical powers on a silver platter I avoid it.

[Luccan]

I never seem to do well as a pure warrior. Not that I can't play one, I just find it boring (usually after a session or two). Though that was more in 3rd, I have yet to try a fighter or barbarian for 5e that I got to play for very long.

[Harpier]

-As for me, I NEVER dump, or even make subpar, Dex, usually at the expense of Con. I just love the "Fragile Speedster" archetype too much, and it's a habit at this point.

-I almost always play squishy casters, the most deviation from that archetype being a Paladin, and even then I had spellslots. Adding onto this, I usually use Quarterstaffs that get rarely much use outside of doubling as a focus staff.

-I used to be near-compulsively unable to play a non-Good alignment, due to my own anxieties, but I've since loosened up with a few Neutral, and one Neutral Evil, characters.

-I am a terrible liar, so I usually fall back on exact wording and omission to hide the truth when my character needs to, or when I'm DMing. I know it's silly, but it seems to calm my nerves when I can reassure myself that I'm technically not lying.

[Telwar]

I follow Mrs. Weasley's rules in regards to magic items. If I can't see where it keeps it's brain, I don't talk to it.

There are WAY too many intelligent items that have egos that will gleefully try to take you over. And that's never even happened to any of my characters.

[Arial Black]

One of my former DMs is a superb storyteller. Not so hot on the rules (I played with him as 2e went to 3e and 3.5; the rules-heavy nature messed with his wanting to do whatever caught his fancy).

One of his strengths is his ability to create and play fantastic, interesting, nuanced NPCs. There was plenty of 'role-play' in his games!

But he had some very strange quirks as a player! He always played human males fresh off the farm, always called them after some vegetable (Spud, Cabbage), were the most vanilla in crunch terms and deliberately quite boring of personality.

And every single one was Chaotic Neutral.

When I asked him about this, these were his thoughts:-

* human: how is it possible to get into the mindset of an alien?

* male: women are even more 'alien' (in terms of mindset) than elves or dwarves! You should never play a character of another gender than your own!

* farm boy: he hates backstories on the grounds that the adventure you play should determine how your personality develops; otherwise, 'Cabbage' is a blank slate when we start the campaign. (TBH, they stayed blank slates all the way through the campaign!)

* vegetable names: he's trying to make his starting point as blank as possible.

* always Chaotic Neutral: ALL PCs act like this, because all players act like this when playing RPGs, whether they admit it or not!

I found all of that....just weird.

But the most amazing thing about all this, to me, is that the NPCs he played so well were of varying race, gender, social class, and alignment, all well played. They had interesting and complex backstories, and some interesting and complex game mechanics.

To this day, I just don't get it!

[ZenBear]

The Zhents aren't particularly evil in 5e. They probably have plenty of evil aligned members, the the organization isn't what it used to be.

Reminds me of this scene from SAO Abridged. xD
https://youtu.be/hWozHt9wbO4?t=11m10s
More specifically: "It used to be about the murder, you know?"
https://youtu.be/hWozHt9wbO4?t=12m28s

[Trask]

One of my former DMs is a superb storyteller. Not so hot on the rules (I played with him as 2e went to 3e and 3.5; the rules-heavy nature messed with his wanting to do whatever caught his fancy).

One of his strengths is his ability to create and play fantastic, interesting, nuanced NPCs. There was plenty of 'role-play' in his games!

But he had some very strange quirks as a player! He always played human males fresh off the farm, always called them after some vegetable (Spud, Cabbage), were the most vanilla in crunch terms and deliberately quite boring of personality.

And every single one was Chaotic Neutral.

When I asked him about this, these were his thoughts:-

* human: how is it possible to get into the mindset of an alien?

* male: women are even more 'alien' (in terms of mindset) than elves or dwarves! You should never play a character of another gender than your own!

* farm boy: he hates backstories on the grounds that the adventure you play should determine how your personality develops; otherwise, 'Cabbage' is a blank slate when we start the campaign. (TBH, they stayed blank slates all the way through the campaign!)

* vegetable names: he's trying to make his starting point as blank as possible.

* always Chaotic Neutral: ALL PCs act like this, because all players act like this when playing RPGs, whether they admit it or not!

I found all of that....just weird.

But the most amazing thing about all this, to me, is that the NPCs he played so well were of varying race, gender, social class, and alignment, all well played. They had interesting and complex backstories, and some interesting and complex game mechanics.

To this day, I just don't get it!

I have some similar preferences to your DM, although I wouldnt call myself a great storyteller, nor is it really my main interest, I love to create unique, bizarre, interested and (I hope!) nuanced scenarios. I've been complemented on such and I think I'm decent at it.

But when I play, I often just play humans, usually fighters or cleric types, and make them some kind of knight or explorer. Its kind of my default. And I think its just because when you're playing instead of DMing, if youre a creative type of DM, you just want to play something that is blank slate and let the campaign sort of inform your character. Its nice to NOT know what this character is about, because your job is to know what all the NPCs are about.

[Glorthindel]

My big one is I need to have specific dice for every purpose. I am talking a seperate initiative dice, attack dice (and seperate offhand attack dice if dual-weilding, and ranged attack dice if the character has a ranged weapon), damage dice, and specific dice for any dice-based class ability (my Bard currently has his four specific bardic inspiration dice, which I hand to the relevant player when I give him inspiration). This dice don't even need to be the same dice from session to session - I decide which dice (from my bag of ~100) will serve what roll at the start of each session.

Aside from that, I just can't play short races or monster races (tieflings and drow are fine, but anything more monstery is out).

[leogobsin]

I'm basically totally unwilling to play a human. Don't even really have a reasoning for it, there are definitely characters where playing variant human would be the better mechanical choice, I just always find a different race that interests me more than human.

[Oramac]

I realized just the other day that I've never played, nor have any desire to play, a quarter-caster. Couldn't tell you why. I love Paladins and Rangers, and Sorcerers and Clerics are two of my favorite full-casters, and I've played plenty of Rogues and Fighters. But Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster? They're cool. I just have no desire to play one.

I also tend heavily towards Greatsword wielding two-handed melee characters. I can't tell you the last time I played a martial character with a shield. Honestly, I'm not sure I ever have.

[Maxilian]

I'm THAT player, that always make its character have a quirk that make it stand out, normally its cool when i'm playing with friends, but when playing with people i don't know, it may easily annoy them as wanting to be THAT GUY.

Be it with MC, be it by making an "interesting" Background (interesting or annoying, depeding who sees it)

[ErHo]

I refuse to play Anime/Manga charavcters or with folks who want those types of characters in D&D.

Unless we are playing BESM where its all about it, just not classic fantasy RPGs

[beargryllz]

My characters never worship and rarely acknowledge gods in any meaningful way. Even my clerics tend to be devoted to ideals like order or doing the right thing, not deities

[beargryllz]

Isn't 'studded leather' just two sheets of leather/heavy cloth with metal plates riveted between them?

It's also hot garbage compared to a gambeson (padded armor). One can stop an arrow, the other is basically dry skin you wear over your skin

Leather and "studded" leather armor don't really exist except as decorations or costumes. Anyone engaged in actual combat isnt wearing that trash.

[Demonslayer666]

I feel like most TTRPG players have quirks that affect otherwise rational decisions they might make in a game or even when creating characters. What are yours?

I can't play shapeshifters. Nope. Not even once. If my character contracted lycanthropy, they would prolly suicide before changing. It's a player meta thing, not a conscious character concept choice. I just have this weird and extreme aversion to my character being something other than my character. Polymorph is a nightmare for me. Always. Predictably, I never play Druids, and high-level Druids are nasty.

A bit more meta: I can't use the standard array for Ability scores, and I need every player present when I roll my scores. My current group has a rule where as long as another player is present when you roll, it's fine, and I can't do it. I am afraid of freakishly rolling very well (even though I famously roll like crap) and then feeling guilty every time I perform well around folks who didn't watch me roll.

I have an aversion to Scrying spells and the Wish spell because I don't like the idea of making the DM guard against them for the sake of the story. This one is very irrational, because those are very natural parts of the game. I guess I try to assist-DM by embracing mystery and/or limited power, which is silly as hell, because a good DM will have considered that already.

Crossbows: Nope. Screw a crossbow, even if there are good builds focused on them. Not once, not never. This one is purely cosmetically-based, which is doubly silly. I just don't like their look. What a weirdo (I am a big "theatre of the mind" kind of player.)

What are some of your silly D&D quirks?

LOL, I thought you meant quirks I give my characters. And here I was ready to jump in with my warlock that compulsively smells things.

OK, now to the quirks I have when playing D&D.


I won't play female characters. And I dislike it when others play opposite their gender. (if they did it right, I wouldn't have a problem)
I avoid races that are not core: halfling, elf, dwarf, human, and half-elf. And I strongly favor human.
I love having lots and lots of HP.
I always prefer rolling up a character (not standard array or point buy). I really like it when I get lucky and roll well.
Must use .5mm mechanical pencil.
Must accurately track all equipment and food and water.
My worst offense: I am a habitual movie quoter. If anything even vaguely resembles a movie reference, I'll drop it. And yes, I get them wrong way too often, but you knew what I meant. :smallsmile:

[Maxilian]

Oh some non-character quirks:

-I HATE rolling for stats, i will go always for point buy, if i can't, i would go for Standard Array

-That includes rolling for HP (HATE IT)

-I'm not a fan of house rules (to not say that i hate them, but if you introduce it in session 0 and i say nothing, then you won't ever hear a complain from my part about that)

-I hate homebrew content that is not Monster and magic items -as long as in the DM realm, i'm ok with it- (Everything you can homebrew, you can reflavor from an existing class / race or MC)

-I dislike that most campaigns start at low lvl, because i normally go with concept characters, and sadly most concept at low lvl require feats, making me feel that i NEED to go with Vuman. (also why i normally play Fighters, their extra feat make it easier for me to make interesting character concepts -Rogues have already too much to do with their action / bonus action that they don't feel that they give the options the fighter give as i need to use the BA for this or that.)

-I love companions way too much, i normally end up having one (one way or the other) -Yeah, i'm the guy that go on adventures with a menagerie

[Oramac]

I avoid races that are not core: halfling, elf, dwarf, human, and half-elf. And I strongly favor human.
I always prefer rolling up a character (not standard array or point buy). I really like it when I get lucky and roll well.

My worst offense: I am a habitual movie quoter. If anything even vaguely resembles a movie reference, I'll drop it. And yes, I get them wrong way too often, but you knew what I meant. :smallsmile:


I'm exactly the opposite of the first two. Given the chance, I'll nearly always play an Aasimar of some sort, and I love love love point buy (though I do think 27 points is a shade too low).

OTOH, I am a habitual TV/Movie quoter as well. Guaranteed to happen at least once per session.

[jaappleton]

I can't play races with innate, at-will Flight.

Despite being given permission by the DM to start with any Very Rare item I want, regardless of any class or race restrictions, I can't bring myself to use the Staff of Power. I can't. That item should NOT be Very Rare, that is a Legendary item AT MINIMUM.

[ChesterApproves]

Last time I played a ranger I hated that he had a longbow instead of a shortbow. I almost bought my own equipment just so I could have a shortbow instead because I couldn't stop picturing this dorky medieval longbowman instead of a killer bounty hunter.

My other quirk is that I just make characters right now I have four plus more I wanna make but only two campaigns rip

Also lol I'm the exact opposite on shapechangers theyre my fave

[Anonymouswizard]

It's also hot garbage compared to a gambeson (padded armor). One can stop an arrow, the other is basically dry skin you wear over your skin

Leather and "studded" leather armor don't really exist except as decorations or costumes. Anyone engaged in actual combat isnt wearing that trash.

I believe there's some evidence for leather armour having been used in battle, but very much not in the time period D&D is supposedly emulating. Although I believe it was in cultures that didn't make metal armour (and boiled leather can be tough enough that I wouldn't mind a character wearing armour pieces made from it).

We really do need to stop pretending that it makes sense for 'rogues' though. Most thieves probably shouldn't be wearing armour 90% of the time, and leather armour is also unlikely to be discrete. Although to be fair, in town nobody should really be wearing armour, especially as it sends a signal to the guards that you're expecting to get into trouble.

[Luccan]

Also lol I'm the exact opposite on shapechangers theyre my fave

Oh yeah, I actually hate that there still isn't a pure shapeshifter base class in D&D. If they do anything after psionics and the Artificer, I want a class focused on changing shape.

[Tawmis]

What are some of your silly D&D quirks?

I am personally, not a fan of playing casters. As a DM, I don't even enjoy when a player plays a caster - because then they come to me with questions sometimes, and since I don't like playing casters myself (way too much to organize and remember), I am forced to stop and check. :) I never, ever, ever stop anyone from playing a caster in my game if they want (as a matter of fact, just had the barbarian and monk switch their characters, because they wanted to do something different, to a wizard and sorcerer, respectively).

Mobile phones need to be put away. As a DM I feel like when someone is looking at their mobile phone as I am describing the scene before them, they're not paying attention, and going to ask me questions, that were clearly given in my description. As a player, I find looking at the mobile phone during the game is also disrespectful. When I DM, I try to plan breaks so people can get snacks, stand up, stretch, and look at their phones as needed, outside of actual game time.

All of my character HAVE to have a background; whether I am the player, or if my players make characters. I always allow them to make their own background, but most of them just ask me to do it (which is absolutely fine, because it makes it much easier to tie everyone's character together - or to the actual campaign). So many times I will use backgrounds as a part of the adventures. (Like for the paladin in my party; she is a half elf. I wrote her background that her mother, who was the full blooded elf (of high nobility) that fell in love with a human she rescued in the woods, had run away shortly after having the child and leaving it with her elvish family. The family cared for the half-elf and tried to ensure she remained good and would not be "tainted" by the short shortsightedness of her human blood; so they made her religious - but her human blood made her a fighter, and want to explore - and so her calling became a Paladin... well, going through the Horde of the Dragon Queen campaign, she's been finding clues to her mother is also chasing down the Cult of the Dragon...).

I am sure I have more quirks as both a player and DM...

[JoeJ]

It's also hot garbage compared to a gambeson (padded armor). One can stop an arrow, the other is basically dry skin you wear over your skin

Leather and "studded" leather armor don't really exist except as decorations or costumes. Anyone engaged in actual combat isnt wearing that trash.

Cuir bouilli (leather hardened by boiling) was used for both armor and shields from ancient times until the American colonial era. The mounted soldiers serving in New Spain in the mid 18th century were known as Soldados de cuero ("leather-jacket soldiers in English) because of their leather armor.


On irrational quirks, I have a very hard time casting spells. I can do it as a DM, no problem, but as a PC I'm always worried that I'll run out of magic just when I need it most. That also applies to expendable magic items but not, interestingly, to mundane expendable items like arrows.

[Luccan]

Cuir bouilli (leather hardened by boiling) was used for both armor and shields from ancient times until the American colonial era. The mounted soldiers serving in New Spain in the mid 18th century were known as Soldados de cuero ("leather-jacket soldiers in English) because of their leather armor.


On irrational quirks, I have a very hard time casting spells. I can do it as a DM, no problem, but as a PC I'm always worried that I'll run out of magic just when I need it most. That also applies to expendable magic items but not, interestingly, to mundane expendable items like arrows.

In my experience, few DMs care about counting arrows (outside survival or old-school games where it's more important). A lot of games use cinematic tropes these days and archers don't run out of arrows in media unless it's dramatic. Plus, I could see arguing how that puts ranged characters at a disadvantage (even though it's more of a balance to their range advantage).

But magic items are a real power boost. As for spells, something I like about 5e is unlimited cantrips. Pick a decent damaging cantrip and you can save your spells for the fights that matter.

[Requilac]

This isn't necessarily a quirk that effects how I play things, but it does greatly effect how I picture the events in game.

If arcane magic is involved in anything, whether it be a magical creature or spell, I always imagine it in way more horrific/gothic than it really it is. I imagine one of my player's elf character to be a gaunt, almost emaciated figure, with uncannily long bones and a creepily wide mouth that makes it look like some sort of ghoul... despite the fact that said elf is an almost nanny like bard with 18 CHA that is quite obviosuly not that scary. When one of table member's gnome wizard casts fireball, I always see them releasing a ravenous cloud of black, scorching gas which envelops an enemy and leaves them with fourth degree burns*... even though I know that the bouncy, quirky gnome with its little cat familiar would never do something so sinister. And despite the fact that the party druid is just an incredibly awkward and quiet member of the Emerald Enclave, whenever they wildshape I always see them going through a horrid sort of werewolf-esque transformation where the animal features slowly and painfully overtake their human ones as they scream in noticeable agony.

This is just what I always thought of magic. After all, how could breaking the laws of known and comprehensible logic and science for vile acts of violence, insanity induction, or physical deformation be treated any other way? I actually have very limited knowledge of pop culture and my literary experience for fiction mostly extended to the Weird Fiction and Gothic Horror genres. From my point of view I thought everyone saw magic as something horrific. I wrongfully assumed that the only place where this more optimistic and "wonderful" form of magic was only in kids books like Harry Potter, and it wasn't until I played D&D that I recognized that most people, including adults, did not picture magic as something inherently sinister. This "revelation" was first revealed to me at an AL table before a game where they were discussing Eberron. I was quite surprised by the fact that anyone older than 12 would actually imagine a world full of magic as such a "wonderful" (for lack of a better term) place.

Still after what must be three years something still doesn't quite sit right to me with this perception of "wondrous", non-nightmarish magic. It just doesn't resemble at all what I am used to in fantasy. This idea of sexy elves, goody two shoes druids and silly little kender is just something that seems so odd to me. After all D&D is a roleplaying game set in medieval times, where magic was considered the epitome of all that was evil and disgusting, right...? Apparently not.

Has anyone else had this experience, or am I alone in this regard?

* I am aware that a 4th degree burn doesn't actually exist

[Luccan]

This isn't necessarily a quirk that effects how I play things, but it does greatly effect how I picture the events in game.

If arcane magic is involved in anything, whether it be a magical creature or spell, I always imagine it in way more horrific/gothic than it really it is. I imagine one of my player's elf character to be a gaunt, almost emaciated figure, with uncannily long bones and a creepily wide mouth that makes it look like some sort of ghoul... despite the fact that said elf is an almost nanny like bard with 18 CHA that is quite obviosuly not that scary. When one of table member's gnome wizard casts fireball, I always see them releasing a ravenous cloud of black, scorching gas which envelops an enemy and leaves them with fourth degree burns*... even though I know that the bouncy, quirky gnome with its little cat familiar would never do something so sinister. And despite the fact that the party druid is just an incredibly awkward and quiet member of the Emerald Enclave, whenever they wildshape I always see them going through a horrid sort of werewolf-esque transformation where the animal features slowly and painfully overtake their human ones as they scream in noticeable agony.

This is just what I always thought of magic. After all, how could breaking the laws of known and comprehensible logic and science for vile acts of violence, insanity induction, or physical deformation be treated any other way? I actually have very limited knowledge of pop culture and my literary experience for fiction mostly extended to the Weird Fiction and Gothic Horror genres. From my point of view I thought everyone saw magic as something horrific. I wrongfully assumed that the only place where this more optimistic and "wonderful" form of magic was only in kids books like Harry Potter, and it wasn't until I played D&D that I recognized that most people, including adults, did not picture magic as something inherently sinister. This "revelation" was first revealed to me at an AL table before a game where they were discussing Eberron. I was quite surprised by the fact that anyone older than 12 would actually imagine a world full of magic as such a "wonderful" (for lack of a better term) place.

Still after what must be three years something still doesn't quite sit right to me with this perception of "wondrous", non-nightmarish magic. It just doesn't resemble at all what I am used to in fantasy. This idea of sexy elves, goody two shoes druids and silly little kender is just something that seems so odd to me. After all D&D is a roleplaying game set in medieval times, where magic was considered the epitome of all that was evil and disgusting, right...? Apparently not.

Has anyone else had this experience, or am I alone in this regard?

* I am aware that a 4th degree burn doesn't actually exist

I'll admit, this perspective seems unique to me. This seems like a deconstruction of popular fantasy tropes. You have to remember, this isn't medieval Europe. It's largely pop-fantasy. What the wizard is doing isn't much worse than stabbing and breaking the bones of your enemies. Might even be quicker. There is plenty of room for these ghoulish elves and an "arcane magic is evil" style of game, but it isn't the default assumption at most tables. If it helps, think Tolkien. Elves are beautiful, the Wizards are friendly (well, Saruman fell out, but he was a good guy), and the horrors of war don't get a great amount of detail.

[Arkhios]

If I have odd ability scores on my character –especially if I rolled them, I most often try to do my best to even them out, even if it would be detrimental for the character.

when I use point-buy, I prefer to not leave any odd scores.

[ciarannihill]

I can't not Multiclass. I can't give up the freedom to adjust my character to my specific wants in that way, just can't do it.

[Maxilian]

I can't not Multiclass. I can't give up the freedom to adjust my character to my specific wants in that way, just can't do it.

Funny, i have always seen MC as the freedom to adjust my character the way i want (not that is a need, but for most complex concept, it does the trick).

[xroads]

I will rarely play evil characters. If I have to be in an evil party, I'll often play an insane character. The only way I can justify playing a non-evil person hanging out with a bunch of evil schmucks.

Edit: Though I have no issue with playing comical, twirling mustache, evil characters. :smallbiggrin:

[Rerem115]

Same, although pragmatic villainy has a strong argument as well; if you plan ahead enough, any act can be self-serving.

"Why yes, I am polite and do not backstab my allies. That way, should my schemes go awry, they will feel compelled to assist me."

"Why shouldn't I build an orphanage? If I ensure that they are well cared for and protected, I will have a pool of recruits who will be willing to assist me in my endeavors, to say nothing of the clout I will have with the townsfolk."

[ElChad]

After a campaign I was a part of, a few years ago, I now have an irrational hatred towards all Dwarves. They are sneaky, greedy, rude, and their beards are made of false superiority and betrayal. I will never play one, nor will any of my characters ever trust one. :smallmad:

[JoeJ]

In my experience, few DMs care about counting arrows (outside survival or old-school games where it's more important). A lot of games use cinematic tropes these days and archers don't run out of arrows in media unless it's dramatic. Plus, I could see arguing how that puts ranged characters at a disadvantage (even though it's more of a balance to their range advantage).

But magic items are a real power boost. As for spells, something I like about 5e is unlimited cantrips. Pick a decent damaging cantrip and you can save your spells for the fights that matter.

Even if the DM doesn't track arrows, food, water, etc. I always do. When and where to restock supplies is not a decision I'm willing to have somebody else make for my character.

The best solution I've found to my unwillingness to use up spells is to play a character who doesn't cast them.

[Tawmis]

Thought of a few more to add to my original post. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23177499&postcount=74)


I do not enjoy multi-classing. Now hear me out - the reason is, because I typically play in a group of 5 to 7 people. This allows for people to cover pretty much all the bases. We typically have a few warrior types, a rogue, a healer of some kind, and some magic casters. I have always felt like when you multi-class, you're stepping on someone else's feet potentially, especially if that class is already fairly unique and represented... And by that, I specifically mean, typically multiclassing into a Rogue. So a Fighter/Rogue, Wizard/Rogue - I feel like you get more than one person who is trying to pick locks, check for traps, unlock a chest - and you already have someone who is JUST a Rogue... that you step on their specialty. It's odd, I know, because Rogue's are specific to... well, being Rogues. Where as for the "Warriors" - you have Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins. For healers, you have Clerics and Paladins, and even Bards to some degree. Magic Users have Wizards, Warlocks, and Sorcerers. Some might argue that a Bard can fall into the Rogue class - but Bards are... a little of everything. Your typical "Jack (or Jill) of All Trades, But Master of None."
I don't care for people who "maximize" their characters (aka "Power Gamers"). And by this, they try to create the "ultimate" builds. I feel like 5e does a good job of tappering this off. But back in 2nd Edition - there's literally a horribly memory burned in my mind of a "power gamer" who had made an Elf (who had +1 with Longswords and +1 with Bows) "Blade Singer" kit - which gave him even more insanely bonuses for using a Long Sword. You might think that this was their character idea - but this person notoriously looked for the biggest builds possible, no matter what character they made. (It was him and another person in our group that was notorious for it). But that "Blade Singer" has a memory burned in my mind that still lingers MANY years later...
I don't care for people who create unusual quirks to their characters. Now, don't get me wrong. It's fun to have character quirks ("Every time I see a diamond, I have to try and steal it!"), but what I mean are those character quirks that impact the movement and flow of the game. I was recently watching a ROLL20 Stream for their "Roll 20 Con 2018" - and one of the players on there made their character so extremely quirky that it made me cringe watching it - and I eventually just logged out of Twitch and stopped watching, because I could feel it actually annoying ME and I wasn't even the DM! But there's others out there that I've seen (even on the forum) who talk about their "quirky" characters - and I just think to myself, "Dear God, I feel sorry for that DM!" BUT - before you scream at me (too late!) - I do realize we ALL play D&D differently - and that's what makes this system universally beautiful - but this is about what quirks we have (or in this case, don't have) :D

[Tawmis]

Even if the DM doesn't track arrows, food, water, etc. I always do.

This is something I wish I did more as DM... because it adds more ... realism to the game... and gives a reason for the players to step all this gold they're acquiring... and it creates potentially great role playing situations when you have a part lost in a desert or stranded on an island...

[AvvyR]

I give all my characters some sort of accent. This is for a couple reasons. I'm an actor (in both the literal and DMG player type senses), and I'm pretty good at accents, so I find D&D a good opportunity to practice them. It also creates a clear distinction between when I'm speaking in or out of character.

[SaintRidley]

If Changeling is on the table, it's the only race I'll play.

[Kaliayev]

I will never play human. It strikes me as incredibly boring.


It's common, but I've always found it a little weird. I think of Dwarves as Norse/Viking. Or at a pinch, Germanic, Saxon, or Danish warrior-types.

Same. I'm currently playing a hill dwarf named Søren.


I refuse to play Anime/Manga charavcters or with folks who want those types of characters in D&D.

What if they're making Guts?

[Requilac]

I'll admit, this perspective seems unique to me. This seems like a deconstruction of popular fantasy tropes. You have to remember, this isn't medieval Europe. It's largely pop-fantasy. What the wizard is doing isn't much worse than stabbing and breaking the bones of your enemies. Might even be quicker. There is plenty of room for these ghoulish elves and an "arcane magic is evil" style of game, but it isn't the default assumption at most tables. If it helps, think Tolkien. Elves are beautiful, the Wizards are friendly (well, Saruman fell out, but he was a good guy), and the horrors of war don't get a great amount of detail.

How was I supposed to recognize that it was popular fantasy and not more medieval mythology based just by looking at the PHB though? It's literally called Dungeons and Dragons, and the idea of anything with the word dungeon in the name being a non gothic game seemed odd to me. It also didn't help that in the PHB the first example of a scenario they give you is one just outside of Castle Ravenloft. I didn't know what that was at the time of course, but I looked it up, and that further cemented the idea in my mind of this being an at least slightly horror based game. After all, they used a gothic horror adventure as their prime example, which I now recognize was rather misleading. It probably doesn't help that I stumbled across D&D while trying to form a Call of Cthulhu group too.

And also please remember that I avoided using the word "evil" on purpose. I am not saying that arcane magic is inherently evil, but I did think it was inherently dangerous, sinister and over all just horrifically weird. I never said that killing an enemy with a fireball is worst than killing an enemy with a sword, I just think it is a much more phantasmagorical/nightmarish thing to witness.

And Tolkien is a pretty bad example of the type of "wondrous" fantasy that you are thinking off, as I would make the statement that it is actually gothic in its own right, with definite elements of horror.* And Tolkien elves are a slight outlier, because they weren't really inherently linked to arcane magic or the fey (as far as I can remember). D&D elves have a clear relation to the fey and magic, clearly highlighted by there Fey Ancestry and to a lesser extent Trance trait while as Tolkien elves really weren't all that magic at all. Do you remember any of the Elves from the Hobbit or LotR casting a spell? Or even making a magical item for that matter? IIRC correctly they handled shards of Aragorn's sword, which they didn't create, their ancestors had some of the rings, which they also didn't create, and the hobbits were given the Phial of Galadriel, which seemed to be divine in nature to me. I didn't imagine them nearly as "ghoulish" because they didn't seem all that magical to me.

And the wizards weren't exactly all that friendly either. The five magic users I can remember where Sauron, Saruman, Beorn, Gandalf, and The Nazgul (yes I know there were mutliple Nazguls), three of which were blatantly evil and one of which (Beorn) was actually recognized as being pretty scary if you weren't friends with him. And I would be hesitant to put Gandalf, the guy that fell into literal hell fighting a demon (the Balrog) and then crawled out of it as a partially undead creature with noticeable physical and spiritual alterations**, as a non eldritch wizard.

As for the horrors of war not getting much detail... I would highly advise that you re-read the Return of the King, where the King Denethor commits suicide because almost all of his family is dead, the corpses of his dead soldiers are being piled up against the walls of his city, and his people are spiraling into a horrible depression. I will agree that LotR didn't detail the horrors of war as much as it could have, but saying that Tolkien shied away from the matter isn't completely accurate.

*If you consider Dracula a horror story, which most people do, than LotR should probably be considered at least partially a horror story too.

**He was no longer the grey wizard and somehow became the white wizard IIRC, and I believe the hobbits mistook him for Saruman too at first.

[Anonymouswizard]

What if they're making Guts?

What, an eighth level fighter? That's about as anime as you can get!

Okay, Guts certainly rolled an 18 for Strength, but his Variant Human increase there (and either Dex or Con) and picked up Great Weapon Master, and took a homebrew great at level 4 that have him +1 Strength and the ability to wield oversized weapons. He also has at least a couple of other combat focused feats, bit the point is that all it really takes to simulate him is a piece of homebrew, and you can drop that off you're willing to stat the Dragonslayera normal greatsword.

Another interesting option is Roy Mustang. Focus heavily on fire spells and include the loyalty and heavy guilt and you're all set.

Actually, there's quite a few D&D suitable anime characters, you just have to go outside of the 'big' ones.

[Scots Dragon]

Actually, there's quite a few D&D suitable anime characters, you just have to go outside of the 'big' ones.

There are several entire anime that basically are D&D-style fantasy.

Stuff like Slayers, Record of Lodoss War, and Bastard!! are pretty much full to the brim with D&D-suitable characters by virtue of being explicitly D&D-inspired.


Also Guts is more like the third-party blood hunter or some kind of ranger given the fact that he's a dedicated monster-slayer.

[Anonymouswizard]

There are several entire anime that basically are D&D-style fantasy.

Stuff like Slayers, Record of Lodoss War, and Bastard!! are pretty much full to the brim with D&D-suitable characters by virtue of being explicitly D&D-inspired.

Well certainly.


Also Guts is more like the third-party blood hunter or some kind of ranger given the fact that he's a dedicated monster-slayer.

Gah, this is just wrong.

First off, let's look at his abilities. He fights with a big sword and dodges attacks. That's basically it. Sure his concept is of an apostle hunter (past the Golden Age arc at any rate, there he's just a mercenary), but his abilities are straight up Fighter. He doesn't have the magic of a ranger or the elemental infusions of a blood hunter, he just has a sword, his skill, his freakish Strength, and a cannon in his arm (I'd call it a spoiler but that gets revealed really early on).

In fact, Guts is one of the few decent examples in media about what a mid level fighter should be able to do. He's a bit more 3.X about it (Hundred Man Slayer and all that), but the fact remains that he achieves his feats without any sort of magic, be that spellcasting or Blood Hunter style stuff.