pathfinder

213 readers

26 users here now

founded 11 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Opinion - Human Fighter is the most creative character option (discuss.tchncs.de)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This isn't strictly a Pathfinder thing but I like this community.

Basically, there is this meme that Human Figher is a "boring" default choice or sign of an uncreative character. I disagree. Picking out a weird ancestry is not creative. Choosing a human fighter basically means that you get zero flavor from your ancestry and class - so you are forced to get creative yourself. You are forced to give your character a personality, and you are forced to solve problems creatively.

For me, the stereotype is the opposite - if a player chooses an esoteric ancestry and class combo, I worry that their characters whole personality is just their ancestry.

Of course both humans and other ancestries make for great characters if done right.

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

I think where I would disagree is in wording.

I think a human fighter allows nearly unlimited creativity, but doing so requires a player with imagination, and DM that's open to them doing it. Truth is, a lot of players don't want creative characters that make them really open up. They want at least some degree of comfort in their character. Tropes exist for a reason, in other words.

But, yeah, in any system I've ever seen, a standard human fighter tends to be the best blank slate for going all out with.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I kinda disagree with your claim here, but the kernel of truth that I do agree with is that players who hang their entire character concept on their ancestry and class are not creating an interesting character. A character is more than what they can do in combat.

That being said, I think if a player does make a truly creative character, then it's inconsequential what race and class they pick.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I agree completely that it's inconsequential, one issue with the arguement about creative characters is that people often blend being unique with being compelling. A compelling character is where it's inconsequential what choices you make.

That said, I think players who aren't aware of the tropes PC's often fall into may end up playing "the straight man" to the group, who is comparatively very plain. Players who have played for longer may feel that this is similar to PCs they've seen before. But even then, it doesn't really matter as this PC trope shines in contrast to the rest of the party and that rarely changes.

Unrelated but I wanna say how proud I was of my Baldurs Gate3 character. I felt that your TAV in that game was quite plain and generic no matter what you chose, so played as a human fighter called John Baldurgate who was the most generic character possible and had a blast.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

John Baldursgate sounds like a brilliant concept for a BG3 PC. Honestly I love BG3 but by far my biggest gripe with it is how boring the player character is. They even built in a solution for this problem with DUrge, but that only enables you to play an edgelord. And if you play any of the main characters yourself, you miss out on their voice acting and character development.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

If your character concept is "complete" before choosing your class, consider being a human. Other choices carry along more "baggage" that may distract from what you're shooting for.

Other players can be like "What kind of elf would...?" etc., but they don't do that for humans.

[–] KISSmyOSFeddit 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"His name is Hugh M. N. Fi-Tor"

[–] robolemmy 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Does the "M. N." stand for "Middle Name?"

[–] KISSmyOSFeddit 1 points 5 months ago

Mmh. No.