I had this problem in a game were the party was supposed to catch basically Zorro. Why would I turn in Zorro? We where not told to make characters that have no qualms about turning in Zorro for the reward money.
Well sometimes it also depends on the situation. As campaigns progress sometimes the goals your character had shift in response to events. My Fighter was part of a modified Descent into Avernus campaign and we had to save the city from certain death, but after my DM made us watch an instance of mob justice that my character failed to interrupt due to it unnerving her on moral grounds, she lost motivation to save those people as she saw them undeserving of salvation. A DM has to be responsive to their players' needs too, and he blew me off when I confronted him about the mob justice incident. So it can just as easily be a failure on the other end too
Playing a negative INT bonus character as an excuse to sabotage the group. The character might have more difficulty strategizing and problem-solving, but for example killing the escort mission NPC isn't a "9 INT moment," it just disruptive to the plot and the other players at the table, and has little to do with INT at all.
Funny coincidence: D&D average is 10, provable max is 20, and actual max (for PCs) is 24. Meanwhile, IQ has an average of 100, a provable max of 200, and an actual max of about 243. (IQ is calculated based on bell curve. The center of the curve is 100, and there are enough people alive for there to be an IQ over 240.)
No...but if the escort NPC is a snobby noble who shit talks the 9ft 8int barbarian, and he has to be held back to prevent him from punching said noble in the face...
>disruptive to the plot I'm sorry but I thought players were the ones pushing the plot? Granted, I see your point about being a straight up liability because "lul me want to be big dumb for becauae big funi" and I agree with it, but "disruptive to the plot" implies that things have been prewritten to happen regardless of player input.
@@thespianmask Definitely, plot isn't the correct term, players are the driving force; I've having trouble finding the correct word (I am a 9 INT man). As another example, if the players are on a quest to deliver an important letter, and 9 INT PC decides to eat the letter because it looks tasty... something is being disrupted. I can't quite articulate what, like an overall sense of direction or cooperation.
I will always have issues with that. Yes, lower INT means you aren't as smart, that doesn't mean you're a complete idiot. You can know when you're out of your league and leave it to the book smart characters. Used to have another player in our group who did similar, but with Charisma, even against common sense. Kept trying to play up a charming angle when everyone just thought it overstated it's welcome and was just annoying. Still a bit aggravated over an incident they caused in Starfinder. But back to the low INT thing, yeah, that's troublesome. The one that drives me up the wall the most is low INT barbarians, because it's almost always an excuse to go "me tough, me dumb." Barbarians can be much more than that. Especially if they're basing them off of Conan, who actually was rather intelligent.
I have played an “I refuse to fight” pacifist, but I wasn’t useless. I was the combat medic. I did almost no damage that entire campaign. Didn’t kill a single enemy. I just played him like Desmond Doss.
Absolutely amazing movie lol. I have a similar style with my character being a Mercy Monk that shoots webs like Spider-Man. I push and pull teammates with webs and heal them whenever they are in a bad spot
Yeah, an actual pacifist doesn't fight at all, else they're not really a pacifist. I suppose there can be levels but just refusing to inflict harm on anything doesn't imply that you can't be doing all kinds of other cool stuff, like healing, protecting, buffing, etc...
Oh god yes, the chaotic "good" character that steals from their party, hordes all the loot, kills people who are retreating or unarmed... But claims they're a good person... Like no! Learn what morals are!
A CG character is morally good, but either lacks ethics in the way that they don't care about convention; just doing good. The right way to play such a character would be sparing in the thievery department, and when done, it's for a good cause. The theft has to be strategic and not for personal gain. It's unethical to steal, but can still be done for morally altruistic purposes. Granted, such a character isn't for everyone, or every group. However, when done right, adds personality and constructive drama to the table.
@@DistendedPerinium Precisely. One of the archetypical Chaotic Good characters is Robin Hood. Yes, he robs the rich. But he does so to help the poor and disadvantaged, values the friendship with his band highly, and protects life when he can.
@@Valandar2 Personally, my three favorite alignments to play are CG, CN and LE. Generally, DMs are hesitant to let me play an evil character, but when I explain my philosophy on character alignments as a whole, they're usually willing to give me a shot.
@@DistendedPerinium Absolutely! I just can't stand people who do really shitty things to people, including gaslighting and bullying, but then claim their character is "good" because they did this one thing, once, and it was for money.
As a Barbarian I engaged the beast in conversation, because beforehand we learned it had been awakened and knew speech, felt it would be polite before we got to fighting. Next thing I know my Barbarian managed to resolve the conflict and encounter with words rather than violence, because I got sucked into the RP and ended being convincing with a persuasion roll.
We are doing Storm king's Thunder and recently got to Bryn Shander. During the time where the frost giants surrounded the city, my 14 INT eldritch knight fighter managed to persuade the leader that instead of attacking the town, to give is twenty four hours to find the person/object they were looking for. Me and the group immediately bust into investigation mode and at one point my lawful good fighter even went into the temple of the triad and sat with the priests inside to pray to Torm, Tyr, and Ilmater (my fighter worships Bahamut who is an ally to them). With a decent religion roll I learned one word of information from Bahamut about the NPC and it was the name of a location, which was not in Bryn Shander. Piecing it together with the rest of the information my colleagues (a cleric and a barbarian) gathered, i presented myself alone before the giants and knelt in their leader's presence. It should be noted frost giants are neutral evil, but these ones specifically were here looking for something/someone specific who was NOT here, and I will always try reason until it no longer works. On a VERY good persuasion roll against the giant leader they leaned in close and told me to stand. I did, and we were face to face. I won the persuasion and the leader let out a bellowing ROAR of anger in my face but did not strike me. They told me instead that as they peered into my eyes they saw absolutely no hint of deception or untruth within. Though they would ache for battle any given day, we were lucky this time they were here for a purpose, and to spend resources and troops only to find their quarry was not here would have been a waste. The leader retracted their troops, but before they left they told me two things: They would leave Bryn Shander alone and that if we meet again, it will not be for anything that can be settled with words. Myself and the others were sweating BULLETS but we got through the situation without any losses of life in Bryn Shander or among the party. I do wish to make it known my fighter is Lawful good, with a Neutral Good cleric and a Chaotic Neutral barbarian. The barbarian admitted he would rather have fought, but he also wasn't willing to die this day it it could be avoided. He put his trust in us, and we put ours in him. Our group dynamic is strong now.
@@THEGRUMPTRUCK That sounds amazing. What cheers me the most is that your party members trusted eachother and didn’t compromise anything, especially with the barbarian who believed you could persuade your way out of fighting. Hope your campaign continues to be as great as it sounds.
That sounds super awesome. I love the idea that a barbarian would try to be civil and talk things out with a wild animal rather than just killing it outright, almost like they respect another creature of the wilds.
@@RiskierGoose340 the Barbarian is cool as hell. He's a big tortle who isn't very bright and loves to smash things, but he's absolutely a gem when it comes to placing his trust in the party. Likewise when we need someone who can wade into battle with an almost maniacal fanaticism for combat, we let him go in first and start swinging. At 6th level I took a 1 dip into Forge domain cleric and then I'm back to EK for the rest of my build, this way I can prebuff us with bless to free the cleric up for other stuff, and since bless gives me bonus on concentration as well, and I still have shield if all else fails. That way while working as a team, the cleric can focus on what she needs to do while the rest of us keep our adversaries on the ropes.
As a tabaxi player, even I'M annoyed at the "too much cat". My tabaxi sun soul monk liked curling up bed and drape her tail over her nose. My tabaxi tempest cleric plays up the curiousity aspect and hisses when startled. Yes, they have cat behaviors. But the monk was more of a stoic warrior who had to learn to let her proverbial hair down. And the cleric is a "sweet southern belle pirate" who honestly loves the pursuit of treasure and having good friends to pursue it with. That being said, my least-favorite trope is that "I have no personality except that I am fey and love to torture folks." Yes, fey have an "alien" mindset compared to non-fey but still.
Yeah, I'm dealing with a player who is running an elf raised by pixies in the Feywild. They are a divine soul sorcerer but their spell selection means they are 100% useless in combat, and spends their out of combat time pranking people. IN A CAMPAIGN WHERE FEY PRANKSTERS ARE THE PROBLEM.
I've never played DND before but I recently came across some DND animals on pinterest which sparked my interest and now I've been watching and reading a lot of DND and related RPG style worlds. All that to say I don't actually have any experience. But I think there would be a lot of cool ways to give someone cat characteristics while letting them be a person (I'm a stereotypically crazy cat lady who treats her cats like they are little people). So based on my own cat's behaviors. Tensing when new people come around, but being fine with loud noises Tensing with loud noises, but being chill with new people Very bossy and willing to stare everyone down (and occasionally let out a hiss or bitch slap) to be acknowledged as the ruler of the roost Not being afraid of bigger animals in the family that show aggression (i.e. our dogs), because they're the boss dammit. Coincedentally always in the same room as someone, and when you move on to another spot they will show up a couple of minutes later Very willing to work with others (based on how cats really only meow at humans because we're kinda deaf to how they communicate with other cats) Purring to self soothe, comfort others, show happiness, and help themselves or others heal (purrs have actual healing qualities) Follow the sun Very dramatic Loves physical contact and would always be bumping shoulders and walking in step with another person, when sleeping would probably prefer to sleep in a pile or curled up right next to someone, and if they're closer to actual cat sized about half would like to be picked up (like a toddler). They might do the gentle headbutts (sign of affection and possibly trying to scent mark) or quick body contact (maybe a hug or just brushing up against you). Love/hate relationship with water Sudden "zoomies" where they act a bit loopy and race around with sudden stops and heads whipping around to stare at random stuff. The different vocalizations - meows, purrs, chirps, huffs, growls, hisses, spitting, yeowling, the weird clicky thing they do when they spot birds outside the window Amazing balance - like you could toss them and they will land on their feet fine Related to physical contact, but they like kneading on someone when they are very happy and chilled One of my cats would drool on my when she was very relaxed on my lap and apparently that's not uncommon for cats (but only one of mine that did that) They have several warning signs when they are irritated or feel threatened - stiff body/raised fur, huffing/hissing/yeowling/growling, very direct stare, showing off teeth, slapping face or body, scratching whichever body part is in vicinity, whipping tail, if everything else fails they bite (depending on scenario it could be a warning bite that doesn't break skin or a bad bite that goes in deep) Very particular about how/where they like to be touched or held Some are very ridicoulsly chatty and others are pretty quiet A lot of cats appreciate "parallel play" for lack of a better word. They just want to chill near you, and that counts as bonding time for them. Shows off but a lot (consequence of how they hold their tail) but it gives the impression that they are showing your their butt Sleep a lot Love rainbow reflections or other bright lights Very clean, can border on obsessive (although they are some who just aren't usually related to low intelligence from my own experience) - love to groom/be clean, like their spaces to be clean and healthy (if litterbox isn't maintained they can have fits and they don't like their food / water / litterbox to be close to one another). Cats like to give their loved ones gifts They like to climb and jump, and are pretty good at it Pretty curious and like to investiage Like to nibble or give love bites - maybe have a chewing fidget or to show signs of trust/affection towards others but that my be too inhuman Also likes to groom others - another sign of trust and affection, and in a humanoid cat it doesn't have to be the licking - maybe they lick brushing other people's hair as a sign of affection, or helping braid peoples hair so it's out of their face Squinting their eyes or slowly blinking in your direction is a sign they are purposefully giving you to show their love and trust (lowering their vision = they trust you not to hurt them or take advantage of them) They also seem to really like to knock stuff over (sign of boredom maybe? or another sign of their inquistive natures?) The ability to squeeze themselves in or though a smaller space that doesn't seem like it would fit them Also the if it fits I sits - they just like to curl up in small spaces Directly staring into someone's eyes is generally a sign of aggression, while glacing away or not directly at someone is a sign or extension of trust They absolutely love to mirror their loved ones, they are actually really good at keeping track of time and routines (some will get mad if your deviate, especially if it involves food). But it's why cats lie on the keybord as your using it or on top of your book as your reading. They just want to be involved in the activity with you.
I love being fey creatures in D&D. They're chaotic, and don't care about your human morals. Making them torture people is cringe though. Fey do things for fun, and torture ain't fun
I had a generally argumentative player who was refusing to leave his weapons outside of a meeting with a king in his own castle. He made a slight of hand check, so ok sure bring them. When he inevitably tries taking them out to do some dumb shit i had him get hit with like 9 range attacks, then save against a hold person. This may have been overly petty but i was tired of the powerstruggle he seemed determined to make the campaign, but i left him in the gallows for most of the rest of the session. When the group was done in that area i told them "guess you need to decide what to do about your party member." So they went to see him in jail and he had to beg the table to let him be released to their custody and that he would clean up his act. Literally had to show him that the party was having more fun without him there
It's entirely possible to play a pacifist, while still contributing to the group. I played a Bard once who, through the entire game, never delivered any damage to anyone or anything else. He would buff the party, Cure Wounds, and eventually used Polymorph to end conflicts without killing. He was very well liked by the rest of the party, mostly because each of us would follow the others into Hell itself for each other. There's also a solution to Kender that makes them not only playable, but very fun. Simply, you don't actually roll out the 'kleptomania'. It's just tossed in as a statement. For example: Wizard: "I use my Wand of Fireballs..." Kender: "I hand him his Wand of Fireballs" Wizard: "... Thank you. I blast them with my Wand of Fireballs." In other words, he doesn't actually take anything from the others, just pipes up with a comment like that when they pull out equipment. And not every time - just once in a while.
That Kender solution is excellent. Probably not something that the people playing Kender so they can steal from everyone would use, but definitely shows it's not the Race just the people abusing it's traits.
So the way I look at Chaotic and Lawful is this: Chaotic: I have no defined set of rules that I adhere to so I will do what I believe to be the most sensible toward my goals Lawful: I have defined rules by which I follow toward my goal, I may break or go against my own rules if the situation calls for it but I won't readily do so and will be hesitant. A lawful good character has a defined set of rules they follow, they will stick to their rules as much as possible, but ultimately they will do what they believe to be the most good as the situation calls for even if said good would require them to break their rules, as they will prioritize good over law. A chaotic good character has no defined set of rules but will prioritize good actions,. As an example, the lawful good character wants to arrest the bandit leader, because by bringing him in he demonstrates that he can show mercy plus he can allow the court to handle the bandit as they see fit but if it would prove too dangerous or costly to bring the bandit in he'll still kill them, the chaotic character will want to just kill the bandit leader, as it would be faster, cost the least amount of resources, will ensure the bandit can't hurt anymore people, and they won't have to worry about the bandit escaping if their dead. I also define Evil and Good as: Good: I prioritize the well being of others above myself Evil: I prioritize myself above others
This is one I’ve encountered multiple times and I HATE it! It’s my least favorite variation of the MC archetype. The “I get to go around being rude and insulting to the party, NPC’s, basically the whole universe because I don’t understand how social interactions work” character. Note, I’ve met a few people where this is a real-life issue for them and that is NOT what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about people who I know well and good have at least average levels of social skills but *still* want to play a character that lets them be a jacka$$ and get their party and themselves into trouble because the rest of the party has to rescue them repeatedly. Seriously, this game is about everyone at the table having fun. Why on earth do you think it will be fun for everyone else to have to pay the consequences for your character being a social idiot? “But it will make a great story for everyone to teach my character how to be a better person!” No, it will enable YOU to have a lot of fun, I will just contemplate leaving the game so I can find something I actually enjoy doing. Side note, I have played with a Kinder before who was fun to play with. The party never knows what they're actually going to find in their stuff due to all the things the Kinder 'acquires' and secretly gives to their friends. This is not played to get the others pics in trouble by framing the other party members for the things the Kinder stole, it's played for laughs of "Why do I now have 5 gold rings and a wand of Ape Walk in my bag?", the Kobold asks.
Someone who’s played alongside those characters before There are ways to do it if the player knows what they’re doing and the party allows it. I also think it’s fine for a character to be a jackass so long as they have at least some level of respect to know when to shut it and don’t do it on a regular. That being said, I am so tired of the asshole character not even for the fact that they get the party in trouble, but specifically because they get away with being an asshole or the rest of the party suffers more than they do.
7:50 if you want to play a "i dont understand my magic" character, play a wild magic sorc.. Thats what its there for. If you dont think the wild magic surges happen enough talk with the dm about increasing the chances (like increasing the number you need to roll by one or two every time you dont get a surge or making you have to roll higher than the spell's level to not get a surge). As for the archtype i dislike... I hate the character (or player) who thinks violence is the only solution
It's funny that they mentioned Bard and Sorcerer specifically, because I recently added a level of Sorcerer (divine soul) to my Bard. There's been an element of "I don't understand my magic" about the multiclass for him, so I feel a little called out. Granted, he's very knowledgeable about bard magic because he went through school to study it. Story wise he doesn't know much about sorcery or how he's related to gods/celestials. I roleplayed some self discovery at first, like the first cantrip I had him discover was sacred flame when he was just casually saying something about fire and gesturing, making a blue-white flame appear in his hand briefly. One of our major NPCs is also a divine soul sorcerer, so I also had a heart to heart about it briefly where my bard asked him for advice. One time in combat I threw in "he tries to cast vicious mockery, but a mind sliver happened instead", but otherwise I have been able to reconcile his lack of full understanding with instinct. I don't believe I've bothered anyone by throwing in flavor of that nature while still making tactically sound decisions with my new spells.
@@notjfk2050 the bard in my tuesday game doesnt "know" how their magic work but constantly is able to cast a spell that helps the situation..... or makes it easier for us to kill the enemy at the very least .......they casted plant growth in the middle of an overgrown temple while we fought 3 chimeras.....
That is what they did in Dimension 20. Pete had to roll a nat 20 where the chance happened more and more likely, and then would reset back to one once he did get a surge.
@@notjfk2050 I like that, your character is adapting to the new powers without being dumb. It's different from the characters that make you ask why are they even on game
The everyone in my backstory is dead trope. As a player I find it boring and leaves my dm nothing to work with. I like my backstory to be a bit opened ended for him to work with. As a DM, read the above Edit: To elaborate based on the comments I guess what I dislike are backstories that don't give the dm/other players (the latter less so) to work with
Benefits of that trope: - You don't hog the spotlight or have much expectation of getting the spotlight, so other players can have the spotlight instead. - You don't have to entrust characters that you came up with and may have become attached to, to the DM, who might mess up their personality. - It's very adaptable and can fit into almost any campaign without problems. - You don't distract from the main storyline by demanding a character-specific quest. - The DM cannot use attachments from before the game starts against you or your character. - It can help explain why a character is adventuring: There's nothing tying them down! I mean, I get your complaint if _every_ character is like that, but if it's one or two then I don't see the problem.
I require players to write 4 NPCs with 3-4 sentences describing who they are and how they relate to the PC. If they can't be bothered to do that, I don't want them on my table.
I dunno, man. Given the number of shitty DMs whose first and usually only reaction to seeing even a hint of having any family, friends, or just anyone they care about is "Oh, cool, people to randomly murder for drama!", I'm not sure I blame those players unless they're blatantly just doing it to be lazy.
@@iamjetflight the least a PC without any worldly attachment to anything should do is to engage with the adventure. If they have no stakes in what's happening, and actively don't even care for what's going on, that PC has no business being in the party. I'd tell that player to make a character that has a reason to join the other party members in what they're engaged in. They can always walk away from my table because that would save both of us a huge headache.
No to mention that as a tabaxi, it’s a funny thing to do randomly and not every long rest. Pick and choose wisely when it happens and talk to your dm. Zoomies. We did this in one game where my DM an I coordinated together. One night in game, the party was down for a long rest and it was 2nd watch. The cleric was doing his thing and suddenly, nyoom, my assassin rogue/fighter gunslinger tabaxi burst out of his ten, up a tree, down the tree, into the bushes, and then finally crashed out half in and out of his tent.
Id argue that you need to make a con or wisdom save every session you dont do anything that requires any type of higher exercise besides walking pretty much. So no fighting, no training, no running, no working a job, no jumping etc. Then youd have too much built up energy and need to make the safe or else zoomies. XD
I'm very confused at the Horny Bard trope. It seems like a paper-thin attempt at a roleplay.. I'm currently playing a bard in a campaign and he's a writer, former journalist, and amateur detective. That seems more fun to play than an STD-Factory
I myself have a bard who did accidentally hit the party with thunderwave once, but it's not because he "didn't understand the magic yet" it was because he's better in combat when he hangs in the back to inspire/heal/buff the party, and can sometimes panic if he gets in the middle of things. The irl reason was because of a miscommunication with the DM about the players positions, so I the player didn't actually think I would be hitting anyone.
That’s actually pretty cool that you whipped up an in-game reason for why the bard messed up with thunderwave, even though it was an irl honest mistake. Reinforces your general playstyle while giving some personality, and it only happens once, so no one is annoyed by it.
@@RiskierGoose340 we where playing online and the dma internet was REALLY choppy, I did try to explain, but nobody listened. Besides, It won't happen again because now I'll make sure to communicate better with the DM, and as for the character, well he can get better over time.
I have a BardBarian with an uncontrollable rage gimmick where I "roll for rage" and if it's a 1 or 0 on a d10 the DM controls me. He gets 2 actions and some other stuff, but most importantly he can cast while raging. All the buffs, however, are not for normal rage and only go to the DM. I play DOOM music when I rage (dm lets me pick music bcus am bard) and specifically play The Only Thing They Fear is You on an uncontrollable. Needless to say, this has led to me slaughtering the enemies with a thunderwave (and also hitting 2 tm8s)
Those "total pacifist" characters get me too. I play a pacifist more in the manner of Sun Tzu. "It is better to be a warrior in a garden than to be a gardener in a war." Sure, I may try to reason sometimes, and prevent what I feel is unnecessary conflict. But the moment it has been made clear the opposing force does not or cannot reason any further, it's weapons out and time to smash.
05:30 That's why most of my one-shots consist of the following plot: Your characters ended up in a bad spot, none of you want to be here, and your objective is to escape before the end of the session. My favorite setup is "you all fell for brochures offering a free vacation, only to realize the destination was a pirate cove that scuttled your boat and stole everything aboard. Your job now is to figure out how to get off the island"
The "Pacifist monk" reminds me of a Jedi I played. She loved the adrenaline rush of fighting, but thought it was unbecoming to cut "mundane" enemies with a lightsaber. So she was a martial arts expert and spent her time knocking people down with her bare hands or a stun baton. When Sith got involved, though, the claws were out. Quite literally, she was a Cathar so she had claws. And a lightsaber, that she kept in a concealed holster. Just in case.
Best monk I ever saw played like that was a "Diplomacy to Grapple" archetype. He would try to de-escalate what encounters he could, but recognized that some people willfully refused to be reasoned with. Then he put the clamps down, but even then didn't kill unless he had to. The player modelled his beliefs after a psuedo-Buddhist philosophy, which has a sort of sliding scale of permissibility of action based on the situation and that the taking of life was one of the least permissible actions one could take. This was a LE monk by the way.
@@GrndAdmiralThrawn They tried to do this with 4 elements Monk. Emphasis on tried. Whenever someone picks it up in our groups, we always homebrew in more ki points or just flat out make some moves free. Y'know, to make it actually playable.
One trope I often find troubling at times is the “character that rarely every speaks unless spoken to and even then it’s usually one word or very terse responses.” Not to say it doesn’t work at times if you as a player are still actively participating in the game, and are actually doing things, but it sometimes seems players who use this trope are simply uninterested in the game or are too shy to be playing in the first place. If you really don’t like role playing, why join a role playing game in the first place?
Plus it really only works if the character's based off of or parodying Link or a generic JRPG hero. That or the character literally cannot speak due to some event either in game or in their backstory.
Played with a few people like that, though that may have been just who they are as a person. but needlessly to say it actually became frustratingly after a couple of months. to always have to ask them about stuff, but never the otherway around or they doing it on their own. After a while i just decided i tried often enough and just let them be for a while and focus on the people who are more of a two-way street to talk to and the general story. surely enough entire sessions went by without either us or our characters interacting with eachother. i eventually left the campaign over this + some other reasons.
@@SS-df5zo I have a similar character/player in my campaign, Now I know that they arent the talkative person to begin with. But unless spoken to, he wont say a thing, and while I dont mind it in game.. When I as the DM asks something in private chat and its been 3 months without an answer yet.. I get the feeling they dont want to answer xD Also.. I asked the most talkative person of the group the same questions and he didnt respond either so its not just quiet people who are quiet when they are in the spotlight :P
I'm playing a character like that right now, or at least she was that way. It was all part of the character's personality and history, and it worked perfectly. I did, however, progress the character passed that mostly, because character development is awesome.
I'm joining a brand new campaign with a Str 18, Int 7 Lizardfolk Barbarian. Imagine a Kroxigor from Warhammer Fantasy. I doubt he has much going on upstairs of interest to talk about, so he's probably just gonna stand there looking mean unless he's eating/wants to eat. By no means am I strictly going to only speak when spoken to, but the affairs of "civilized" folk don't stimulate his dial-up speed intellect enough to warrant his input.
Reluctant heroes. The DM, and every party member shouldn't have to fight tooth and nail to convince you to help in a quest or even join the party. Join or don't, we're not waiting for you. They usually come along in a huff when we walk off without them or end up deciding to join on their own power rather then being left behind.
Counterpoint idea: Character is initially reluctant, but then is promised something specific (easy example is a lot of money). Then he asks "what are we standing around here for?" then is immediately the first one out the door.
A character idea I have on the shelf right now is a half-elf draconic sorcerer, whose father was an elven bard, and needless to say she is on a mission to track down all of her half-siblings.
I’ve got a friend in on of my games who is playing the “I don’t understand magic” type, only they still used magic, like every other second to HELP, their character just didn’t know they were doing anything. Constant guidance out of combat as they tried to help everyone out, got into a fight, the pull out there blade and ‘trip’ casting green flame blade but not seeing it, so assumed their sword just went through the camp fire they were next to. And most of all, silvery barbs on enemies (and the party whenever we try to learn stuff about them, like it’s a natural reaction to magically shut out). Their character is really annoying but in a fun way as they refuse to believe they have magic, and even suggested an invisible wizard was following them about everywhere.
I have a rather personal hatred for the Horny Bard. Some of my earlier games when I was learning the game had half the party that were honestly a bit too into that Archetype. So when I picked up playing bard, they assumed i would also be playing a horny bard and would attempt to maneuver my character into horny situations, and it usually just left me uncomfortable, and my bard backing away slowly. And that really put me off of playing bard for a long time.
I play on discord now. I've played two bards since then that got me back into the class. Of the two, my favorite was a Tiefling bard with social anxiety that was easily startled. When they were actually started they reflexively covered themselves in ice. It was fun.
@@chaonis24601 I'm sorry but you do understand this is fiction right? As long as the player isn't pulling that shit on other players there isn't any actual assault.
The only reason im going horny bard because my dm is allowing me to have a homebrew magical item called the bag of puppies. So i made the horny bard but gave him trust issues and severe depression that he has to be drunk to actively find a one night stand
I once played one of the "I don't know how my powers work" characters, it was an elf who in her backstory was a beholder who found a scroll of wish and used it to try to learn more about the nearby humanoid city who they were convinced was plotting against them but didn't know they were there. She got transformed into an elf (aberrant mind sorcerer) and lost all of their memories. I think it comes down to how you play them because the way I played that character was that she would accidentally cast a spell in the high stress situation of being in combat (most of the time it was combat) since she kind of instinctively knew what her powers were, just didn't know consciously. After she'd cast a spell once in any situation she then knew that she had that in her arsenal and could cast it normally. In other words, I think it comes down to how an archetype is played a lot of the time. I think done poorly with the wrong group pretty much any character is going to be more of a burden on some party than a help.
My Starfinder character was once killed off because the GM determined that there was no way for my character to know his party was lagging behind because we were in vacuum, and that there was no reason for him to check as nothing was coming over comms. Then I was punished for splitting the party and the same GM later stated that I'd tried to pull a "it's what my character would do" when it was more akin to a chess player going "Rook G8 is forced" "It's what my character would do" and "It's the only thing my character *can* do" are 2 different things
I am currently playing one of the most Charismatic of all possible characters (enjoying it and thinking about doing it again at some point), but even I hate it when players with high Charisma characters don't let other party member get a word in edgewise. Often I will end up letting other party members speak and I only interrupt if it looks like things are heading south in the discussion so far, and only if the situation is set up where it is appropriate. I don't always go front and center, and I find it frustrating when in other games the high Charisma player does this. Let other people engage in the social aspects, just like the best fighter needs to sometimes let others shine in a fight.
I feel bad because i'm currently playing a monk that spent most of her life being trained for combat by her mother, with an absent father and very rarely receiving actual motherly love, simply "Good punch" or "nice form" type compliments at most. As a result, i'm playing that character at 22 years old and they're an emotional wreck prone to violent outbursts that's convinced that punching problems is the best way to solve problems. She is actively trying to better herself as a person, but so far, she's basically useless in all social situations
I was in a session a few weeks ago where we found an old woman taking care of 8 or so orphaned children. The party was skeptical of this old woman, and we soon found out that she was a Blood Hag, stealing the faces of children. A bit before this, we thought that the kids were apart of her schemes and so I flat out told the party multiple times "if you do anything to these kids, I will not hesitate to attack you." The next session, our Artificer made the conscious choice to SELL THE SOULS OF THREE OF THEM to a devil we had previously encountered. A bit of context, we had met a devil a few months prior who offered the party anything they wanted in exchange for their souls. Our Artificer met with him privately, and made a deal that for 3 souls of anyone he met, the artificer would get his wishes granted. So, he picked 3 ORPHANED CHILDREN. Thus, my Bard attacked him. I generally avoid PVP, but when it's a situation such as that I feel it's justified, especially if you have told them numerous times that you would do so.
"I dont understand my magic" Neither do I, Yang De Suon, wizard of scribes with handwriting of a therapist. One of the abilities allows to change spell damage type at will, but we homebrewed "at will" part to be an arcana check. DC was calculated by DM, I think it was mostly 12 + spell level and on fail element is chosen randomly, including those which are not in my book, which led to some strange situations. "Fireball! Hey guys, I necrotified whole room! Wait, necrowhat?"
I was playing with an edge lord player. He met my character and both he and his character was flabbergasted. Both of my characters parents were alive and had lived a relatively happy life. My investment in the storyline, I was one of the idiots that lived in the frontier town. Just enough fighting experience to be level one. My guy was fairly serious which played well with the two goofball players who I knew. The edge lord player figured out the group dynamic and turned into a welcome addition. Looking back my character was like a parent with three kids. Trying to tone down two while dragging along the unenthusiastic third.
I'm playing a LG Tortle Nature Cleric in a run through The Dungeon of the Mad Mage. In that module we've worked alongside a lot of known-for-being-evil creatures and races who happen to be "as good as can be possible for "x" race". I made the call very early on that I would play it based on a given NPC's "nature" and not necessarily their alignment or else I'd be constantly indignant and hostile to everything we encountered and bog the party down, so the cleric's guarded but friendly towards any NPC we have to work with and openly hostile to any NPC or "abomination of nature" that we end up having to fight.
i've had it once but i *really* don't ever want to have another "mother" character. character was so obsessed with being a mom that she insisted on getting pregnant (even tho the character was given a adopted son and a million ways to avoid being pregnant) and then her player complained that she was pregnant and couldn't play her as much as she wanted (because she didn't want to do a time skip and none of us wanted the prego knight trying to fight and take hits in combat). nope. never ever dealing with that again.
I really don't like "lone wolf a$$hole" characters, particularly ones that want nothing to do with a party and want to hi-jack the game. I had a 'friend', I use the term loosely, that always played those characters. Literally every single one of his characters wanted nothing to do with the group or had a task other than 'whatever suits my fancy'. Also in every single game he took off on his own as often as he could. He literally had this one character died 4 times and unfortunately the bleeding heart of the group also had the resurrection spells to keep bringing him back. That one player is the reason why I ban 'lone wolf' characters in my games and absolutely hate that archetype.
I feel like I should add, that if you do create an annoying character, at least make it so they grow as a person to be less annoying as the campaign goes on.
I felt a little called out about the tabaxi one; my latest character is a tabaxi barbarian, and all I've really done is tail whapping when mad, hissing in surprise as his fur puffs up a bit, and purring when he's sleeping close to someone he trusts. That and our sorcerer thought it was a good idea to give him silvervine, which is similar to catnip, so for some of the session we had a very stoned tabaxi barbarian purring away as we went through the town XD
Being forced into the "leadership/main character" archetype... for several campaigns, our DM, a very good friend of mine since college; unknowingly kept putting me into the archetype of leadership via roleplay or would purposely put me in that archetype role because he just wanted to see me have fun with the stressful weeks i tend to have...no matter what character I played. It was enjoyable to watch me step up to the plate to take charge of the party but after a few campaigns, I began to get more stressed out from being put into the role especially with a recent sci-fi adventure where I just wanted to play as a space trucker, just sit back and help the party but instead get pulled into being the captain of the party's spaceship making most of the critical choices for the party, which tend to leave me frazzled after trying to rein in a party that comprised of a wild-eyed mad scientist/alchemist, a space cultist power house and an over caring doctor. eventually "captain" became just a nick name and title that only became relevant when it came to negotiations and other formal interactions with NPCs. anyways-after very bad DM error that led to that game being ended. He began to learn that it was a major DM no-no to make one player's character the "leader of the pack" when the player has been making it clear that he doesn't want to do it anymore and has been making our current game more balanced by giving everyone a chance to take the spotlight during the game.
I once tried to break the "dark = edgelord" Stereotype, and i'm happy that i did. Character name: Aegis (named after Athenas shield). Class: Echo knight Fighter (the echo looked like Charon, his father). He wielded an executioner's sword and a longbow. He was relativly pacifistic and used lethal force only when neccesary. He loved flowers, wild-life, watching fish swim in rivers because he loved life in general, but he was concious about his job: bringing the soul of people or Monsters he kills safely to the after life. He was even out right cheerful at Times, but other Times He was rather sadly nostalgic. Mechanically, when He kills something his echo dissapears at the end of the turn, Charon has to drive the souls to the outer Planes after all. He once had an entire character Ark because someone he killed was send to the nine hells, to which he disagreed and tried to bring him to elysium (what he thought was more accurate). Well, asmodeus wasn't amused.
In my first game, I was a female human bard who was initially just this plucky young "spread joy to the masses" type. Soon after her first battle, she had to re-evaluate what she understood of the world outside of her hometown, and ended up developing into a tsundere, perfectly timed for the pervy player who joined. They had some great tension for most of their time together, until his cleric got petrified and then demolished. This included him offending the paladin severely enough to try to kill him earlier, only for my bard to take offense to how strongly the paladin adhered to his Oath (though the way she went about it was more due to never having seen a paladin before her first adventure). Anyway, after the paladin was unpetrified, my bard took her time to mourn the pervy cleric and then soon moved on to flirting with the paladin. She did it as a joke at first (yes, in-character it was a joke) but she soon realized she was actually into him, and so seeing him reciprocate made her go for it.
There are a couple I could list, but i'm never experienced a lot of them, so i'll go with the two I have: The Thieving Rouge. Basically they'll play a rouge and steal from other players or try to do stuff without anyone else finding out, like taking specific items and hiding it from the rest of the party. The Main Character I encountered this one in Vampire: The Masquerade once, he would always play the same vampire clan every time, it was always the blood mages, and he would always do the same trick every time where he would put his blood in an object using magic to force a blood bind if you touched i, for reference a blood bind in VTM means your character sees the individual you're bound to as a friend, it has three tiers each with increasing potency toward how you feel about that person, and at tier three you're willing to die for them, I have a feeling he always wanted to be the single most power character and blood magic can be a bit broken in VTM depending how you used it.
fun fact: the *only* time I have ever stolen from the party was as a pirate who used it as a way to bring the party together. yes, it was through blackmail, but she basically did it as a "see, if you are alone and not in my crew, you could have your things stolen that easily. join me and I can make sure that doesn't happen to you anymore". it was the only time I intended on doing it and I think it was a pretty interesting way to starting a campaign (also probably the most organic way I've had a character introduce themselves to a group who wasn't already together)
Going to have to say I am guilty of doing something because I was bored. Every ducking room had traps for the dms husband to do. So yeah I ran into an unexplored room and pulled the monsters back. I also usually play low wisdom so gullible was my default. Usually my low wisdom characters frequently exclaim "I can't believe you tricked me....again."
5:55 Yep, I am also against that. In fact, whenever I start a group as the GM, one of the house rules I always explain to the group is "not stealing from the party". I never met a case where it was justified (though imaginary and almost impossible scenarios could be used as arugments, I think) and it ALWAYS caused unnecessary tension between players.
Day 2 of asking A teifling fighter in the group I was playing in made potato bombs. We were fighting some blobs (like gelatinous cubes and such) he asked to put the potato bomb into the blob and detonate it. He rolled a nat 1 and the DM asked if he wanted the dramatic version or not. He asked for the dramatic version and so the DM told us that the teifling stuck his hand into the blob and couldn't pull it out so he watched shock as a contained explosion happened in the blob. So the player got his hand blown off and the blobs were acidic so it just gave him a stump it was very funny.
DM: Explains puzzle, problem or combat encounter Player: Whines out of character how it makes no sense and shouldn't be there until the problem solves itself
What about a _former_ Horny Bard who has since fallen in love, settled down, and is now a loving father... ...to a precocious little _half-dragon_ (just in case the DM's the type to exploit that sort of backstory content "for the sake of drama")?
I dunno if it's an archetype exactly but it's really obnoxious when a player makes a character that's just a one note joke that repeats the joke to every NPC they meet. "I'm a naked hairy dwarf stripper and I never stop twerking." "But... Why?"
Here's one I learned by playing it: Having a character who is emotionally repressed via supernatural means. I had a character who was a Shadar-Kai Ranger/Cleric, but I didn't wanna be super edgy so I just made her emotionally flat and quiet. It has been a struggle to get the other players to like her at all, and roleplaying her is also kinda boring in the moment to moment, even if I love the concept. My solution is finding a way to fix that during our upcoming downtime by going to the Feywild to offset that Shadowfell apathy.
I really hate that Kender are so frequently classified as characters that steal from their party. Anyone doing that with a Kender doesn't actually understand what a Kender is, and anyone that is getting legitimately upset about a properly played Kender doesn't understand how to roleplay. The Kender's kleptomania isn't going to cause them to end up with a party member's axe or holy symbol or anything else that is important to them mechanically. They might end up with an extra dagger here and there, but those daggers came from characters that have them and generally don't use them in combat, so it is generally a non-issue as long as everyone at the table understands that it is exclusively meant for them to roleplay and not to take it seriously since the Kender will ALWAYS give things back to their rightful owner once they realize they have it. Aside from the occasional dagger, Kender usually just end up with things like buttons, silverware, bits of string and the occasional trinket.
This. It's pretty explicitly stated in the Dragonlance sourcebooks that Kender don't steal. To use a line from Pirates of the Carribean, "Borrowed without permission, but with every intention of giving it back." With kender, they just kind of forget they had it.
Or... They just don't care about the motive or how the kender don't understand/have the same definition of stealing that a normal person does. I'm pretty sure housecats don't really have a concept of what torture is, but it's not unreasonable to paint them as a type of animal that will torture their prey for fun seeing how common it is for them to play with them.
I have a Druid that likes to awaken things. He was given the boon of immortality so he no longer ages. And he has a grove of his own. Honestly, excited to visit it and see how the DM has been treating the area.
The horny bard stereotype is probably the most damaging one. I played a bard not too long ago, and events lead to the characters sleeping at a brothel they were doing some investigating for. Both the DM PC and the other member of my party went to bed with the residents of the brothel, and my character didn't. Out of character, I wasn't sure what if any sexuality my character was just yet, only that he probably was more interested in romance than anything physical. In character, I gave the excuse that he had been hurt during an earlier fight and mostly wanted to sleep and tend to the wound. If I had done anything, the bard jokes would have likely started; instead the "joke" is that a bard spent a night in a brothel and didn't do anyone. Thanks to the stereotype, it almost feels like a bard can either choose to be uninterested or be too interested, with little middle ground.
The dark, brooding, edgy, "crawling in my skin" mysterious unknown background trauma type rogue that never helps the party, always hogs the loot, and practically never speaks. And most of those players hide their damn dice rolls.
Had a few furry rogues in my campaign. Not that edgy but still contributed nothing outside of slaughtering combat encounters. One died, the other got sacrificed, and the other (ingame ofc) committed die. They are still furries, but at least not rogues.
I'm enjoying playing a rogue who is traumatized by his past and appears edgy (Haunted Kenku named Jingle) But is trying to better himself through the teaching of his late master. Only issue is I keep getting into situations where I get nearly one shot and get blood all over me (and precede to freak out) or my DM just so happens to have something lined up that gives me more trauma. Loving it so far, Jingle is not
Had one of the "My character isn't really an adventurer" type. Gnome bard who went town to town as a way to collect secrets and valuable gossip. Session 1: 1st dungeon: 1st combat encounter: immediately hides from the fight, and remained hidden from the group for the rest of the dungeon. After the session, I asked why they're hiding from the party and not helping with their spells or bardic inspiration. They said they're character wasn't actually an adventurer becausethats dangerous, was only hanging around the party because it seemed interesting, and as a player didn't want to even be in the dungeon to begin with. I can't understand what goes through these people's minds when they make characters for games of DUNGEONS and DRAGONS
Had a player in a game I was in do very much the same thing. Hid from the party, hid from the encounter, tried to go off on his own. DM asked him, "Doesn't your character want to go on adventures? Get rich and famous?" When the player said "No, he doesn't want any of that." the DM said, "Then why the fuck is he in my campaign." Incidentally, he was also playing a bard who's sole motivation was to get to the city where he was booked to perform.
Sounds like a good DMPC. The dm just keeps having characters who refuse to fight because they're scared, and end up dying. Good way to show how dangerous monsters are
That’s on the DM for not getting the gnome into the fight. If the DM already knew that was going to be something in the party, they needed to either say no to the character being included outright, or had the monsters smell their fear and actively seek them out
The character who wants to eat EVERYTHING. Teeth monster, yup tried eating it. Fiery tentacle monster from hell, yup he got to eat it. Supposably tasted terrible.
I haven't met a character yet I haven't liked. But people who use alignment as an excuse "lawful good" becomes "no one can have fun" and Chaotic evil becomes "stupid chaos" Honestly, lawful is having a personal code, self control and not breaking your code, good is not doing good because you get something out of it Currently I'm playing a Paladin in Pathfinder. I just made a lot of people groan just now, but wait, he is a paladin of Bacchus. He's half smashed most the time and as a flavor ability of his he is not generally affected by being drunk in a fight, but he does ensure the alcohol provided is good. He like a food critic for beer. His word goes a long way to helping smaller brewers to get ahead and he will not give a better rating just because they pay him more. But if a competitor is using thigs to stop him from making the best ale he can, even if they do nothing illegal, the Paladin will go and make sure the competition "plays fair" even if no reward is forth comming. He is lawful, but if his code demands something be done, he will do it regardless of societies laws. A good way to see the most distilled form of lawful neutral, Samara from mass effect. She will follow her code, damn the consequence. She killed an entire town because her target threw them in the way or Tyrian from Dragon slayer. So people please stop playing "lawful" as though you need to follow the law, it diminishes so many direction you can take. For further information on alignment lookup "a crap guide to alignment"
4:00 Edgelord who isn’t just dark and brooding: Chihiro Rokuhira Pacifist who knows what it means to be a pacifist: Vash the Stampede Please play like these characters. They execute their roles perfectly.
Got a character in my list of char's I want to play, based on "Krombopulos Michael" from the Rick and Morty cartoons. He's an Halfling Assassin. and in true halfling style he's always a gentle and warm person to be around. He is also however very open about his profession. No dark past, no dead family members or parents, just a Halfling that grew up in a happy Halfling family, always had friends and everything he needed. He genuinely just loves killing people and made it his job. The Flaw he carries is that he has no code of ethics, and will (like Michael) Kill anyone, anywhere, if he is given the hit. He does not care who or why, he just wants to kill. (of course not taking contracts on the party due to various reasons to not break the game.) In a true neutral fashion, not a chaotic stupid fashion.
To the Tabaxi player at 14:13: Splits Arrows, Hissing Fury, Shakes Trees, Golden Voice, Shade of the Candle and Iron Shaper would like to have words with you. Also, your name among the Combined Clans is now "Brains of Bean Curd".
A bard does not have to try and bang every monster/villain/dragon they come in contact with. I played a dwarven bard whose bardic inspiration was hand them a beer.
I once played in a group of the seemingly useless and annoying characters that were all from the same village and had normal occupations, like carpenter, chef, miller. I played a hardened and humorless ranger. So first of there were "bonecracker" the gentle giant. He was not an actual giant, just very large. And made a lot of noice when moving through the woods, but when it came to woodcarvings he was a master. Then there was the hobbit "Willbo" who was an excellent chef and could find tasty herbs in any terrain. Lastly there was the miller "Gratian" that were, well knowledgeable, about grain. And also actually good at talking to people and getting good prices for stuff. It was an endless walk, making camps that were just too elaborate and it took so much time. Then it came time for cooking whatever i had shot during the day. I was sitting there, on the highly decorated chair that Bonecracker had made for me eating good food and listening to the funny stories Gratian told. Day in and day out. Then came the combat, and i was like "finally". So Gratian just stood there frozen in fear, Willbo hid off the trail, and Boncracker charged the bandits with his long walkingstick. Bonecracker got pretty beat up and was in danger, i was fighting the bandits desperately, taking a lot of hits in my gambeson and finally cleared the space around Bonecracker so he could retreat. That's when i got grappled and another bandit was making his way towards me. Gratian suddenly charged the bandit screaming and tackled the bandit and beat the crap out of him, and Bonecracker and gotten behind the bandit that grappled me and used his strength to simply crush him. Bloodied and half dead we finished them off. We were high up in the mountain and facing a cold night with bleeding wounds we needed a camp badly. That's when it struck me. I was the one off character who's skill was only applicable in certain situations. I listened to the whole "set up camp" roleplay with a warm fussy feeling. I felt like i was one of the team.
12:25 I have told this story a few times but me, my brother and a friend of his were playing a module and when a mini boss NECROMANCER emerged and we had confirmed that he was a necromancer my brother’s friend went full lawful stupid and rushed the necromancer. My character Lia a druid that had the background of having a serious grudge against non druid magic users, should’ve been the one to attack first but I was in character thinking that it wasn’t a good idea.
That last one? Had a guy do that PERFECTLY. Loved his fish. Played up the hissing and cat-like actions. I played a prank with two kinds of catnip. One actual catnip and one drug CALLED catnip. And because it was catnip? Oh he had it eagerly which made him temporarily nuts, sure. But yeah, he played it well using cat-like mannerisms and actions but wasn't just a can that was humanoid.
My character’s backstory had his family die in a house fire. But love bringing it up in random times to “kill the mood” hahaha. We’ll all he warming up next to the fire after a long cold day. And I’ll be like “Ah this fire is warm! Just like when my family died in a house fire…… who wants s’mores?!”
I love PvP when it makes sense. The tabaxi cat thing is great if the group is cool with it. We had our whole party of tabaxi and everyone had a certain feline trait we hammed up. It was great for a one shot but even i know we couldn't hold up those characters for a campaign.
If I'm doing a meme character (and I am known to, on a fairly regular basis), I don't make the meme the core concept of their character. It's usually a visual gag more than anything else. For instance, I have a character on a West Marches who is a humanoid bee (reskinned Avariel Elf), who was created by a powerful warlock after a series of evil bee-themed quests made people paranoid about bees, to kind of be a therapy bee. He's now level 17, and has been grappling with the consequences of "what does it mean to be created for a purpose once that purpose is fulfilled?" and "do I actually have a functional soul?" Him being a bee remains something of a joke, but he's a serious character beneath that. Similarly, I have another character who is the horrible goose(TM) from Untitled Goose Game. He's an Aven, Entropy Cleric (homebrew subclass), and his secret from the Hermit background is that he realized the inevitable heat-death of the universe is coming and no one can stop it. He exclusively honks to communicate (mechanically just talking, but it sounds like 'honk'). And yet, he regularly engages in deep philosophical debates with people who question why he occasionally does the horrible goose(TM) things like using cantrips to drop water on people going about their day. Long comment, but my point is you CAN be a meme character without making everyone at your table hate you, as long as the meme isn't the only thing about you.
I made a bard who gives speeches instead of singing. He talks about accepting others, kindness, and various other life lessons. He also adopted a tabaxi named Daniel. His name is Sir Rogers, and he has his own neighborhood
The “annoying small character who interrupts everyone and disrupts the party’s plans.” It’s so annoying for everyone at the table when there’s one problem player who keeps ruining everything for the party, especially when the DM keeps letting them do it, but won’t let the party do anything aside from the “main plot.” It’s a terrible situation. I was in a game with that kind of player, and I left that group.
Just an aside, but one of the stories shows something I've noticed: if a player "sometimes fudges die rolls," they're almost always dysfunctional players in OTHER ways too. IMO, it's the biggest and reddest of red flags.
1: the true Loner Archetype who doesnt want to work together with anyone! (I like normal loner archetypes though) 2: The Aggressive character who keeps trying to fight their teammates. Unless that is specifically agreed by all parts before the game. 3: chaotic Chaotics. Who are just Lol random. Atleast in serious games. I also DM games of very silly oneshots.
My "horny bard" never hits on the party. His dalliances occur "off-camera". The DM and players are okay. Because there's a time and a place for it. It's not during adventuring time. The DM did do a couple of things, one in adventuring time. I was out sick for a month, when I came back the party was going into a Yuan-Ti temple. I popped up in the temple and the DM said it looks familiar to me. Turned out I had previously had an encounter there. DM used my character to avoid a fight by having the encounter with the priestess of the temple. The other was after that, I had another former lover encounter with an awakened tree. Decided by the DM because my character is a demigod.
I do have a Storm Sorcereress who doesn't know she can do magic. She uses dual daggers for the first encounter or two which usually puts her in a position to freak out, stretch out her hand and shocking grasp something. She then usually talks with the other magic users in the party to get advice on how magic works and she experiments while on the road to pick up on her spells which she mechanically already knows. I know that deliberately nerfing my character in engagements can get annoying so I try and have it only last for the first engagement or two as I want to start zapping things anyway. I just find the concept of a newly minted spellcaster and it also provides a reason for my character to have meaningful interactions with other spellcasters in the party.
I love how that first one was just like “I hate when people optimize and always roll their good stats. But I also hate when people don’t and roll their bad ones. Why can’t everyone just do everything perfectly like me?” Really comes off more like they’re the issue
I have players who LOVE roleplaying how their characters find and learn their powers. But they never sabotage the game from it. It is much more fun to see the confused Sorcerer accidentally send the perfect lightning through the enemy line and maybe RP 'burn' and ally standing on the edge of the spell as Flavour but not as damage mechanics ^_^
originated from when i did non-D&D Roleplays, but i hate characters that have a tragic backstory but their personality never mentions it. Like i get, some people like edge but don't know how to play it, but if you purposely never touch on the backstory and are super "uwu" then it feels a bit.. off
I mean.. different people cope in different ways, so you can have an edgy backstory with a super bubbly character, where it's like "I'm burying all my trauma under the guise of being super duper happy! Wheeee!" But if you do that, at some point the character needs a vulnerable moment, even if they don't fully break, just a small moment where they're with someone they trust, or they think they're alone and they can drop the act, if only for 5 minutes. Like... fine, they don't have to break the facade publicly, but at least have some mention of "when they're alone, their smile falls, their shoulders droop, and they just curl up quietly in a bare room on their bed, eventually sobbing themselves to sleep quietly" or something to give the character some level of depth.
I personally dislike the “im of noble birth” character because 1) DMs who encourage it end up making that character the protagonist 2) it means that my random paladin is not important to the plot and its just this guy’s job to talk to everyone because he just says his family name and wins
Not all of them are like that if they player is nice. Their is a character I want to play who is of noble birth but was basically disowned from the family because he likes to try and bed women and he bedded the wrong woman. This created a huge political issue and he was forced to live on the streets and slowly learns to appreciate the poorer life.
As always, the key to solving this before it comes up (agonising at it may sound) is to talk it out first. Hey, I'd even say that if someone wants to play a noble at all, they should have a very good reason to play that noble, given they had a comfortable life before adventuring - they could have been ousted from the family and took to adventuring, or accumulated huge debts that they've gone to pay off in a get-rich-quick scheme, for instance. Personally, I'm playing in a campaign where my noble's family has a curse (not mechanically, per se - nothing a Remove Curse spell will fix) on their bloodline, and he's gone out in desperation to seek a cure, travelling light so he can stay undercover in an adventuring party. If anything, making his true identity known may do more harm than good in social situations.
Nobles are arguably one of the most difficult backgrounds for a player to do correctly. Most of the time they go full Karen and boss the shit out of everyone and everything. It requires good player etiquette.
Then you've never played as/with a noble character properly Noble characters need to be done right- it shouldn't be relevant 100% of the time (as with any other type of background), and when it is relevant, it's not always a _good_ thing Overall it's mainly the DM's job to properly implement a PCs noble background
I think really annoying is the horder-syndrome. A partymember sells goods for 10 gold? Tells the party it was only 6 and keeps the rest. Looting something? Put everything in the own pocket. Same goes for GMs. I order an ale. It costs 1 gold. Do I have to haggle now? Is everyone a scammer? That's why I often play monks. Because often in terms of money, I have none.
One of my pet peeves are charactors far too young for their chosen class. I mean that child charactor that acts like every 5 year old but somehow knows how to cast spells from the necronomicon. Then has almost no grasp of vocabulary. Don't get me wrong. I love child charactors. Just not one that can cast 5th level spells at level 1.
This is why, in most dnd groups I play with, i become the parental figure. Or as I like to call it. "THE LEASH HOLDER OF STUPID" As in, I am the primary member in the party who catches the "I'm so random" guy and smackes him upside the head before he fireballs the village orphanage. (I wish I was kidding)
The character who has to be in control. I've seen this from many different characters in many different game systems, but it's the character that uses skills, class features, or magic to dictate what the other player characters can & can't do, and the other characters have no choice but to do it
Sometimes they also push other players to reveal things about their characters too, or they involve themselves in virtually every social situation so they can "have a say". Or they force the plot forward when they're good and ready, not when others are
People who play the wildest race, class, background and possibly feat, combo so their character is "different" and "quirky". No, it's playing a strange combo that will probably make no sense in the DM's setting. Sure, your Warforged who made a pact with the sun who used to be a part of the navy for 17 years and has telepathic powers is definitely different, but it isn't going to fit in with the knight's and commoners of the DM's dark ages setting. Plus, it's going to be really hard for your DM to fit your backstory into their setting (If one has been written in the first place that's comprehendible).
We used the "I'm learning how to spell cast" with my roguelock. She kept rolling less than ten on spell attacks for MULTIPLE sessions. Speaking of bards and dropping pants...I have a bard who once volunteered as a distraction the he yanked the guards pants down and ran like hell.
There's a rogue thief in the campaign I'm currently in (made up by my friend) and he has stolen from a character who is technically an npc and is also a party member since we accidentally defeated a boss way too early and our DM decided to give us the npc as a party member as a reward because of how unlikely winning the battle was. Now because my character was the closest with this npc and spends a lot of time with him, I took charge of him. This also means that my character is biased towards that npc and, for example in the case where my character singlehandedly got 100 gold coins in a very deadly situation, will be more likely to give the npc more things. I gave half of the 100 to the npc because he didn't actually have any weapons or armour and I wanted to get him something next time we were in town. Unfortunately, this is when the thief rolled a 21 and stole all the npc's gold (which I'm pretty sure was all his money) and because it was such a high roll no one could do anything about it. This thief also tries to persuade and charm every single bartender we meet to get free drinks and steals from pretty much every merchant or shopkeeper we encounter and my god is it infuriating. I just wish it was toned down a little and that I'd get at least some of the gold back. I guess, because the npc is a bit of a joke character and isn't taken seriously by the others, that this kind of thing slides. Tldr: annoying thief character steals from the weakest character who used to be an npc so I can't buy him gear (he currently has none) and won't stop stealing and persuading every seller we meet.
lol i always play chaotic good. but its if i see a person hit a child ill deck the person. if i know someone's using this guy as an example Hitler i would end him with extreme prejudice
So in my game I'm currently playing a wild magic sorcerer who is on a quest to get rid of his "curse", ie his newly awakened powers. He decides to leave his wife and kids after he almost burnt down their house when his powers first manifested. He doesn't have good control over his magic, but he has enough to cast his cantrips (which he figured out on the way to Lusken), and then he can shakily use his level 1 spells. During our first dungeon dive, my sorcerer got knocked out (8hp with 11ac at level 1, what can you do). After failing a death save, because we were in a magical cavern, my DM had me roll a wild magic surge. It landed on 83, causing necrotic spikes to shoot out and cause 6 damage to everyone in 30ft, but healing him. This ended up killing an NPC with us, and another player send I had a great rp moment, him yelling ready to kill me, me having a panic attack, trying to understand how it even happened, apologizing, etc. Not to pat myself on the back, but I think this is the right way to play a character that can't effectively use their magic yet.
2:38 I ... kinda agree with this tbh - a Lawful good creature would not want to break down a door to save someone - they would want to get permission. A chaotic good creature says screw your permission - I'm saving that person. (I may have misunderstood what this was getting at though)
I'd still say that if it was an emergency, LG will break down the door. Getting permission is ideal if you have time. If not, you prioritise what will do the most good and least harm and in the case of whether it is better to damage a door or allow a person to die, it's a no-brainer. Human life matters more than a door does, both morally AND in the eyes of the law. Also, if you feel bad about having to do something illegal for a good cause, you can apologise and pay for the damage later.
3:27 I actually want to try a pacifist once for a one-shot. Their support in combat are debuff spells, support spells, terrain control, etc. So long as they don’t deal direct damage to an enemy, they’re fine. They are also the face of the party, with high Charisma, Deception, and Persuasion. Not as extreme, but I have a Shepherd Druid planned with a 1 level dip into Life Cleric. Combine the Cleric feature with the Unicorn Spirit, and that’s a lot of healing. Roleplay, he is a naive child. Eladrin so he can have 25+ years of experience, hence the summoning. He loves nature and animals, and often gets lost when he wanders. Combat… Most of his spells are Sanctuary friendly: they don’t affect an enemy directly, nor does he roll attack or damage against enemies. Luckily, his Conjured Animals are not him, and don’t break Sanctuary.
for people who summon a lot of creatures the way i handle it is simple. they control the summoned creatures turns. they summon to many then they are dealing with the slog of using them.
Elf Wizard - One of my players has been playing the same elf wizard for years so I instituted a rule where you have to change race and class for every new character
I tried something similar in my games, because one player always tried to play a Stealthy Archer. Got that player to play an Orc Barbarian. But, it backfired. Within 2 sessions, he was trying to play the Orc Barbarian as a Stealthy Archer. Combat would break out, and the Orc Barbarian would hide behind cover and shoot enemies with his short bow or would hide behind the Dwarf Artificer Alchemist and demanded that the Alchemist protect him
@@DistendedPerinium not effectively. Lol. It's what the player had his character do. It didn't make any sense to the rest of the players at the table either.
People who think that because they are a Rogue, they can steal everything that isn't bolted down. Your class doesn't define your character and being a Rogue doesn't make you a Clepto.
One of these days, I'm going to play a minotaur bard. A literal horny bard. And be completely celibate.
One who is so innocent, he does not understand innuendos and does not realize he is speaking in them.
I don't know if that's silly, or brilliant.
Name him Ferdinand and see if anyone gets it.
@@angrytheclown801 The Disney bull?
That
Is fucking
Brilliant.
Color him red and you got yourself a deal.
"Why does my character even care about this?" Gee Kevin, why didn't _you_ think about that question when you created that character?
PRETTTY MUCH!
I get not having serious campaigns, but if you go into a group and you just willy nilly shit, that ain't fun for no one.
Good question.
I had this problem in a game were the party was supposed to catch basically Zorro. Why would I turn in Zorro? We where not told to make characters that have no qualms about turning in Zorro for the reward money.
Well sometimes it also depends on the situation. As campaigns progress sometimes the goals your character had shift in response to events. My Fighter was part of a modified Descent into Avernus campaign and we had to save the city from certain death, but after my DM made us watch an instance of mob justice that my character failed to interrupt due to it unnerving her on moral grounds, she lost motivation to save those people as she saw them undeserving of salvation. A DM has to be responsive to their players' needs too, and he blew me off when I confronted him about the mob justice incident. So it can just as easily be a failure on the other end too
I first tought of that at 28 years.
So dumb 😢
Or each one of us is blind to some obvious things.
Playing a negative INT bonus character as an excuse to sabotage the group. The character might have more difficulty strategizing and problem-solving, but for example killing the escort mission NPC isn't a "9 INT moment," it just disruptive to the plot and the other players at the table, and has little to do with INT at all.
Funny coincidence: D&D average is 10, provable max is 20, and actual max (for PCs) is 24. Meanwhile, IQ has an average of 100, a provable max of 200, and an actual max of about 243.
(IQ is calculated based on bell curve. The center of the curve is 100, and there are enough people alive for there to be an IQ over 240.)
No...but if the escort NPC is a snobby noble who shit talks the 9ft 8int barbarian, and he has to be held back to prevent him from punching said noble in the face...
>disruptive to the plot
I'm sorry but I thought players were the ones pushing the plot? Granted, I see your point about being a straight up liability because "lul me want to be big dumb for becauae big funi" and I agree with it, but "disruptive to the plot" implies that things have been prewritten to happen regardless of player input.
@@thespianmask Definitely, plot isn't the correct term, players are the driving force; I've having trouble finding the correct word (I am a 9 INT man). As another example, if the players are on a quest to deliver an important letter, and 9 INT PC decides to eat the letter because it looks tasty... something is being disrupted. I can't quite articulate what, like an overall sense of direction or cooperation.
I will always have issues with that. Yes, lower INT means you aren't as smart, that doesn't mean you're a complete idiot. You can know when you're out of your league and leave it to the book smart characters. Used to have another player in our group who did similar, but with Charisma, even against common sense. Kept trying to play up a charming angle when everyone just thought it overstated it's welcome and was just annoying. Still a bit aggravated over an incident they caused in Starfinder.
But back to the low INT thing, yeah, that's troublesome. The one that drives me up the wall the most is low INT barbarians, because it's almost always an excuse to go "me tough, me dumb." Barbarians can be much more than that. Especially if they're basing them off of Conan, who actually was rather intelligent.
I have played an “I refuse to fight” pacifist, but I wasn’t useless. I was the combat medic. I did almost no damage that entire campaign. Didn’t kill a single enemy. I just played him like Desmond Doss.
Absolutely amazing movie lol. I have a similar style with my character being a Mercy Monk that shoots webs like Spider-Man. I push and pull teammates with webs and heal them whenever they are in a bad spot
Yeah, an actual pacifist doesn't fight at all, else they're not really a pacifist. I suppose there can be levels but just refusing to inflict harm on anything doesn't imply that you can't be doing all kinds of other cool stuff, like healing, protecting, buffing, etc...
Oh god yes, the chaotic "good" character that steals from their party, hordes all the loot, kills people who are retreating or unarmed... But claims they're a good person... Like no! Learn what morals are!
A CG character is morally good, but either lacks ethics in the way that they don't care about convention; just doing good. The right way to play such a character would be sparing in the thievery department, and when done, it's for a good cause. The theft has to be strategic and not for personal gain. It's unethical to steal, but can still be done for morally altruistic purposes.
Granted, such a character isn't for everyone, or every group. However, when done right, adds personality and constructive drama to the table.
@@DistendedPerinium Precisely. One of the archetypical Chaotic Good characters is Robin Hood. Yes, he robs the rich. But he does so to help the poor and disadvantaged, values the friendship with his band highly, and protects life when he can.
@@Valandar2 Personally, my three favorite alignments to play are CG, CN and LE. Generally, DMs are hesitant to let me play an evil character, but when I explain my philosophy on character alignments as a whole, they're usually willing to give me a shot.
@@DistendedPerinium Absolutely! I just can't stand people who do really shitty things to people, including gaslighting and bullying, but then claim their character is "good" because they did this one thing, once, and it was for money.
@@Ailieorz That's an evil character and from generalization, probably NE.
As a Barbarian I engaged the beast in conversation, because beforehand we learned it had been awakened and knew speech, felt it would be polite before we got to fighting.
Next thing I know my Barbarian managed to resolve the conflict and encounter with words rather than violence, because I got sucked into the RP and ended being convincing with a persuasion roll.
We are doing Storm king's Thunder and recently got to Bryn Shander. During the time where the frost giants surrounded the city, my 14 INT eldritch knight fighter managed to persuade the leader that instead of attacking the town, to give is twenty four hours to find the person/object they were looking for. Me and the group immediately bust into investigation mode and at one point my lawful good fighter even went into the temple of the triad and sat with the priests inside to pray to Torm, Tyr, and Ilmater (my fighter worships Bahamut who is an ally to them). With a decent religion roll I learned one word of information from Bahamut about the NPC and it was the name of a location, which was not in Bryn Shander. Piecing it together with the rest of the information my colleagues (a cleric and a barbarian) gathered, i presented myself alone before the giants and knelt in their leader's presence.
It should be noted frost giants are neutral evil, but these ones specifically were here looking for something/someone specific who was NOT here, and I will always try reason until it no longer works. On a VERY good persuasion roll against the giant leader they leaned in close and told me to stand. I did, and we were face to face. I won the persuasion and the leader let out a bellowing ROAR of anger in my face but did not strike me. They told me instead that as they peered into my eyes they saw absolutely no hint of deception or untruth within. Though they would ache for battle any given day, we were lucky this time they were here for a purpose, and to spend resources and troops only to find their quarry was not here would have been a waste. The leader retracted their troops, but before they left they told me two things: They would leave Bryn Shander alone and that if we meet again, it will not be for anything that can be settled with words.
Myself and the others were sweating BULLETS but we got through the situation without any losses of life in Bryn Shander or among the party. I do wish to make it known my fighter is Lawful good, with a Neutral Good cleric and a Chaotic Neutral barbarian. The barbarian admitted he would rather have fought, but he also wasn't willing to die this day it it could be avoided. He put his trust in us, and we put ours in him.
Our group dynamic is strong now.
@@THEGRUMPTRUCK That sounds amazing. What cheers me the most is that your party members trusted eachother and didn’t compromise anything, especially with the barbarian who believed you could persuade your way out of fighting. Hope your campaign continues to be as great as it sounds.
That sounds super awesome. I love the idea that a barbarian would try to be civil and talk things out with a wild animal rather than just killing it outright, almost like they respect another creature of the wilds.
Pacifist Barbarian sound like an interesting character. Like, “I don’t want to hurt you, but I abso-fuckin-lutely will if you make me.”
@@RiskierGoose340 the Barbarian is cool as hell. He's a big tortle who isn't very bright and loves to smash things, but he's absolutely a gem when it comes to placing his trust in the party. Likewise when we need someone who can wade into battle with an almost maniacal fanaticism for combat, we let him go in first and start swinging. At 6th level I took a 1 dip into Forge domain cleric and then I'm back to EK for the rest of my build, this way I can prebuff us with bless to free the cleric up for other stuff, and since bless gives me bonus on concentration as well, and I still have shield if all else fails.
That way while working as a team, the cleric can focus on what she needs to do while the rest of us keep our adversaries on the ropes.
As a tabaxi player, even I'M annoyed at the "too much cat". My tabaxi sun soul monk liked curling up bed and drape her tail over her nose. My tabaxi tempest cleric plays up the curiousity aspect and hisses when startled. Yes, they have cat behaviors. But the monk was more of a stoic warrior who had to learn to let her proverbial hair down. And the cleric is a "sweet southern belle pirate" who honestly loves the pursuit of treasure and having good friends to pursue it with.
That being said, my least-favorite trope is that "I have no personality except that I am fey and love to torture folks." Yes, fey have an "alien" mindset compared to non-fey but still.
Yeah, I'm dealing with a player who is running an elf raised by pixies in the Feywild. They are a divine soul sorcerer but their spell selection means they are 100% useless in combat, and spends their out of combat time pranking people. IN A CAMPAIGN WHERE FEY PRANKSTERS ARE THE PROBLEM.
I've never played DND before but I recently came across some DND animals on pinterest which sparked my interest and now I've been watching and reading a lot of DND and related RPG style worlds. All that to say I don't actually have any experience. But I think there would be a lot of cool ways to give someone cat characteristics while letting them be a person (I'm a stereotypically crazy cat lady who treats her cats like they are little people).
So based on my own cat's behaviors.
Tensing when new people come around, but being fine with loud noises
Tensing with loud noises, but being chill with new people
Very bossy and willing to stare everyone down (and occasionally let out a hiss or bitch slap) to be acknowledged as the ruler of the roost
Not being afraid of bigger animals in the family that show aggression (i.e. our dogs), because they're the boss dammit.
Coincedentally always in the same room as someone, and when you move on to another spot they will show up a couple of minutes later
Very willing to work with others (based on how cats really only meow at humans because we're kinda deaf to how they communicate with other cats)
Purring to self soothe, comfort others, show happiness, and help themselves or others heal (purrs have actual healing qualities)
Follow the sun
Very dramatic
Loves physical contact and would always be bumping shoulders and walking in step with another person, when sleeping would probably prefer to sleep in a pile or curled up right next to someone, and if they're closer to actual cat sized about half would like to be picked up (like a toddler).
They might do the gentle headbutts (sign of affection and possibly trying to scent mark) or quick body contact (maybe a hug or just brushing up against you).
Love/hate relationship with water
Sudden "zoomies" where they act a bit loopy and race around with sudden stops and heads whipping around to stare at random stuff.
The different vocalizations - meows, purrs, chirps, huffs, growls, hisses, spitting, yeowling, the weird clicky thing they do when they spot birds outside the window
Amazing balance - like you could toss them and they will land on their feet fine
Related to physical contact, but they like kneading on someone when they are very happy and chilled
One of my cats would drool on my when she was very relaxed on my lap and apparently that's not uncommon for cats (but only one of mine that did that)
They have several warning signs when they are irritated or feel threatened - stiff body/raised fur, huffing/hissing/yeowling/growling, very direct stare, showing off teeth, slapping face or body, scratching whichever body part is in vicinity, whipping tail, if everything else fails they bite (depending on scenario it could be a warning bite that doesn't break skin or a bad bite that goes in deep)
Very particular about how/where they like to be touched or held
Some are very ridicoulsly chatty and others are pretty quiet
A lot of cats appreciate "parallel play" for lack of a better word. They just want to chill near you, and that counts as bonding time for them.
Shows off but a lot (consequence of how they hold their tail) but it gives the impression that they are showing your their butt
Sleep a lot
Love rainbow reflections or other bright lights
Very clean, can border on obsessive (although they are some who just aren't usually related to low intelligence from my own experience) - love to groom/be clean, like their spaces to be clean and healthy (if litterbox isn't maintained they can have fits and they don't like their food / water / litterbox to be close to one another).
Cats like to give their loved ones gifts
They like to climb and jump, and are pretty good at it
Pretty curious and like to investiage
Like to nibble or give love bites - maybe have a chewing fidget or to show signs of trust/affection towards others but that my be too inhuman
Also likes to groom others - another sign of trust and affection, and in a humanoid cat it doesn't have to be the licking - maybe they lick brushing other people's hair as a sign of affection, or helping braid peoples hair so it's out of their face
Squinting their eyes or slowly blinking in your direction is a sign they are purposefully giving you to show their love and trust (lowering their vision = they trust you not to hurt them or take advantage of them)
They also seem to really like to knock stuff over (sign of boredom maybe? or another sign of their inquistive natures?)
The ability to squeeze themselves in or though a smaller space that doesn't seem like it would fit them
Also the if it fits I sits - they just like to curl up in small spaces
Directly staring into someone's eyes is generally a sign of aggression, while glacing away or not directly at someone is a sign or extension of trust
They absolutely love to mirror their loved ones, they are actually really good at keeping track of time and routines (some will get mad if your deviate, especially if it involves food). But it's why cats lie on the keybord as your using it or on top of your book as your reading. They just want to be involved in the activity with you.
So cat ladies play d and d?
I love being fey creatures in D&D. They're chaotic, and don't care about your human morals. Making them torture people is cringe though. Fey do things for fun, and torture ain't fun
@@genericname2747 You should check out blue and orange morality on TV Tropes if you haven't already.
Saw the title, and thought, "Why would he spend 15 minutes talking about horny bards?". 🤣😂🤣
Because we need to slap these fuckers lol!
Lmfao
dude same lmao
I had a generally argumentative player who was refusing to leave his weapons outside of a meeting with a king in his own castle. He made a slight of hand check, so ok sure bring them. When he inevitably tries taking them out to do some dumb shit i had him get hit with like 9 range attacks, then save against a hold person. This may have been overly petty but i was tired of the powerstruggle he seemed determined to make the campaign, but i left him in the gallows for most of the rest of the session. When the group was done in that area i told them "guess you need to decide what to do about your party member." So they went to see him in jail and he had to beg the table to let him be released to their custody and that he would clean up his act. Literally had to show him that the party was having more fun without him there
It's entirely possible to play a pacifist, while still contributing to the group. I played a Bard once who, through the entire game, never delivered any damage to anyone or anything else. He would buff the party, Cure Wounds, and eventually used Polymorph to end conflicts without killing. He was very well liked by the rest of the party, mostly because each of us would follow the others into Hell itself for each other.
There's also a solution to Kender that makes them not only playable, but very fun. Simply, you don't actually roll out the 'kleptomania'. It's just tossed in as a statement. For example: Wizard: "I use my Wand of Fireballs..." Kender: "I hand him his Wand of Fireballs" Wizard: "... Thank you. I blast them with my Wand of Fireballs." In other words, he doesn't actually take anything from the others, just pipes up with a comment like that when they pull out equipment. And not every time - just once in a while.
That Kender solution is excellent. Probably not something that the people playing Kender so they can steal from everyone would use, but definitely shows it's not the Race just the people abusing it's traits.
this is clever
LOL That's great. Gives a chuckle, doesnt mechanically affect things, altogether a great solution.
Twi domain clerics are also great at pascifistic chars that can buff the party and end encounters with Sleep.
The actual solution to the Kender problem is to kill the Kender.
Or the player.
Both resolve the issue entirely.
So the way I look at Chaotic and Lawful is this:
Chaotic: I have no defined set of rules that I adhere to so I will do what I believe to be the most sensible toward my goals
Lawful: I have defined rules by which I follow toward my goal, I may break or go against my own rules if the situation calls for it but I won't readily do so and will be hesitant.
A lawful good character has a defined set of rules they follow, they will stick to their rules as much as possible, but ultimately they will do what they believe to be the most good as the situation calls for even if said good would require them to break their rules, as they will prioritize good over law.
A chaotic good character has no defined set of rules but will prioritize good actions,.
As an example, the lawful good character wants to arrest the bandit leader, because by bringing him in he demonstrates that he can show mercy plus he can allow the court to handle the bandit as they see fit but if it would prove too dangerous or costly to bring the bandit in he'll still kill them,
the chaotic character will want to just kill the bandit leader, as it would be faster, cost the least amount of resources, will ensure the bandit can't hurt anymore people, and they won't have to worry about the bandit escaping if their dead.
I also define Evil and Good as:
Good: I prioritize the well being of others above myself
Evil: I prioritize myself above others
This is one I’ve encountered multiple times and I HATE it! It’s my least favorite variation of the MC archetype.
The “I get to go around being rude and insulting to the party, NPC’s, basically the whole universe because I don’t understand how social interactions work” character. Note, I’ve met a few people where this is a real-life issue for them and that is NOT what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about people who I know well and good have at least average levels of social skills but *still* want to play a character that lets them be a jacka$$ and get their party and themselves into trouble because the rest of the party has to rescue them repeatedly.
Seriously, this game is about everyone at the table having fun. Why on earth do you think it will be fun for everyone else to have to pay the consequences for your character being a social idiot? “But it will make a great story for everyone to teach my character how to be a better person!” No, it will enable YOU to have a lot of fun, I will just contemplate leaving the game so I can find something I actually enjoy doing.
Side note, I have played with a Kinder before who was fun to play with. The party never knows what they're actually going to find in their stuff due to all the things the Kinder 'acquires' and secretly gives to their friends. This is not played to get the others pics in trouble by framing the other party members for the things the Kinder stole, it's played for laughs of "Why do I now have 5 gold rings and a wand of Ape Walk in my bag?", the Kobold asks.
Putpocketing
THIS! SO MUCH THIS! I’ve seen this a lot specifically on D&D livestreams and I hate it
Someone who’s played alongside those characters before
There are ways to do it if the player knows what they’re doing and the party allows it. I also think it’s fine for a character to be a jackass so long as they have at least some level of respect to know when to shut it and don’t do it on a regular. That being said, I am so tired of the asshole character not even for the fact that they get the party in trouble, but specifically because they get away with being an asshole or the rest of the party suffers more than they do.
People who don’t know the difference between someone accidentally telling someone they put on weight and going around calling someone a fat fucker-
7:50 if you want to play a "i dont understand my magic" character, play a wild magic sorc.. Thats what its there for. If you dont think the wild magic surges happen enough talk with the dm about increasing the chances (like increasing the number you need to roll by one or two every time you dont get a surge or making you have to roll higher than the spell's level to not get a surge).
As for the archtype i dislike... I hate the character (or player) who thinks violence is the only solution
It's funny that they mentioned Bard and Sorcerer specifically, because I recently added a level of Sorcerer (divine soul) to my Bard. There's been an element of "I don't understand my magic" about the multiclass for him, so I feel a little called out.
Granted, he's very knowledgeable about bard magic because he went through school to study it. Story wise he doesn't know much about sorcery or how he's related to gods/celestials. I roleplayed some self discovery at first, like the first cantrip I had him discover was sacred flame when he was just casually saying something about fire and gesturing, making a blue-white flame appear in his hand briefly. One of our major NPCs is also a divine soul sorcerer, so I also had a heart to heart about it briefly where my bard asked him for advice. One time in combat I threw in "he tries to cast vicious mockery, but a mind sliver happened instead", but otherwise I have been able to reconcile his lack of full understanding with instinct. I don't believe I've bothered anyone by throwing in flavor of that nature while still making tactically sound decisions with my new spells.
@@notjfk2050 the bard in my tuesday game doesnt "know" how their magic work but constantly is able to cast a spell that helps the situation..... or makes it easier for us to kill the enemy at the very least
.......they casted plant growth in the middle of an overgrown temple while we fought 3 chimeras.....
That is what they did in Dimension 20. Pete had to roll a nat 20 where the chance happened more and more likely, and then would reset back to one once he did get a surge.
@@smithzammy I really like that, sounds like a lot of fun! I love when people flavor magic up to make it feel more personal to the character.
@@notjfk2050 I like that, your character is adapting to the new powers without being dumb. It's different from the characters that make you ask why are they even on game
The everyone in my backstory is dead trope. As a player I find it boring and leaves my dm nothing to work with. I like my backstory to be a bit opened ended for him to work with.
As a DM, read the above
Edit:
To elaborate based on the comments I guess what I dislike are backstories that don't give the dm/other players (the latter less so) to work with
Benefits of that trope:
- You don't hog the spotlight or have much expectation of getting the spotlight, so other players can have the spotlight instead.
- You don't have to entrust characters that you came up with and may have become attached to, to the DM, who might mess up their personality.
- It's very adaptable and can fit into almost any campaign without problems.
- You don't distract from the main storyline by demanding a character-specific quest.
- The DM cannot use attachments from before the game starts against you or your character.
- It can help explain why a character is adventuring: There's nothing tying them down!
I mean, I get your complaint if _every_ character is like that, but if it's one or two then I don't see the problem.
I require players to write 4 NPCs with 3-4 sentences describing who they are and how they relate to the PC. If they can't be bothered to do that, I don't want them on my table.
I made that mistake with my first character. I'm in a better place mentally 4 years later and wish I hadn't.
I dunno, man. Given the number of shitty DMs whose first and usually only reaction to seeing even a hint of having any family, friends, or just anyone they care about is "Oh, cool, people to randomly murder for drama!", I'm not sure I blame those players unless they're blatantly just doing it to be lazy.
@@iamjetflight the least a PC without any worldly attachment to anything should do is to engage with the adventure. If they have no stakes in what's happening, and actively don't even care for what's going on, that PC has no business being in the party.
I'd tell that player to make a character that has a reason to join the other party members in what they're engaged in. They can always walk away from my table because that would save both of us a huge headache.
No to mention that as a tabaxi, it’s a funny thing to do randomly and not every long rest. Pick and choose wisely when it happens and talk to your dm. Zoomies. We did this in one game where my DM an I coordinated together. One night in game, the party was down for a long rest and it was 2nd watch. The cleric was doing his thing and suddenly, nyoom, my assassin rogue/fighter gunslinger tabaxi burst out of his ten, up a tree, down the tree, into the bushes, and then finally crashed out half in and out of his tent.
We just renamed their "sprint" feature "The Zoomies" :D
Adorable and genius I love it.
I wanna make a Tabaxi now just for the Zoomies
Id argue that you need to make a con or wisdom save every session you dont do anything that requires any type of higher exercise besides walking pretty much. So no fighting, no training, no running, no working a job, no jumping etc. Then youd have too much built up energy and need to make the safe or else zoomies. XD
I'm very confused at the Horny Bard trope. It seems like a paper-thin attempt at a roleplay.. I'm currently playing a bard in a campaign and he's a writer, former journalist, and amateur detective.
That seems more fun to play than an STD-Factory
STD-Factory? This is more of an antipaladin than bard.
Sometimes you just want to be the entire next party's biological father
Yea. My bards are generally Actors and storytellers
And my current campaign has a 'Researcher' bard
That's a very interesting concept for a bard.
The only legitimate horny bard was dumb-ath-dude in the movie ``The Gamers - Dorkness Rising´´ (was once here on YT, too, that movie) 🤣
I myself have a bard who did accidentally hit the party with thunderwave once, but it's not because he "didn't understand the magic yet" it was because he's better in combat when he hangs in the back to inspire/heal/buff the party, and can sometimes panic if he gets in the middle of things. The irl reason was because of a miscommunication with the DM about the players positions, so I the player didn't actually think I would be hitting anyone.
That’s actually pretty cool that you whipped up an in-game reason for why the bard messed up with thunderwave, even though it was an irl honest mistake. Reinforces your general playstyle while giving some personality, and it only happens once, so no one is annoyed by it.
@@RiskierGoose340 we where playing online and the dma internet was REALLY choppy, I did try to explain, but nobody listened. Besides, It won't happen again because now I'll make sure to communicate better with the DM, and as for the character, well he can get better over time.
I have a BardBarian with an uncontrollable rage gimmick where I "roll for rage" and if it's a 1 or 0 on a d10 the DM controls me. He gets 2 actions and some other stuff, but most importantly he can cast while raging. All the buffs, however, are not for normal rage and only go to the DM. I play DOOM music when I rage (dm lets me pick music bcus am bard) and specifically play The Only Thing They Fear is You on an uncontrollable. Needless to say, this has led to me slaughtering the enemies with a thunderwave (and also hitting 2 tm8s)
@@atroposV interesting
Those "total pacifist" characters get me too. I play a pacifist more in the manner of Sun Tzu. "It is better to be a warrior in a garden than to be a gardener in a war." Sure, I may try to reason sometimes, and prevent what I feel is unnecessary conflict. But the moment it has been made clear the opposing force does not or cannot reason any further, it's weapons out and time to smash.
It's honestly beautiful how you pulled the quote that simultaneously describes both what _you_ are doing and what _they_ are doing
Me: It wasn't that funny
Brian: Are you sure he's not playing a cavalier?
Me: *wheeze*
The “arch” in archetype is pronounced wi to a hard c. Like ark. It’s not arch-type. It’s ar-keh-type
I've heard it both ways
@@TrueFlameslinger the correct pronunciation is ar-keh-type. Usually people who say arch are people who learned it by reading and never were corrected
Cope
Archaeopteryx
@@TrueFlameslinger Yeah, the right way and the wrong way 😂
05:30 That's why most of my one-shots consist of the following plot: Your characters ended up in a bad spot, none of you want to be here, and your objective is to escape before the end of the session.
My favorite setup is "you all fell for brochures offering a free vacation, only to realize the destination was a pirate cove that scuttled your boat and stole everything aboard. Your job now is to figure out how to get off the island"
The "Pacifist monk" reminds me of a Jedi I played. She loved the adrenaline rush of fighting, but thought it was unbecoming to cut "mundane" enemies with a lightsaber. So she was a martial arts expert and spent her time knocking people down with her bare hands or a stun baton.
When Sith got involved, though, the claws were out. Quite literally, she was a Cathar so she had claws. And a lightsaber, that she kept in a concealed holster. Just in case.
Best monk I ever saw played like that was a "Diplomacy to Grapple" archetype. He would try to de-escalate what encounters he could, but recognized that some people willfully refused to be reasoned with. Then he put the clamps down, but even then didn't kill unless he had to. The player modelled his beliefs after a psuedo-Buddhist philosophy, which has a sort of sliding scale of permissibility of action based on the situation and that the taking of life was one of the least permissible actions one could take.
This was a LE monk by the way.
I wonder if you could multi-class wizard/monk. Hand-to-hand martial artist spellcaster is something I like, but almost never see.
@@GrndAdmiralThrawn They tried to do this with 4 elements Monk. Emphasis on tried.
Whenever someone picks it up in our groups, we always homebrew in more ki points or just flat out make some moves free. Y'know, to make it actually playable.
One trope I often find troubling at times is the “character that rarely every speaks unless spoken to and even then it’s usually one word or very terse responses.” Not to say it doesn’t work at times if you as a player are still actively participating in the game, and are actually doing things, but it sometimes seems players who use this trope are simply uninterested in the game or are too shy to be playing in the first place. If you really don’t like role playing, why join a role playing game in the first place?
Plus it really only works if the character's based off of or parodying Link or a generic JRPG hero. That or the character literally cannot speak due to some event either in game or in their backstory.
Played with a few people like that, though that may have been just who they are as a person. but needlessly to say it actually became frustratingly after a couple of months. to always have to ask them about stuff, but never the otherway around or they doing it on their own.
After a while i just decided i tried often enough and just let them be for a while and focus on the people who are more of a two-way street to talk to and the general story. surely enough entire sessions went by without either us or our characters interacting with eachother.
i eventually left the campaign over this + some other reasons.
@@SS-df5zo I have a similar character/player in my campaign, Now I know that they arent the talkative person to begin with. But unless spoken to, he wont say a thing, and while I dont mind it in game.. When I as the DM asks something in private chat and its been 3 months without an answer yet.. I get the feeling they dont want to answer xD Also.. I asked the most talkative person of the group the same questions and he didnt respond either so its not just quiet people who are quiet when they are in the spotlight :P
I'm playing a character like that right now, or at least she was that way. It was all part of the character's personality and history, and it worked perfectly. I did, however, progress the character passed that mostly, because character development is awesome.
I'm joining a brand new campaign with a Str 18, Int 7 Lizardfolk Barbarian. Imagine a Kroxigor from Warhammer Fantasy. I doubt he has much going on upstairs of interest to talk about, so he's probably just gonna stand there looking mean unless he's eating/wants to eat.
By no means am I strictly going to only speak when spoken to, but the affairs of "civilized" folk don't stimulate his dial-up speed intellect enough to warrant his input.
Reluctant heroes. The DM, and every party member shouldn't have to fight tooth and nail to convince you to help in a quest or even join the party. Join or don't, we're not waiting for you. They usually come along in a huff when we walk off without them or end up deciding to join on their own power rather then being left behind.
Counterpoint idea: Character is initially reluctant, but then is promised something specific (easy example is a lot of money). Then he asks "what are we standing around here for?" then is immediately the first one out the door.
A character idea I have on the shelf right now is a half-elf draconic sorcerer, whose father was an elven bard, and needless to say she is on a mission to track down all of her half-siblings.
I’ve got a friend in on of my games who is playing the “I don’t understand magic” type, only they still used magic, like every other second to HELP, their character just didn’t know they were doing anything. Constant guidance out of combat as they tried to help everyone out, got into a fight, the pull out there blade and ‘trip’ casting green flame blade but not seeing it, so assumed their sword just went through the camp fire they were next to. And most of all, silvery barbs on enemies (and the party whenever we try to learn stuff about them, like it’s a natural reaction to magically shut out). Their character is really annoying but in a fun way as they refuse to believe they have magic, and even suggested an invisible wizard was following them about everywhere.
I have a rather personal hatred for the Horny Bard.
Some of my earlier games when I was learning the game had half the party that were honestly a bit too into that Archetype.
So when I picked up playing bard, they assumed i would also be playing a horny bard and would attempt to maneuver my character into horny situations, and it usually just left me uncomfortable, and my bard backing away slowly.
And that really put me off of playing bard for a long time.
That genuinely feels like sexual assault in-game. Yeah no. I hope you play with better people now.
I play on discord now.
I've played two bards since then that got me back into the class.
Of the two, my favorite was a Tiefling bard with social anxiety that was easily startled.
When they were actually started they reflexively covered themselves in ice.
It was fun.
You think the horny Bard is bad? Try the socialite bard that purposely turns entire civilizations against their allies for a little gold.
@@chaonis24601 I'm sorry but you do understand this is fiction right? As long as the player isn't pulling that shit on other players there isn't any actual assault.
The only reason im going horny bard because my dm is allowing me to have a homebrew magical item called the bag of puppies. So i made the horny bard but gave him trust issues and severe depression that he has to be drunk to actively find a one night stand
I once played one of the "I don't know how my powers work" characters, it was an elf who in her backstory was a beholder who found a scroll of wish and used it to try to learn more about the nearby humanoid city who they were convinced was plotting against them but didn't know they were there. She got transformed into an elf (aberrant mind sorcerer) and lost all of their memories. I think it comes down to how you play them because the way I played that character was that she would accidentally cast a spell in the high stress situation of being in combat (most of the time it was combat) since she kind of instinctively knew what her powers were, just didn't know consciously. After she'd cast a spell once in any situation she then knew that she had that in her arsenal and could cast it normally.
In other words, I think it comes down to how an archetype is played a lot of the time. I think done poorly with the wrong group pretty much any character is going to be more of a burden on some party than a help.
My Starfinder character was once killed off because the GM determined that there was no way for my character to know his party was lagging behind because we were in vacuum, and that there was no reason for him to check as nothing was coming over comms. Then I was punished for splitting the party and the same GM later stated that I'd tried to pull a "it's what my character would do" when it was more akin to a chess player going "Rook G8 is forced"
"It's what my character would do" and "It's the only thing my character *can* do" are 2 different things
I am currently playing one of the most Charismatic of all possible characters (enjoying it and thinking about doing it again at some point), but even I hate it when players with high Charisma characters don't let other party member get a word in edgewise. Often I will end up letting other party members speak and I only interrupt if it looks like things are heading south in the discussion so far, and only if the situation is set up where it is appropriate.
I don't always go front and center, and I find it frustrating when in other games the high Charisma player does this. Let other people engage in the social aspects, just like the best fighter needs to sometimes let others shine in a fight.
I feel bad because i'm currently playing a monk that spent most of her life being trained for combat by her mother, with an absent father and very rarely receiving actual motherly love, simply "Good punch" or "nice form" type compliments at most. As a result, i'm playing that character at 22 years old and they're an emotional wreck prone to violent outbursts that's convinced that punching problems is the best way to solve problems. She is actively trying to better herself as a person, but so far, she's basically useless in all social situations
Raging monk? Now that's exotic
I was in a session a few weeks ago where we found an old woman taking care of 8 or so orphaned children. The party was skeptical of this old woman, and we soon found out that she was a Blood Hag, stealing the faces of children. A bit before this, we thought that the kids were apart of her schemes and so I flat out told the party multiple times "if you do anything to these kids, I will not hesitate to attack you."
The next session, our Artificer made the conscious choice to SELL THE SOULS OF THREE OF THEM to a devil we had previously encountered. A bit of context, we had met a devil a few months prior who offered the party anything they wanted in exchange for their souls. Our Artificer met with him privately, and made a deal that for 3 souls of anyone he met, the artificer would get his wishes granted. So, he picked 3 ORPHANED CHILDREN. Thus, my Bard attacked him. I generally avoid PVP, but when it's a situation such as that I feel it's justified, especially if you have told them numerous times that you would do so.
"I dont understand my magic"
Neither do I, Yang De Suon, wizard of scribes with handwriting of a therapist. One of the abilities allows to change spell damage type at will, but we homebrewed "at will" part to be an arcana check. DC was calculated by DM, I think it was mostly 12 + spell level and on fail element is chosen randomly, including those which are not in my book, which led to some strange situations. "Fireball! Hey guys, I necrotified whole room! Wait, necrowhat?"
I was playing with an edge lord player. He met my character and both he and his character was flabbergasted. Both of my characters parents were alive and had lived a relatively happy life. My investment in the storyline, I was one of the idiots that lived in the frontier town. Just enough fighting experience to be level one. My guy was fairly serious which played well with the two goofball players who I knew. The edge lord player figured out the group dynamic and turned into a welcome addition. Looking back my character was like a parent with three kids. Trying to tone down two while dragging along the unenthusiastic third.
I'm playing a LG Tortle Nature Cleric in a run through The Dungeon of the Mad Mage. In that module we've worked alongside a lot of known-for-being-evil creatures and races who happen to be "as good as can be possible for "x" race". I made the call very early on that I would play it based on a given NPC's "nature" and not necessarily their alignment or else I'd be constantly indignant and hostile to everything we encountered and bog the party down, so the cleric's guarded but friendly towards any NPC we have to work with and openly hostile to any NPC or "abomination of nature" that we end up having to fight.
i've had it once but i *really* don't ever want to have another "mother" character. character was so obsessed with being a mom that she insisted on getting pregnant (even tho the character was given a adopted son and a million ways to avoid being pregnant) and then her player complained that she was pregnant and couldn't play her as much as she wanted (because she didn't want to do a time skip and none of us wanted the prego knight trying to fight and take hits in combat). nope. never ever dealing with that again.
I really don't like "lone wolf a$$hole" characters, particularly ones that want nothing to do with a party and want to hi-jack the game. I had a 'friend', I use the term loosely, that always played those characters. Literally every single one of his characters wanted nothing to do with the group or had a task other than 'whatever suits my fancy'. Also in every single game he took off on his own as often as he could. He literally had this one character died 4 times and unfortunately the bleeding heart of the group also had the resurrection spells to keep bringing him back. That one player is the reason why I ban 'lone wolf' characters in my games and absolutely hate that archetype.
My general rule of thumb when it comes to playing a Tabaxi is that it's okay to be impulsive as long as it won't cause any trouble.
I feel like I should add, that if you do create an annoying character, at least make it so they grow as a person to be less annoying as the campaign goes on.
I felt a little called out about the tabaxi one; my latest character is a tabaxi barbarian, and all I've really done is tail whapping when mad, hissing in surprise as his fur puffs up a bit, and purring when he's sleeping close to someone he trusts.
That and our sorcerer thought it was a good idea to give him silvervine, which is similar to catnip, so for some of the session we had a very stoned tabaxi barbarian purring away as we went through the town XD
Being forced into the "leadership/main character" archetype...
for several campaigns, our DM, a very good friend of mine since college; unknowingly kept putting me into the archetype of leadership via roleplay or would purposely put me in that archetype role because he just wanted to see me have fun with the stressful weeks i tend to have...no matter what character I played. It was enjoyable to watch me step up to the plate to take charge of the party but after a few campaigns, I began to get more stressed out from being put into the role especially with a recent sci-fi adventure where I just wanted to play as a space trucker, just sit back and help the party but instead get pulled into being the captain of the party's spaceship making most of the critical choices for the party, which tend to leave me frazzled after trying to rein in a party that comprised of a wild-eyed mad scientist/alchemist, a space cultist power house and an over caring doctor. eventually "captain" became just a nick name and title that only became relevant when it came to negotiations and other formal interactions with NPCs.
anyways-after very bad DM error that led to that game being ended. He began to learn that it was a major DM no-no to make one player's character the "leader of the pack" when the player has been making it clear that he doesn't want to do it anymore and has been making our current game more balanced by giving everyone a chance to take the spotlight during the game.
I once tried to break the "dark = edgelord" Stereotype, and i'm happy that i did.
Character name: Aegis (named after Athenas shield).
Class: Echo knight Fighter (the echo looked like Charon, his father).
He wielded an executioner's sword and a longbow. He was relativly pacifistic and used lethal force only when neccesary.
He loved flowers, wild-life, watching fish swim in rivers because he loved life in general, but he was concious about his job: bringing the soul of people or Monsters he kills safely to the after life. He was even out right cheerful at Times, but other Times He was rather sadly nostalgic.
Mechanically, when He kills something his echo dissapears at the end of the turn, Charon has to drive the souls to the outer Planes after all.
He once had an entire character Ark because someone he killed was send to the nine hells, to which he disagreed and tried to bring him to elysium (what he thought was more accurate). Well, asmodeus wasn't amused.
You made Orpheus.
In my first game, I was a female human bard who was initially just this plucky young "spread joy to the masses" type. Soon after her first battle, she had to re-evaluate what she understood of the world outside of her hometown, and ended up developing into a tsundere, perfectly timed for the pervy player who joined. They had some great tension for most of their time together, until his cleric got petrified and then demolished. This included him offending the paladin severely enough to try to kill him earlier, only for my bard to take offense to how strongly the paladin adhered to his Oath (though the way she went about it was more due to never having seen a paladin before her first adventure). Anyway, after the paladin was unpetrified, my bard took her time to mourn the pervy cleric and then soon moved on to flirting with the paladin. She did it as a joke at first (yes, in-character it was a joke) but she soon realized she was actually into him, and so seeing him reciprocate made her go for it.
Pathfinder has the troop template for handling large numbers of a single enemy type.
There are a couple I could list, but i'm never experienced a lot of them, so i'll go with the two I have:
The Thieving Rouge.
Basically they'll play a rouge and steal from other players or try to do stuff without anyone else finding out, like taking specific items and hiding it from the rest of the party.
The Main Character
I encountered this one in Vampire: The Masquerade once, he would always play the same vampire clan every time, it was always the blood mages, and he would always do the same trick every time where he would put his blood in an object using magic to force a blood bind if you touched i, for reference a blood bind in VTM means your character sees the individual you're bound to as a friend, it has three tiers each with increasing potency toward how you feel about that person, and at tier three you're willing to die for them, I have a feeling he always wanted to be the single most power character and blood magic can be a bit broken in VTM depending how you used it.
fun fact: the *only* time I have ever stolen from the party was as a pirate who used it as a way to bring the party together. yes, it was through blackmail, but she basically did it as a "see, if you are alone and not in my crew, you could have your things stolen that easily. join me and I can make sure that doesn't happen to you anymore". it was the only time I intended on doing it and I think it was a pretty interesting way to starting a campaign (also probably the most organic way I've had a character introduce themselves to a group who wasn't already together)
Going to have to say I am guilty of doing something because I was bored. Every ducking room had traps for the dms husband to do. So yeah I ran into an unexplored room and pulled the monsters back. I also usually play low wisdom so gullible was my default. Usually my low wisdom characters frequently exclaim "I can't believe you tricked me....again."
5:55 Yep, I am also against that. In fact, whenever I start a group as the GM, one of the house rules I always explain to the group is "not stealing from the party". I never met a case where it was justified (though imaginary and almost impossible scenarios could be used as arugments, I think) and it ALWAYS caused unnecessary tension between players.
Here's a scenario that is realistic:
"Good to meet you."
*shakes hands*
"Oh, here's your watch back."
Day 2 of asking
A teifling fighter in the group I was playing in made potato bombs. We were fighting some blobs (like gelatinous cubes and such) he asked to put the potato bomb into the blob and detonate it. He rolled a nat 1 and the DM asked if he wanted the dramatic version or not. He asked for the dramatic version and so the DM told us that the teifling stuck his hand into the blob and couldn't pull it out so he watched shock as a contained explosion happened in the blob. So the player got his hand blown off and the blobs were acidic so it just gave him a stump it was very funny.
DM: Explains puzzle, problem or combat encounter
Player: Whines out of character how it makes no sense and shouldn't be there until the problem solves itself
What about a _former_ Horny Bard who has since fallen in love, settled down, and is now a loving father...
...to a precocious little _half-dragon_ (just in case the DM's the type to exploit that sort of backstory content "for the sake of drama")?
Now i want to make a kenku banker. He holds the shinies for the party and lets them use them for the fancy shinies to find even more shinies
I dunno if it's an archetype exactly but it's really obnoxious when a player makes a character that's just a one note joke that repeats the joke to every NPC they meet. "I'm a naked hairy dwarf stripper and I never stop twerking."
"But... Why?"
Here's one I learned by playing it:
Having a character who is emotionally repressed via supernatural means.
I had a character who was a Shadar-Kai Ranger/Cleric, but I didn't wanna be super edgy so I just made her emotionally flat and quiet. It has been a struggle to get the other players to like her at all, and roleplaying her is also kinda boring in the moment to moment, even if I love the concept.
My solution is finding a way to fix that during our upcoming downtime by going to the Feywild to offset that Shadowfell apathy.
I really hate that Kender are so frequently classified as characters that steal from their party. Anyone doing that with a Kender doesn't actually understand what a Kender is, and anyone that is getting legitimately upset about a properly played Kender doesn't understand how to roleplay.
The Kender's kleptomania isn't going to cause them to end up with a party member's axe or holy symbol or anything else that is important to them mechanically. They might end up with an extra dagger here and there, but those daggers came from characters that have them and generally don't use them in combat, so it is generally a non-issue as long as everyone at the table understands that it is exclusively meant for them to roleplay and not to take it seriously since the Kender will ALWAYS give things back to their rightful owner once they realize they have it. Aside from the occasional dagger, Kender usually just end up with things like buttons, silverware, bits of string and the occasional trinket.
This. It's pretty explicitly stated in the Dragonlance sourcebooks that Kender don't steal. To use a line from Pirates of the Carribean, "Borrowed without permission, but with every intention of giving it back." With kender, they just kind of forget they had it.
Or... They just don't care about the motive or how the kender don't understand/have the same definition of stealing that a normal person does. I'm pretty sure housecats don't really have a concept of what torture is, but it's not unreasonable to paint them as a type of animal that will torture their prey for fun seeing how common it is for them to play with them.
I have a Druid that likes to awaken things. He was given the boon of immortality so he no longer ages. And he has a grove of his own. Honestly, excited to visit it and see how the DM has been treating the area.
The horny bard stereotype is probably the most damaging one. I played a bard not too long ago, and events lead to the characters sleeping at a brothel they were doing some investigating for. Both the DM PC and the other member of my party went to bed with the residents of the brothel, and my character didn't. Out of character, I wasn't sure what if any sexuality my character was just yet, only that he probably was more interested in romance than anything physical. In character, I gave the excuse that he had been hurt during an earlier fight and mostly wanted to sleep and tend to the wound. If I had done anything, the bard jokes would have likely started; instead the "joke" is that a bard spent a night in a brothel and didn't do anyone. Thanks to the stereotype, it almost feels like a bard can either choose to be uninterested or be too interested, with little middle ground.
The dark, brooding, edgy, "crawling in my skin" mysterious unknown background trauma type rogue that never helps the party, always hogs the loot, and practically never speaks.
And most of those players hide their damn dice rolls.
Had a few furry rogues in my campaign. Not that edgy but still contributed nothing outside of slaughtering combat encounters. One died, the other got sacrificed, and the other (ingame ofc) committed die. They are still furries, but at least not rogues.
I’m playing with one of these rn, lord save me
I'm enjoying playing a rogue who is traumatized by his past and appears edgy (Haunted Kenku named Jingle) But is trying to better himself through the teaching of his late master. Only issue is I keep getting into situations where I get nearly one shot and get blood all over me (and precede to freak out) or my DM just so happens to have something lined up that gives me more trauma. Loving it so far, Jingle is not
Had one of the "My character isn't really an adventurer" type. Gnome bard who went town to town as a way to collect secrets and valuable gossip. Session 1: 1st dungeon: 1st combat encounter: immediately hides from the fight, and remained hidden from the group for the rest of the dungeon.
After the session, I asked why they're hiding from the party and not helping with their spells or bardic inspiration. They said they're character wasn't actually an adventurer becausethats dangerous, was only hanging around the party because it seemed interesting, and as a player didn't want to even be in the dungeon to begin with.
I can't understand what goes through these people's minds when they make characters for games of DUNGEONS and DRAGONS
Had a player in a game I was in do very much the same thing. Hid from the party, hid from the encounter, tried to go off on his own. DM asked him, "Doesn't your character want to go on adventures? Get rich and famous?" When the player said "No, he doesn't want any of that." the DM said, "Then why the fuck is he in my campaign." Incidentally, he was also playing a bard who's sole motivation was to get to the city where he was booked to perform.
Sounds like a good DMPC. The dm just keeps having characters who refuse to fight because they're scared, and end up dying. Good way to show how dangerous monsters are
That’s on the DM for not getting the gnome into the fight. If the DM already knew that was going to be something in the party, they needed to either say no to the character being included outright, or had the monsters smell their fear and actively seek them out
The character who wants to eat EVERYTHING. Teeth monster, yup tried eating it. Fiery tentacle monster from hell, yup he got to eat it. Supposably tasted terrible.
I haven't met a character yet I haven't liked. But people who use alignment as an excuse "lawful good" becomes "no one can have fun" and Chaotic evil becomes "stupid chaos"
Honestly, lawful is having a personal code, self control and not breaking your code, good is not doing good because you get something out of it
Currently I'm playing a Paladin in Pathfinder. I just made a lot of people groan just now, but wait, he is a paladin of Bacchus. He's half smashed most the time and as a flavor ability of his he is not generally affected by being drunk in a fight, but he does ensure the alcohol provided is good. He like a food critic for beer. His word goes a long way to helping smaller brewers to get ahead and he will not give a better rating just because they pay him more. But if a competitor is using thigs to stop him from making the best ale he can, even if they do nothing illegal, the Paladin will go and make sure the competition "plays fair" even if no reward is forth comming. He is lawful, but if his code demands something be done, he will do it regardless of societies laws.
A good way to see the most distilled form of lawful neutral, Samara from mass effect. She will follow her code, damn the consequence. She killed an entire town because her target threw them in the way or Tyrian from Dragon slayer.
So people please stop playing "lawful" as though you need to follow the law, it diminishes so many direction you can take.
For further information on alignment lookup "a crap guide to alignment"
4:00
Edgelord who isn’t just dark and brooding: Chihiro Rokuhira
Pacifist who knows what it means to be a pacifist: Vash the Stampede
Please play like these characters. They execute their roles perfectly.
Every time I see these kind of stories I realize how lucky I got with my own group.
Got a character in my list of char's I want to play, based on "Krombopulos Michael" from the Rick and Morty cartoons.
He's an Halfling Assassin.
and in true halfling style he's always a gentle and warm person to be around.
He is also however very open about his profession.
No dark past, no dead family members or parents, just a Halfling that grew up in a happy Halfling family, always had friends and everything he needed.
He genuinely just loves killing people and made it his job.
The Flaw he carries is that he has no code of ethics, and will (like Michael) Kill anyone, anywhere, if he is given the hit.
He does not care who or why, he just wants to kill.
(of course not taking contracts on the party due to various reasons to not break the game.)
In a true neutral fashion, not a chaotic stupid fashion.
To the Tabaxi player at 14:13: Splits Arrows, Hissing Fury, Shakes Trees, Golden Voice, Shade of the Candle and Iron Shaper would like to have words with you. Also, your name among the Combined Clans is now "Brains of Bean Curd".
My Rogue never steals from the party; in his words, "That's shitting where you eat."
A bard does not have to try and bang every monster/villain/dragon they come in contact with. I played a dwarven bard whose bardic inspiration was hand them a beer.
I once played in a group of the seemingly useless and annoying characters that were all from the same village and had normal occupations, like carpenter, chef, miller. I played a hardened and humorless ranger.
So first of there were "bonecracker" the gentle giant. He was not an actual giant, just very large. And made a lot of noice when moving through the woods, but when it came to woodcarvings he was a master.
Then there was the hobbit "Willbo" who was an excellent chef and could find tasty herbs in any terrain. Lastly there was the miller "Gratian" that were, well knowledgeable, about grain. And also actually good at talking to people and getting good prices for stuff.
It was an endless walk, making camps that were just too elaborate and it took so much time. Then it came time for cooking whatever i had shot during the day. I was sitting there, on the highly decorated chair that Bonecracker had made for me eating good food and listening to the funny stories Gratian told. Day in and day out.
Then came the combat, and i was like "finally". So Gratian just stood there frozen in fear, Willbo hid off the trail, and Boncracker charged the bandits with his long walkingstick. Bonecracker got pretty beat up and was in danger, i was fighting the bandits desperately, taking a lot of hits in my gambeson and finally cleared the space around Bonecracker so he could retreat. That's when i got grappled and another bandit was making his way towards me. Gratian suddenly charged the bandit screaming and tackled the bandit and beat the crap out of him, and Bonecracker and gotten behind the bandit that grappled me and used his strength to simply crush him. Bloodied and half dead we finished them off.
We were high up in the mountain and facing a cold night with bleeding wounds we needed a camp badly. That's when it struck me. I was the one off character who's skill was only applicable in certain situations. I listened to the whole "set up camp" roleplay with a warm fussy feeling. I felt like i was one of the team.
12:25 I have told this story a few times but me, my brother and a friend of his were playing a module and when a mini boss NECROMANCER emerged and we had confirmed that he was a necromancer my brother’s friend went full lawful stupid and rushed the necromancer. My character Lia a druid that had the background of having a serious grudge against non druid magic users, should’ve been the one to attack first but I was in character thinking that it wasn’t a good idea.
That last one? Had a guy do that PERFECTLY. Loved his fish. Played up the hissing and cat-like actions. I played a prank with two kinds of catnip. One actual catnip and one drug CALLED catnip. And because it was catnip? Oh he had it eagerly which made him temporarily nuts, sure. But yeah, he played it well using cat-like mannerisms and actions but wasn't just a can that was humanoid.
My character’s backstory had his family die in a house fire. But love bringing it up in random times to “kill the mood” hahaha. We’ll all he warming up next to the fire after a long cold day. And I’ll be like “Ah this fire is warm! Just like when my family died in a house fire…… who wants s’mores?!”
Nothing like a dash of macabre humor to spice things up
I love PvP when it makes sense. The tabaxi cat thing is great if the group is cool with it. We had our whole party of tabaxi and everyone had a certain feline trait we hammed up. It was great for a one shot but even i know we couldn't hold up those characters for a campaign.
If I'm doing a meme character (and I am known to, on a fairly regular basis), I don't make the meme the core concept of their character. It's usually a visual gag more than anything else. For instance, I have a character on a West Marches who is a humanoid bee (reskinned Avariel Elf), who was created by a powerful warlock after a series of evil bee-themed quests made people paranoid about bees, to kind of be a therapy bee. He's now level 17, and has been grappling with the consequences of "what does it mean to be created for a purpose once that purpose is fulfilled?" and "do I actually have a functional soul?" Him being a bee remains something of a joke, but he's a serious character beneath that.
Similarly, I have another character who is the horrible goose(TM) from Untitled Goose Game. He's an Aven, Entropy Cleric (homebrew subclass), and his secret from the Hermit background is that he realized the inevitable heat-death of the universe is coming and no one can stop it. He exclusively honks to communicate (mechanically just talking, but it sounds like 'honk'). And yet, he regularly engages in deep philosophical debates with people who question why he occasionally does the horrible goose(TM) things like using cantrips to drop water on people going about their day.
Long comment, but my point is you CAN be a meme character without making everyone at your table hate you, as long as the meme isn't the only thing about you.
I made a bard who gives speeches instead of singing. He talks about accepting others, kindness, and various other life lessons. He also adopted a tabaxi named Daniel.
His name is Sir Rogers, and he has his own neighborhood
The “annoying small character who interrupts everyone and disrupts the party’s plans.” It’s so annoying for everyone at the table when there’s one problem player who keeps ruining everything for the party, especially when the DM keeps letting them do it, but won’t let the party do anything aside from the “main plot.” It’s a terrible situation. I was in a game with that kind of player, and I left that group.
Just an aside, but one of the stories shows something I've noticed: if a player "sometimes fudges die rolls," they're almost always dysfunctional players in OTHER ways too. IMO, it's the biggest and reddest of red flags.
1: the true Loner Archetype who doesnt want to work together with anyone!
(I like normal loner archetypes though)
2: The Aggressive character who keeps trying to fight their teammates. Unless that is specifically agreed by all parts before the game.
3: chaotic Chaotics. Who are just Lol random. Atleast in serious games. I also DM games of very silly oneshots.
Horny👏 bards👏
In all but one experiences I’ve had, the player just ended up harassing other players saying that it was “in character”.
Yeah I would make an STD table.
My "horny bard" never hits on the party. His dalliances occur "off-camera". The DM and players are okay. Because there's a time and a place for it. It's not during adventuring time. The DM did do a couple of things, one in adventuring time. I was out sick for a month, when I came back the party was going into a Yuan-Ti temple. I popped up in the temple and the DM said it looks familiar to me. Turned out I had previously had an encounter there. DM used my character to avoid a fight by having the encounter with the priestess of the temple. The other was after that, I had another former lover encounter with an awakened tree. Decided by the DM because my character is a demigod.
I do have a Storm Sorcereress who doesn't know she can do magic. She uses dual daggers for the first encounter or two which usually puts her in a position to freak out, stretch out her hand and shocking grasp something. She then usually talks with the other magic users in the party to get advice on how magic works and she experiments while on the road to pick up on her spells which she mechanically already knows. I know that deliberately nerfing my character in engagements can get annoying so I try and have it only last for the first engagement or two as I want to start zapping things anyway. I just find the concept of a newly minted spellcaster and it also provides a reason for my character to have meaningful interactions with other spellcasters in the party.
I love how that first one was just like “I hate when people optimize and always roll their good stats. But I also hate when people don’t and roll their bad ones. Why can’t everyone just do everything perfectly like me?” Really comes off more like they’re the issue
If you know you’re bad at something, don’t insist on being the one to do it when there’s better options. That’s it
There were a couple of these that just felt whiney
I have players who LOVE roleplaying how their characters find and learn their powers. But they never sabotage the game from it.
It is much more fun to see the confused Sorcerer accidentally send the perfect lightning through the enemy line and maybe RP 'burn' and ally standing on the edge of the spell as Flavour but not as damage mechanics ^_^
originated from when i did non-D&D Roleplays, but i hate characters that have a tragic backstory but their personality never mentions it. Like i get, some people like edge but don't know how to play it, but if you purposely never touch on the backstory and are super "uwu" then it feels a bit.. off
I mean.. different people cope in different ways, so you can have an edgy backstory with a super bubbly character, where it's like "I'm burying all my trauma under the guise of being super duper happy! Wheeee!" But if you do that, at some point the character needs a vulnerable moment, even if they don't fully break, just a small moment where they're with someone they trust, or they think they're alone and they can drop the act, if only for 5 minutes.
Like... fine, they don't have to break the facade publicly, but at least have some mention of "when they're alone, their smile falls, their shoulders droop, and they just curl up quietly in a bare room on their bed, eventually sobbing themselves to sleep quietly" or something to give the character some level of depth.
I like how "fuck" is censored a few times and then just out of nowhere
I personally dislike the “im of noble birth” character because
1) DMs who encourage it end up making that character the protagonist
2) it means that my random paladin is not important to the plot and its just this guy’s job to talk to everyone because he just says his family name and wins
a 9ft 8int barbarian that doesn't take well to being shit talked will fix that...
Not all of them are like that if they player is nice. Their is a character I want to play who is of noble birth but was basically disowned from the family because he likes to try and bed women and he bedded the wrong woman. This created a huge political issue and he was forced to live on the streets and slowly learns to appreciate the poorer life.
As always, the key to solving this before it comes up (agonising at it may sound) is to talk it out first. Hey, I'd even say that if someone wants to play a noble at all, they should have a very good reason to play that noble, given they had a comfortable life before adventuring - they could have been ousted from the family and took to adventuring, or accumulated huge debts that they've gone to pay off in a get-rich-quick scheme, for instance. Personally, I'm playing in a campaign where my noble's family has a curse (not mechanically, per se - nothing a Remove Curse spell will fix) on their bloodline, and he's gone out in desperation to seek a cure, travelling light so he can stay undercover in an adventuring party. If anything, making his true identity known may do more harm than good in social situations.
Nobles are arguably one of the most difficult backgrounds for a player to do correctly. Most of the time they go full Karen and boss the shit out of everyone and everything. It requires good player etiquette.
Then you've never played as/with a noble character properly
Noble characters need to be done right- it shouldn't be relevant 100% of the time (as with any other type of background), and when it is relevant, it's not always a _good_ thing
Overall it's mainly the DM's job to properly implement a PCs noble background
I think really annoying is the horder-syndrome. A partymember sells goods for 10 gold? Tells the party it was only 6 and keeps the rest. Looting something? Put everything in the own pocket.
Same goes for GMs. I order an ale. It costs 1 gold. Do I have to haggle now? Is everyone a scammer?
That's why I often play monks. Because often in terms of money, I have none.
One of my pet peeves are charactors far too young for their chosen class. I mean that child charactor that acts like every 5 year old but somehow knows how to cast spells from the necronomicon. Then has almost no grasp of vocabulary.
Don't get me wrong. I love child charactors. Just not one that can cast 5th level spells at level 1.
This is why, in most dnd groups I play with, i become the parental figure. Or as I like to call it. "THE LEASH HOLDER OF STUPID" As in, I am the primary member in the party who catches the "I'm so random" guy and smackes him upside the head before he fireballs the village orphanage. (I wish I was kidding)
PANR has tuned in.
The character who has to be in control. I've seen this from many different characters in many different game systems, but it's the character that uses skills, class features, or magic to dictate what the other player characters can & can't do, and the other characters have no choice but to do it
This comment is a reminder that players can railroad the game too.
Sometimes they also push other players to reveal things about their characters too, or they involve themselves in virtually every social situation so they can "have a say". Or they force the plot forward when they're good and ready, not when others are
People who play the wildest race, class, background and possibly feat, combo so their character is "different" and "quirky". No, it's playing a strange combo that will probably make no sense in the DM's setting. Sure, your Warforged who made a pact with the sun who used to be a part of the navy for 17 years and has telepathic powers is definitely different, but it isn't going to fit in with the knight's and commoners of the DM's dark ages setting. Plus, it's going to be really hard for your DM to fit your backstory into their setting (If one has been written in the first place that's comprehendible).
We used the "I'm learning how to spell cast" with my roguelock. She kept rolling less than ten on spell attacks for MULTIPLE sessions.
Speaking of bards and dropping pants...I have a bard who once volunteered as a distraction the he yanked the guards pants down and ran like hell.
I swear that every time he pronounced it "arCH-type" instead of "arK-e-type" I winced
Same here.
There's a rogue thief in the campaign I'm currently in (made up by my friend) and he has stolen from a character who is technically an npc and is also a party member since we accidentally defeated a boss way too early and our DM decided to give us the npc as a party member as a reward because of how unlikely winning the battle was.
Now because my character was the closest with this npc and spends a lot of time with him, I took charge of him. This also means that my character is biased towards that npc and, for example in the case where my character singlehandedly got 100 gold coins in a very deadly situation, will be more likely to give the npc more things. I gave half of the 100 to the npc because he didn't actually have any weapons or armour and I wanted to get him something next time we were in town. Unfortunately, this is when the thief rolled a 21 and stole all the npc's gold (which I'm pretty sure was all his money) and because it was such a high roll no one could do anything about it.
This thief also tries to persuade and charm every single bartender we meet to get free drinks and steals from pretty much every merchant or shopkeeper we encounter and my god is it infuriating.
I just wish it was toned down a little and that I'd get at least some of the gold back. I guess, because the npc is a bit of a joke character and isn't taken seriously by the others, that this kind of thing slides.
Tldr: annoying thief character steals from the weakest character who used to be an npc so I can't buy him gear (he currently has none) and won't stop stealing and persuading every seller we meet.
lol i always play chaotic good. but its if i see a person hit a child ill deck the person. if i know someone's using this guy as an example Hitler i would end him with extreme prejudice
Hitler is a perfect example of Lawful Evil.
So in my game I'm currently playing a wild magic sorcerer who is on a quest to get rid of his "curse", ie his newly awakened powers. He decides to leave his wife and kids after he almost burnt down their house when his powers first manifested.
He doesn't have good control over his magic, but he has enough to cast his cantrips (which he figured out on the way to Lusken), and then he can shakily use his level 1 spells.
During our first dungeon dive, my sorcerer got knocked out (8hp with 11ac at level 1, what can you do). After failing a death save, because we were in a magical cavern, my DM had me roll a wild magic surge. It landed on 83, causing necrotic spikes to shoot out and cause 6 damage to everyone in 30ft, but healing him. This ended up killing an NPC with us, and another player send I had a great rp moment, him yelling ready to kill me, me having a panic attack, trying to understand how it even happened, apologizing, etc.
Not to pat myself on the back, but I think this is the right way to play a character that can't effectively use their magic yet.
2:38 I ... kinda agree with this tbh - a Lawful good creature would not want to break down a door to save someone - they would want to get permission. A chaotic good creature says screw your permission - I'm saving that person. (I may have misunderstood what this was getting at though)
I'd still say that if it was an emergency, LG will break down the door. Getting permission is ideal if you have time. If not, you prioritise what will do the most good and least harm and in the case of whether it is better to damage a door or allow a person to die, it's a no-brainer. Human life matters more than a door does, both morally AND in the eyes of the law. Also, if you feel bad about having to do something illegal for a good cause, you can apologise and pay for the damage later.
I think basically anything can work but basically anything can also be taken way too far.
3:27 I actually want to try a pacifist once for a one-shot. Their support in combat are debuff spells, support spells, terrain control, etc. So long as they don’t deal direct damage to an enemy, they’re fine. They are also the face of the party, with high Charisma, Deception, and Persuasion.
Not as extreme, but I have a Shepherd Druid planned with a 1 level dip into Life Cleric. Combine the Cleric feature with the Unicorn Spirit, and that’s a lot of healing.
Roleplay, he is a naive child. Eladrin so he can have 25+ years of experience, hence the summoning. He loves nature and animals, and often gets lost when he wanders.
Combat… Most of his spells are Sanctuary friendly: they don’t affect an enemy directly, nor does he roll attack or damage against enemies. Luckily, his Conjured Animals are not him, and don’t break Sanctuary.
That's a more than acceptable type of pacifist character. I'd play alongside that.
for people who summon a lot of creatures the way i handle it is simple.
they control the summoned creatures turns. they summon to many then they are dealing with the slog of using them.
Elf Wizard - One of my players has been playing the same elf wizard for years so I instituted a rule where you have to change race and class for every new character
I tried something similar in my games, because one player always tried to play a Stealthy Archer. Got that player to play an Orc Barbarian. But, it backfired. Within 2 sessions, he was trying to play the Orc Barbarian as a Stealthy Archer. Combat would break out, and the Orc Barbarian would hide behind cover and shoot enemies with his short bow or would hide behind the Dwarf Artificer Alchemist and demanded that the Alchemist protect him
@@leekonze7441 How in the hell does a half-orc hide behind a dwarf?
To be fair, in the editions of D&D I'm familiar with, elf wizards are kind of OP...
@@DistendedPerinium not effectively. Lol. It's what the player had his character do. It didn't make any sense to the rest of the players at the table either.
@@leekonze7441 man has elder scrolls in the brain
People who think that because they are a Rogue, they can steal everything that isn't bolted down. Your class doesn't define your character and being a Rogue doesn't make you a Clepto.