I agree with Crispy on the Pacifist Priest who won't heal even their party members because they killed something wouldn't work as a player. No character with that mindset is going to willingly go with a party of adventurers, so won't be a good fit IMHO.
I'd just add that 'no kill' makes more sense as a _party_ concept than a _character_ concept, and I think that would be an interesting mechanical challenge to build effective characters that way, and I think a GM could have a lot of fun pushing at that sort of party's ethics, give them some juice moral quandaries to roleplay through when playing characters like that, in a way that's fun for both players and GMs - At least for me, if I give my character a strong moral code I'm wanting that code to be challenged. Not every session, but some of the time. (Though broadening it generally, zero offensive, 100% support, characters _can_ work, depending on how good the system's balance is. But that's not so much morally objecting to killing, as "Helping boost my party and healing their scrapes")
I tried to play a pacifist who doesn’t use any offensive spells and it was really difficult to pull off. Also, if you assume killing is inherently evil, your priest doesn’t believe in *justifiable* killing. If pacifist has a problem, work with your DM and talk about patching up fallen foes.
The way I have successfully run a pacifist (and for that manner, a lawful good boi in a chaotic evil party) is to work with the party to come up with a blindspot for your character when it comes to the party. Example one: Dahlia was a traumatized warlock with zero offensive spells who didn't want to see anyone hurt. So, the party sat her down and said they would always try her way first, but they would defend her if she was in danger. And Dahlia, a scared girl who never had anyone to protect her, gladly accepted. And still believes the party is just protecting her when they go in for the kill, and will not be convinced otherwise. My paladin in bad company, Various, is just dumb. Really, really dumb and really, really loyal. So if the band of folk he had shed blood with say they will not rob and kill the family, he believes them. He also believes them if they say he needs stand watch by the gate, and also believes them if they say they found the family dead like this.
Tbh wacky gimmick characters are fine as long as the entire content of their character doesn't start and end at the gimmick. You want to play a dragon mermaid vampire witch from the future? Cool, what's their motivations? favorite color? opinion on mint chocolate? etc. etc. Just have SOMETHING to work with and for other players to work with. I will happily play and play with insane character concepts, so long as they're interesting. In one server, I was one of the gimmick characters, a Twilight Domain cleric with a rare strain of lycanthropy that turned him into a Utahraptor. He was the Velocipastor, Man of the Claw. Funnily enough, he was also besties/frienemies with the cleric who refused to heal people.
Fun fact about Pacifist Characters! I'm playing one as my Druid right now and the way I make up for it is by being ENTIRELY support. She won't kill somebody because she hates hurting living things. She loves animals and no beast or creature could ever be scary to her. She makes up for her lack of combat skills, however, by being there with a bunch of healing and protection spells for the rest of the party. She stays back, boosting them, giving them health or advantage or inspiration or protection, and still makes the combat work well even if she's not getting her hands dirty. She's genuinely one of my favorite characters to play! (Also, she actually did kill for the very first time last session, when she was alone and almost kidnapped. The bandits tried to kill her pet, and she snapped after she was stabbed in the leg, killing them to defend her pet. She feel justified, but still kind of traumatized knowing she did that. Very cool character moment!)
That's cool and all, but that's not really a pacifist character imo. You are actively supporting your party to kill other beings. This sounds more like a character that doesn't want to get their hands dirty in a more direct way, which is fine as you're clearly supporting in other ways.
@thatcactus5451 This is true. I suppose I consider it as a level of pacifist. I always try to work to avoid combat but sometimes I feel like it annoys my far more murder-hobo-y group when I don't want to kill things. I'd just rather have it come out in a character moment (like defending a pet) than going into every situation with intent to kill. The Ultimate Pacifist sounds very difficult to deal with, for sure.
So only kill when you can justify it - that’s not pacifism. At the very least you should impose a chance of failure for all spell-casting (say 3 in 10) until you atone in game to represent the trauma
6:00 you get feats at level 4, how did they take all the feats if they were only making it to 3 per class? Even then, there's way more than 3-4 feats, how many levels did they put into this character? lol
I want to push back on the pacifist character a bit. I've built pure support characters, casters usually, who don't have a single offensive spell, not even a cantrip. Doesn't mean you can't be useful, doesn't mean you can't be effective as a player, but you need to think about how your character fits into the narrative and the group strategies. I've actually really enjoyed wringing the absolute most about always being a support, and I had a ton of fun in a campaign where I only ever did damage once, and that was a huge character moment where he sacrificed his pacifism to save one of his party members. yes, a pacifist character who doesn't contribute to the group is an actual drain, but you absolutely do not have to do damage to use every turn to the fullest to support your friends.
Not to mention the fact that diplomacy is always an option and if you play a pacifist character that gives you an excuse to try diplomacy try role-playing it first before things lead to combat of course that situation will depend on the DM allowing it but it's still an attempt that can be made
My undead bard isn't exactly a pacifist.He just prefers buffing teammates and debuffing/controlling the enemy. I am NOT getting anywhere near our typical mobs that have AC no less than 20 and who can two-shot me. No no no - other lads are tanking and beating them up just fine by me, thank you.
Imo those non-damage-dealing builds still work far better in other systems, even those that are combat-focused. In systems like Lancer, 13th age or Pathfinder 2e support players are not only very important (sometimes invaluable), but also very fun to play (for example in pf2e even heal spell has 3 variations that can be used in different scenarios). It's definitely a fun way to build your character - 5e just does not support it that well.
@@KajtekBeary I think that depends on the DM. Yes D&D may have more rules relating to combat than it does roleplay but that's simply because combat is a system that needs to be regulated whereas roleplay kind of can't be. But it's still a role playing game and not a combat simulator. There are plenty of support options plenty of utility options and plenty of opportunities to roleplay if the DM allows it. Combat is one pillar of the game it has never been the only pillar and it's entirely possible to play without combat or with little combat especially if combat is dependent upon your role play to get in and out of complex situations. If a character who isn't going to combat is completely useless outside of combat as well then that's either the player's fault or the DMS it's not the character builds fault simply how it is being handled. Either the player is trying something new and hasn't quite figured out what they're doing yet or the DM is simply decided that they are more combat focused than roleplay focused. Both of which are over the table issues and don't actually have anything to do with the mechanics of the game at all
If you can make your exotic race work within the rules, you can have it. You want a half orc, except instead of half human, he is half... ling? You use the normal stat block, but most people think you are a tall for a goblin. A buff elf? Firbolg. Anime catgirl? Tabaxi.
I just made an urgal, I used the satyr step block but mostly chose appearance from a lot of FPL probably find more from a tiefling. The general idea if that lower wives he's half and half but mechanics wise he's just a really big satyr 😮
@@PeacefulPorcupine but a lot of the characters in this particular video were not bad in and of themselves they were only bad because of the players. Like Krispy fed a pacifist cleric is not an inherently bad build it's only bad because the player decided to be stubborn and take things too far. A hybrid character isn't bad on principle the player is the one making it a big deal and trying to steal spotlight. I'll give him a pass with revenge characters because yes they pretty much are bad depending on how they're intended I know cuz I've made a couple never intended to play them and only made them for myself to quietly laugh about and not actually force my DM to deal with, and they were more mechanics driven revenge rather than story-driven anyway although a character driven by the revenge in story can actually be a good role play character as well it doesn't have to be bad on that level. So that one comes down to the reasons being made and a mechanic involved it tends to be bad though so I agree with this one but it can be well done. yes you're probably going to find the seeds of problem players within their characters however that doesn't necessarily mean a character that looks bad on paper or in theme is going to be bad. But some of the characters in this video weren't even crazy concepts they were just regular characters being played in a negative way like the druid shapeshifting into a wolf that's just a regular druid he was just using that ability to annoy the other players which is annoying and bad player but has nothing to do with the actual character so why is it on the bad characters thread. I agree that if someone is playing a character badly then it is a problem. And I know they're a bad characters and bad concepts out there I just don't think any of them were touched upon in this particular video. Like most of these were spotlight hogs and that is always a player problem and never a character problem. And what I mean by that is that only one of these characters seems specifically built to take the spotlight and that simply a Kombat character whereas the other spotlight hogs were all roleplayed badly. and I think that badly executed roleplay and badly designed character backstory or personality that can lead to it are while both being problems they are separate problems. They can overlap in the sense that a badly executed character can often lead to bad roleplay however they aren't the same as a regular character can still be a bad role play and a good role player can still end up deciding a bad character. I think crispy is right and a good measure to tell if how much of the character is actually filled with in the system and how much is crazy Homebrew stuff. Boston time if a character is going to be problematic and make their character problematic as well they will not be able to fit that into what is established because that is more fair and balanced than they are ready for so The Homebrew will be crazy. That is not always the case if there's plenty of good Homebrew but I think that's more likely to be an issue than just the character itself. The biggest signs of course being Homebrew races and subclasses I think Homebrew backgrounds tend to be pretty fair though a lot of them are bad in the sense of not being made well. Racism backgrounds are less worrisome than classes if you have a Homebrew to class or subclass I think that's definitely a sign of a problem cuz I don't think there's any way to make that well done when there's so many classes already in the game, and some classes in and of themselves are just very complicated to make and therefore unlikely to be made very well in Homebrew. But even with that in mind you still cannot tell if a character is going to be poorly role played just on the character sheet. Even the most ridiculous builds only break the game if the player makes them. If we're going to talk about bad characters we should talk about poorly designed backstories or poorly made characters that don't work very well with the game itself not an okay character or even a good character that simply being roleplayed badly. Crispy partly covered this in the commentary on some of them pointing out how that works in some games and some players the same bill that is here listed as a problem build but didn't really get to the heart of the issue that most of these characters aren't actually bad, simply miss handled.
I'm willing to guess those character archetypes are assumed to have "it's what my character would do" built in or the intention is more blatant. While most of these character builds can be done well, those times are likely exceptions rather than the rule.
@@ArcCaravan that could be true but not necessarily just because we often hear about the times that goes wrong doesn't necessarily mean those are the more common ones just the ones people talk about Like how the common stereotype for a rogue player is going to be an edgelord but that one may be less common than it appears But either way if it's a character that could be played good or bad then the character build itself is not bad
The worst character is a lvl 1 druid with Str: 12 Dex 13 Con: 9 Int: 7 Wis: 13 Cha: 10 And it's my character lol. Rolling down the stat line with 3d6 and no rerolls is brutal.
those are fine for a campaign were your all playing peasants , otherwise I would have that character make themselves a noble sacrifice for the party asap and roll up a new pc.
I made my character mute because I made a “oath of silence” paladin (home brewed paladin subclass). I also made my character able to speak through their Raven familiar. The character only worked because the character could still communicate with the party. I also made the character a warlock with the old one (meaning i could also speak telepathically) It made the character more fun because the paladin was a somewhat edgy character was balanced out with having a ridiculous voice. The voice could be played for comedic effect or for coolness with the raven voice (which was my go to) or for coolness (telepathically).
I had a pacifist character, a Healer Abjourationist Wizard, who never hit anyone over the course of the campaign, sans a giant spider. His oath as a doctor was why. It all went smoothly and he was very helpful in combat.
Merfolk (from plane shift) actually work pretty well as an ancestral legacy for a dhampir. From there, play a draconic bloodline sorcerer and BOOM, you have a RAW mermaid vampire half dragon
I had a character who was strongly opposed to killing unarmed or surrendering opponents, but was fine with combat against opponents who were actively fighting her, and that level of pacifism worked fine. But one of the core rules of character building is to make a character who wants to be an adventurer, and that necessarily entails some level of being okay with violence.
Does anyone have a count on the number of horror stories we've gotten from 'revenge' characters? I remember the whole 'Alladin the Paladin' story revolved around that happening twice in a row with the player lying about it the second time.
I remember Aladin's 3rd revenge character was actually an IRL friend joining to TPK the party as a separate player. I remember some stories had revenge characters after being a problem earlier while other stories had players straight up copied builds just to outshine someone. One revenge character I remember in particular was a Dune campaign where someone left over not being able to kill an NPC then returned with an IRL fake identity with voice changer only to still fail at her original goal.
Played in a campaign where I was a Leonin barbarian, a former gladiator who was an absolute killing machine. Another player was a Goblin monk, a pacifist who would not only try to block my barbarian from killing bad guys but even resurrect my “victims”from the dead. But it all played into the goblin’s backstory, and as the campaign progressed he eventually had reached a point where due to a personal vendetta he was finally ready to kill again. His background was that he’d been part of a band of murderous pirates and became a pacifist out of guilt for all the lives he’d taken. His character evolution was part of the plan from the very beginning.
I've got a character I really want to play but I'm a little nervous about introducing because she's a bit of a lone wolf character and more than a little edgy. Listening to this makes me realise I could have been a lot worse.
As long as your character is willing to work with their party once they’re on an adventure together and the edge level is appropriate to the tone of the campaign, you’re probably fine.
I want to make a character that is a dragon. However, is a dragon being given a test by Bahamut to become a platinum dragon themselves and transformed into a regular mortal and given a monumental task to complete to prove their worth.
I once made a half werewolf, half mermaid character who was a pirate (it was a pirate themed game), with some of the cursed-monster-hunter flare due to multiclass between beast barbarian and bloodhunter. Sounds like a random mess when I lay it like that, but in practice she came out as a very chill pirate woman with an extra raunchy humor, who was tearing enemies apart with her werewolf claws and also ended up wrestling a black dragon. It was a very short game, like a few sessions, but i had so much fun with her We also had like her niece on the crew who was just a straight up mermaid, i had to carry her around sometimes
This has me reconsidering attempting to convert an OC in Dungeons and Dragons as a Reborn or Warforged character modeled after Frankenstein's Monster whose abilities are based on becoming part werewolf, vampire, witch, fishman, zombie, and sasquatch. Granted I was already trying to just find warlock abilities to reflavor as monster parts, but it was not planned with official lore in mind. Was already having difficulty making a satisfying build of what's basically a video game character with an RPG job system that swaps classes.
The "mid-maxed" character example reminds me of a character I made in my 10th grade D&D club (in the days of 3.5). I had rolled horrible stats, and jokingly made a monk character of Empowered, a superheroine who early in her graphic novel series has consistently terrible fortune and is often captured by supervillains. I brought her to the table with probably multiple single digit ability scores, but wound up rolling natural 20s more than I have for any other PC! 😆I miss slaying monsters as Empowered.
So I tried DMing Witchlight, and a couple players had some traits that kind of irked me: a distrust in Fae... When we know full well we are heading into the Fae Wild. Now, get it, Fae are often portrayed as tricksters and trying to mess up others, but when it was during the carnival chapter, where no fae were truly involved, I didn't feel comfortable. Worst off: One of the people that were opposed with the Fae... *was a fairy themself*
I technically made a "revenge character", they were a sort of reincarnation of my first character who was killed by one of the campaign's BBEGs, but I thought I took the character in a rather interesting direction. He was sort of stand off ish and cold to most of the party, helping out when needed but mostly concerned about finding said BBEG, which united us all enough to stick together. The funny thing is what happened after I got my revenge though, there was this in character moment as we're standing over the body where I was just like "Well shit, what do I do now?" The route I decided to take was sticking with the party out of principle, they helped me complete my quest, so I would help them complete theres. with all the anger gone our characters ended up getting closer as well, to the point where we could actually call ourselves friends instead of simply allies. Its one of our favorite character arcs in my group to this day.
I have an OC D&D character, myself, a fey bard whose race is best described as "satyr-ish" since his mom is one and his profile is vaguely that of a satyr. However, when it comes to mechanics and mannerisms he's just plain Satyr, and other aspects about him are just flavour and or backstory. While tons of people have told me "there's no such thing as balance in these games", I don't want to give him stupid amounts of power even if canonically he's related to an archfey through his father for the reasons you listed here. At his core he's a performer who's travelling to expand his craft, he has a large family of odd looking cousins across the realms and he likes helping people. Most of this is as a result of me commissioning an artist to rework an adopt I got, the rework going much father away from the satyr baseline than I had intended, and me just... falling in love with the result.
The point about overly complexed characters in terms of the race - i am not a fan of this both as a player and as a DM. Especially when it does not make sense lore-wise and when THAT'S THE ENTIRE PERSONALITY. Like seriously - they are a unique race abomination and THAT'S IT. My most daring character in that regard is an undead human bard and even then - him being undead is not his whole freaking character! Meanwhile half-vampire half-wolf half-elf half-naga OC Crimson Snout The Second One is just a 24/7 horny hodgepodge of WTFness
I think the best way to do this is to stick to a two-way hybrid and pick one race for the snap lock and abilities and then maybe pick the other one for appearance and lore
@@lahlybird895 we actually have a girl playing as one of those - a half-dragon half-unicorn dragonborn variant. She...doesn't really have a character to be honest. She just sits silently during all RP moments except for the moment when someone adresses her directly. And no - we're not taking away her spotlight all the time. Infact - we're trying to ENCOURAGE her to roleplay more and have more badass moments for herself. But she never takes these. And we did ask her if she's not having fun - she says that she does. She just...does not want to do things other than slicing people with her dual chakrams Zena-style and that's it. We honestly have no idea what to do with her now - the rest of the party including myself are roleplayers and we're not big fans of 11 hours non-stop combat sessions. Yes. That actually happened and i was there as a player. IT. WAS. HORRIBLE.
@@BadassHater1 Hey I have been there with 11 hour or more combats. But that was Battletech on a table top (actually the entire dining room floor) with Battalion on Battalion, mechs only with only 3 of us to do all the rolling, moving, and record keeping. BattleForce 2 was a god send for us. But In your case I'm sorry for you. It sucks, but some players just aren't into roleplaying at all. And, well you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. So your options are really limited. If you can, and this is just a suggestion, but if there are more games you are aware of you might ask around and see if any are more combat oriented that have a player who is more role play than combat oriented stuck in that game and suggest a swap if those players are willing.
I love to do a thing I'm sure some people would absolutely hate if they'd be in the same party. I like to have a thing from my background turn into a flaw that impacts an actual skill check. Like a monk I played who grew up in a monastery where everyone was always very thruthful. He never had any reasons to mistrust someone before he started adventuring, so I asked for his insight to be -5, even though he had a pretty decent wisdom score. Or a druid who was thought to be "the chosen one" as a kid (spoiler: he wasn't.) He had a -5 on survival checks because growing up, he never had to do anything for himself and he was always surrounded by some guards/servants who basically did everything for him. Sometimes it doesn't even have to be a thing from the backstory, like the halfling bard who was a real goody two shoes and mainly a support. Ofcourse his intimidation was -5. I always make sure it actually makes sense for the character somehow, and ofcourse that the rest of the party is ok with it. It can create some great moments in my opinion (and luckily, in most cases, also the opinion of the rest of the party) It really suits the way I like to play the game, and in some cases it probably saved me some "horror" stories because I decided not to join certain groups when I got comments like "Why would you want that? Don't you want everything to be as high as possible?"
I think a pacifist type character is extremely difficult but yes, there are ways to do it. Non-lethal attacks, like you said. You could also have a character who is specifically a pacifist toward People (player character races, other good aligned monsters) but has no problem killing undead, beasts, and other monsters. To me that can make a lot of sense.
Honestly for the first one I’d let them but just say stat wise they’re a simic hybrid and most people would think they’re a mutant or a magic experiment gone wrong.
I did once play a pacifist character, who flat out refused to deal damage. However: - this was a ten-player-game, so it had less effect on the party's overall damage output - I cleared this wth the entire party before - I made very sure, he was still useful in combat, using heals, buffs, debuffs and battlefield-control
I used to game with someone would loved “one joke” characters. All the character had going for them was one joke used over and over and over…. Classic example was his Superhero The Butler. His power was that it would become dark, there would be a flash of light and a loud bang, the lights would come up, the villain would be dead and everyone would know that The Butler did it. (Good news: the GM noped that).
I play a pacifist character on Strixhaven that has all but inflicted less than 10 damage, but the few things we have fought are from other planes and will return once 'killed'. I built a completely support heavy character to compensate of a Peace Cleric instead and she has a negatice in health. But that does free up other casters of our two wizards, bard, sorc and warlock to be able to do the actual fightinf. Plus Strixhaven isn't combat heavy anyways. Context matters, support casters can always do other things and stick to defense.
funny thing. i play a lot of eternally young gothlolis whose primary contribution isn't damage but rather skills. so they tend to be really good at preventing or skipping fights. and when they are forced to fight, they usually set up other players to shine brighter. such as rolling a perception check to spot a weak point in the enemy's armor to give the players +2 to hit that enemy or rolling a knowledge check before handing out the oils of flametongue weapon because she remembered a story about a demigod of strength who slew a hydra with the help of a squire holding a torch. but i also like playing light flankers and supports.
Didn't see it in the video so I'm gonna add my 2 cents here: Characters who refuse to compromise on party choices or refuse to do any kind of self reflection when something that challenges their in game views happens in a session, it's okay in one shots and short games, would be Hella hard to fit a character arc in a few sessions, but playing the same flat guy in a year long campaign just makes me completely uninvested into their personality, especially when they look completely unphased by life changing experiences
I may be crazy, but I allow any race option in the official books unless I have a very good reason to ban it-for instance, no reborn in Tomb of Annihilation because a character starting out afflicted by the death curse would be at a serious disadvantage compared to everyone else. If someone wants to play a homebrew race, I’m going to need to look at it first, but I’ll probably allow it-again, unless I have a very good reason to ban it, such as being way too overpowered. I’m actually homebrewing racial traits for a half-gnome right now because one of my players wants to play the child of her previous character, who was a gnome and ended up married to a human.
I just recently played a reborn bard in TOA, My character and his love for syndra was the quest hook for the party and it worked out pretty good. we didnt use the rules for the curse, instead we came up with our own thing, if i failed the con save id roll a % die and that would dictate what deformity my PC got or appendage they lost. 1st it a middle toe toe first then a ring finger and pinky toe... When i rolled a 1 and his member dropped off in front of the party that started his slow downward spiral into insanity, and this was maybe a 1/3 of the way through. you had to be there but it was hilarious ever session after that the character would do more and more erratic stuff, our Dm immediately picked up what was going on and even mentioned it a few times but the party kinda ignored his cries for help until we got to the yuanti in omu and I forgot this npcs name and called him steve (its a table meme) and when the npc said his name was orvex and asked who steve was i decided on the fly that steve was gonna be a handpuppet/ seperate personality of my bard and played it off like I was talking to the puppet and not the npc and the whole party started tripping out as they figured out how broken their friend was/ how the face of the party was certified bonkers, I thought it would have been when he devoted himself to ubtao and had a phallus shaped club made of gold at about the halfway point in the campaign but hey at least it was before the tomb lmao. The real tragedy happened in the tomb. he found and freed his tortured clone from the hags by seducing the bag lady and killing her sisters. his clone was complete and more like the character at the start of the adventure than the not quite undead shell of a man he was now and his mind shattered again, and his goal became preserve the clone who he thought of as his real self at all cost. we fight the god fetus , acererak shows up and then i start monologuing/ dialogue with my hand puppets for the rest of combat. un amused several npc allies pay the price. Im not having much luck landing any spells, the front line retreated from acereraks platform naturally he finds his way to me, as a desperation move I pull a bugs bunny and give him a big ole kiss on the lips, the table erupts for a 2nd time wtf is even going on! rofl and with a hand puppet I say thats your que to gtfo. fairly enraged by my insolence i become the soul recipient of all acereraks attention. he spends the next 2 turns trying to kill the crap outta my character but i got con prof and im rolling hot boi being possessed by Igin the Almaraj helped a lot to. our rogue and cleric got in a few good shots and finally right before I was about to get the finger of death he ticked for acid damage one last time from a spell the artificer cast in the very beginning of combat that acererak never bothered to wipe off and poof he gtfod after making some ominous threats. the original plan was to be reunited with syndra but after thoroughly losing his mind and seeing the clone as the real him he basically tells the normal people in the party that the clone is the real him now and they should help him back to the port so they can go back to their old lives and be happy and grow old. Meanwhile the real bard and the rogue go completely native wandering the jungles as a duo. the rogue declaring himself the new king of feathers and my bard well he is ubtaos champion, conqueror of the maze! was hands down one of the most fun and memorable pcs ive played, and the dm and other players seemed to like him as well bc he gets brought up in a positive light a lot of our other games.
When it comes to overly complex characters, they can work in the right context. For example, if the premise of the campaign is that everybody in the party are Vampires, then the Half-Mermaid-Half-Vampire character example is fine, as it's just a bit of flavour that sets them apart. Outside of that context though, it's a little much. On the Pacifism note: I once had a character who was a vegetarian and refused to harm animals, but would happily hurt people, since he believed that animals didn't act in malice. This was rarely an issue, and whenever there was potential combat with animals, he would always try to find another way, but would not hold a grudge against the party if they decided to fight; he just wouldn't join in. I also ran a game where the party were vigilantes, and all had a general no-killing rule. This made the final confrontation with the bad guy way more tense and complex, as they had to find a way to beat him without killing him.
Only time I tried to gm MtA game, three of four players brought up concepts to lowkey troll me specifically homeopathic doctor, esoteric audiophile sound engineer and astrology based psychotherapist. All these would annoy me irl atm, but in game, they all were perfectly cool both thematically and mechanically, so it was fine. But I was impressed by approach anyway. We never managed to play due to schedule conflicts though. Also, love to play "technical pacifist" who's like okay with hurting anyone, but would try to provide medical help to anyone who's still breathing and socialise out of conflict in a first place
I love your attitude towards the "pacifist" characters, it really shouldnt be a big deal if the player is smart about it. I once played an oath of devotion paladin who followed Ilmater who had a rather more non-violent approach, but wouldnt get in the way of things: his main weapon was a quarterstaff, which he used on most living enemies, and would try to knock them out without killing them, but he also realized that undead and some other creatures couldnt really be "saved" or "reformed" the same way, so thats when he would use his greatsword. Unfortunatley while the DM was cool with it and liked the approach, two players SAID they didnt mind it, then always offed the people I knocked out anyway, for on real reason other than they thought it was funny. Ultimately I left the group over this: as I didnt want to "retaliate" in character by not healing them or something, I just felt like my character wouldve parted ways with them, and I as a player left cause I felt disrespected by the people I was playing with and wasnt having fun.
The most complex character I've ever played was a half-elf/half-orc devotion paladin. She's an escaped slave, and her oath is just to end slavery across the realm. She's chaotic, good. I looked for a homebrew race on d&d beyond. I ran it past my dm to check if it was balanced. If a player wants to play a homebrew race, they should have to go and find one they like online first, and show it to the dm, so the 2 can tinker with it so it's actually balanced.
Also I made a pacifist character once, she simply valued life to an extreme, she was a bard, and I went out of my way to non kill something and I had all my spells used for support. I had a buffed sling which was made to be able to do non lethal damage. The only damage spell I had was vicious mockery...this all changed when I got a flametounge short sword off of a big bad since no one else wanted it. I still kinda tried to be non lethal if I could, but I would also often forget to say "non-lethal damage" and just fucking obliterate any enemy I came across. She was a half-elf Aasimar
Ah, character concepts. As someone guilty of what I am about to say: Alt-Itis. That is, when you're indecisive about character concepts and make "all the characters". I have prevented myself from making a Druid in 5e again because I was attached to that prior concept I had. I liked Circle of the Moon too much and I *do* want to give the others a try. Druid Mascot moment... Been there.
I have a player in one of my games who is playing a meme character. Specifically, the "Man Who Knew Too Little" concept presented by Zee Bashew a few years ago. Another player in that game was planning to spec into a build suggested by DnD Shorts centred around the Open Sea Paladin and the Polearm Master feat. He specifically told me he was going to dismantle my campaign by level 4. (Un?)fortunately, the latter character is dead and has been replaced by a character that is much better developed and less cheesy, but still strong.
I don't even allow a lot of the PHB stuff. My worldbuilding is smol. My current project is halfling centric, with goblins (non standard, very civilized and integrated with chameleon skin) in the mix and that's it. I might add something else somewhere on the map. Evil fascist humans or elves as a villain race maybe. I like keeping the elements down. I've had issues with pacifists before. Not nearly as disruptive as being in the vicinity of a published setting though.
I've faced the "just let the min-maxer build everyone's characters" nonsense. One of the players in a... troublesome campaign I was in had a Bear Totem Barbarian with really high stats (their lowest was WIS, at 10) and the Great Weapon Master feat, letting him dish out tons of damage while taking very little in turn. As soon as Kalashtar made it out of Unearthed Arcana, he even put in a request with the DM to change his race from Variant Human to that, to cover his two main weaknesses: Wisdom saves, and Psychic damage (the one damage type Bear Totem Barbarians don't resist). His character was obviously the strongest fighter on the battlefield, downing foes much faster than my suboptimally-built Sorcerer, or any of the other PCs. It got to the point I felt like my presence on the battlefield was meaningless. And when I raised this concern with the DM, the suggestion I got back was to let the min-maxer help me build my character better. Here's the thing: I put a LOT of time and effort into my character. Specifically, her backstory. The build I had wasn't just picked arbitrarily, it worked well with the plot I had for her, a plot that tied her into the overall world plot very nicely. If it was JUST a matter of being less effective in combat, it wouldn't be as big a problem, but the DM was not rewarding any of the work I put into my backstory, and I wasn't about to throw that work away just to deal bigger damage numbers. Meanwhile the min-maxer had no backstory at all (at least, none that I was ever made aware of), and was constantly getting rewarded with semi-challenging melee combatants to tear apart. He even got a SENTIENT +1 greataxe-- the second-best weapon he could have gotten in terms of dealing raw damage-- as a JOKE. Meanwhile the only magic item the DM ever gave ME, he... didn't even bother to stat... it acted as an Arcane Focus, and that's it. Beyond that, it did literally nothing. I'm the one running the campaign now, and neither the min-maxer, nor the old DM is welcome at my table.
I will admit I got a half dragon character, but they are mechanically a dragonborn. I don't want the DM to have to homebrew something or be overpowered compared to the others.
For all players that think they're playing a pacifist: being a pacifist is NOT simply refusing to kill someone directly. By that definition, an evil cultist that heal Tiamat while she destroy a town is a pacifist if he refuse to kill. See how wrong that sounds? The only time you could play as a pacifist in DnD is if the entirety of your party are on board to always find a peaceful solution. If you really want to play as one, ask your party if they would like to try it, and to the GM if they could reward you XP when using non-violent solutions to solve encounters. That can make for fun and creative problems for your party to solve.
"all but two skills" Ah. A PF2e Rogue. (Like, seriously, my likely suboptimal Rogue I played in my last PF2e campaign had all but three skills by the end of the 4-6 campaign. Pathfinder's approach to balance is to make each class the _best_ at something, and for Rogues its skills.)
If you choose to not heal someone because your character's pacifist ways... they're not a pacifist. This choosing harm, it's antithetical to pacifism. So, healing the barbarian murderhobo who just slaughtered a kitten orphanage is what a pacifist would do... at least stop them from dying. I really have a big problem with the people do otherwise. More so because I feel they don't under how ethics work.
9:38 um. crispy. I. I would like you to please look up how to pronounce the word noir. Yes it is dumb. Yes it is because it's French. But please. For my sake. I am so sorry
I could see a mermaid half dragon getting bitten by a vampire and her offspring being the afore mentioned creature. I'd make a stipulation that if they got wet, then they'd have a mermaid tail and as for the vampirism, be like Blade. Ya know, like walking around in daylight but still need to consume blood at least twice a week 🤔
The issue with pacifict characters is that the really problematic ones take it to unreasonable extremes. I'd say that a reasonable pacifist will simply use violence as a last resort or in self defence. You can take it further by refusing to kill people but at least within those restrictions you can kinda work within a party provided they aren't murder hobos.
so my longest running character was in sorts a revenge character, but, that wasnt exactly the driving force behind her. she was a Trithereon worshiping war cleric, so there was a lot of her protecting others that were in the same situation as she had been in. looking out for the slaves as she herself had been one at the temple she had grown up in before escaping. her goal was to find the man that had tainted the church she was a part and ensure it wouldnt happen again, that what she and others went through wouldnt be the status quo. it was both revenge and redemption in a way? because she was able to find her path to a life outside of hunting down the members afterwards, a life travelling and helping.
I was going to run a pokemon D&D campaign and one player wanted to be Magicarp. I said the magic word: no, and they played Slopoke instead(magicarp would've been way too weak).
Not too horrible, but the worst I saw personally was in a game very Elden Ring inspired. Only relevant detail is that PCs would resurrect after death if they still had the will to fight. I made this known before session 0 and before character creation even started. One of the players made a character who just wanted to die. Not even to die a glorious death or anything, just wanted to die in general. Making a character in direct contrast to what little lore I had felt really dumb. Like, he literally made a character that would not be able to be resurrected because he had a death wish, and then got upset when permanent death became a very real possibility for him. Like????????? What exactly was he even trying to do?
Pathfinder is solving this ancestry (race) problem pretty well. Mechanics for everything work (you can make mechanicall all half something - half something combinations), but that's kinda obvious that mechanics in pf2e work, dnd here is an outliner where mechanics not working is a common occurance, most of the modern systems do not have those problems. Min-maxed characters are not problematic for the same reason - strength between players is more or less the same, and non-combatants are really useful in-combat, because the system is build around cooperation But pathfinder2e also gives a lot of power to Game Masters when it comes to limiting options for their settings - all of the options have rarity tags (without tag - common, then there are uncommon, rare and unique tags). Their use goes something like this: Common - usually works in any classical fantasy setting Uncommon - you should ask the GM if they allow you to pick those options, they should fit a lot of settings, but might not be a good fit for every setting or type of game (kitsunes, inventors, gunslingers, beastgunners, demolitionists, ghost eaters, fetchlings, tengu, nepthilim, ifrits, sylphs and spells like teleport are examples of uncommon things) Rare - be careful when picking up those. They are not stronger, but more weird and specific, and might give players powers to alter the story way too much sometimes (examples of rare options would be exemplars (half-god class), flashwarps, androids, automatons, sprites, skeletons, chronoskimmers, clockwork reanimators, curse mealstorms, and overall undead character archetypes) Unique is mostly used for specific items and monsters, those usually are only used by GMs - you can give them to yout players, but they can't be bought by players themselves. Also, all the items have levels that indicate at which level players should have access to those.
I love a good pacifist character. You've got to remember that you need to fit with the party though so they know what they're getting into. Saying that having your other players go and make a point of killing everyone you've spared gets old fast.
My buddy calls me a min maxer, but I genuinely don't think he understands the rules. No, dude, I'm not trying to ruin your fun, I just think you should reconsider your 8dex/18int/10wis druid. You're right that everybody should get to play how they want... But you should commit to at least making a mechanically functional, competent character, for the sake of your friends.
Is the gnome only considered ineffective because he doesn't use attack spells? Because there's a lot of insanely good spells that aren't attacks. A wizard who only buffs and uses support magic can be the most effective character in the game. Sounds like the noob doesn't understand magic, and not that the gnome is "ineffective"
If one's definition of pacifism is refusing to cause harm to anything even if that something is trying to harm them or others, then yeah, that's a terrible character to bring into DnD. If your character is more the type who won't start a fight but will definitely finish one, then that's totally cool. Spare some badies. Save some innocents. Walk softly and carry a big stick. Just don't bring a character to a game built around combat if that character will refuse to participate or even aid those who do. That's just being intentionally disruptive.
![Chlöe - Shake (Feat. Jeremih) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aDs_1ufpfv8/mqdefault.jpg)
I agree with Crispy on the Pacifist Priest who won't heal even their party members because they killed something wouldn't work as a player. No character with that mindset is going to willingly go with a party of adventurers, so won't be a good fit IMHO.
I bet they were perfectly willing to take a share of loot and gain EXP anyway...
I'd just add that 'no kill' makes more sense as a _party_ concept than a _character_ concept, and I think that would be an interesting mechanical challenge to build effective characters that way, and I think a GM could have a lot of fun pushing at that sort of party's ethics, give them some juice moral quandaries to roleplay through when playing characters like that, in a way that's fun for both players and GMs - At least for me, if I give my character a strong moral code I'm wanting that code to be challenged. Not every session, but some of the time.
(Though broadening it generally, zero offensive, 100% support, characters _can_ work, depending on how good the system's balance is. But that's not so much morally objecting to killing, as "Helping boost my party and healing their scrapes")
I tried to play a pacifist who doesn’t use any offensive spells and it was really difficult to pull off.
Also, if you assume killing is inherently evil, your priest doesn’t believe in *justifiable* killing. If pacifist has a problem, work with your DM and talk about patching up fallen foes.
They could work
The way I have successfully run a pacifist (and for that manner, a lawful good boi in a chaotic evil party) is to work with the party to come up with a blindspot for your character when it comes to the party.
Example one: Dahlia was a traumatized warlock with zero offensive spells who didn't want to see anyone hurt. So, the party sat her down and said they would always try her way first, but they would defend her if she was in danger. And Dahlia, a scared girl who never had anyone to protect her, gladly accepted. And still believes the party is just protecting her when they go in for the kill, and will not be convinced otherwise.
My paladin in bad company, Various, is just dumb. Really, really dumb and really, really loyal. So if the band of folk he had shed blood with say they will not rob and kill the family, he believes them. He also believes them if they say he needs stand watch by the gate, and also believes them if they say they found the family dead like this.
Tbh wacky gimmick characters are fine as long as the entire content of their character doesn't start and end at the gimmick. You want to play a dragon mermaid vampire witch from the future? Cool, what's their motivations? favorite color? opinion on mint chocolate? etc. etc. Just have SOMETHING to work with and for other players to work with. I will happily play and play with insane character concepts, so long as they're interesting.
In one server, I was one of the gimmick characters, a Twilight Domain cleric with a rare strain of lycanthropy that turned him into a Utahraptor. He was the Velocipastor, Man of the Claw. Funnily enough, he was also besties/frienemies with the cleric who refused to heal people.
Holy shit, he's the Velocipastor!
Fun fact about Pacifist Characters! I'm playing one as my Druid right now and the way I make up for it is by being ENTIRELY support. She won't kill somebody because she hates hurting living things. She loves animals and no beast or creature could ever be scary to her. She makes up for her lack of combat skills, however, by being there with a bunch of healing and protection spells for the rest of the party. She stays back, boosting them, giving them health or advantage or inspiration or protection, and still makes the combat work well even if she's not getting her hands dirty. She's genuinely one of my favorite characters to play!
(Also, she actually did kill for the very first time last session, when she was alone and almost kidnapped. The bandits tried to kill her pet, and she snapped after she was stabbed in the leg, killing them to defend her pet. She feel justified, but still kind of traumatized knowing she did that. Very cool character moment!)
That's cool and all, but that's not really a pacifist character imo. You are actively supporting your party to kill other beings. This sounds more like a character that doesn't want to get their hands dirty in a more direct way, which is fine as you're clearly supporting in other ways.
@thatcactus5451 This is true. I suppose I consider it as a level of pacifist. I always try to work to avoid combat but sometimes I feel like it annoys my far more murder-hobo-y group when I don't want to kill things. I'd just rather have it come out in a character moment (like defending a pet) than going into every situation with intent to kill. The Ultimate Pacifist sounds very difficult to deal with, for sure.
So only kill when you can justify it - that’s not pacifism.
At the very least you should impose a chance of failure for all spell-casting (say 3 in 10) until you atone in game to represent the trauma
@kevoreilly6557 That would fit her so well honestly augh 😭 She's already so sensitive and sweet, that would destroy her ghfjhfjrjjdjs.
I made a sort “revenge” character. She’s the mother of my original character. She’s trying to help the party retrieve him and another PC from Avernus.
That’s not what he’s taking about / he’s talking about PC vs PC because the player is a passive aggressive child
6:00 you get feats at level 4, how did they take all the feats if they were only making it to 3 per class? Even then, there's way more than 3-4 feats, how many levels did they put into this character? lol
Same way their lowest stat was an 18: cheating. And a DM who is either not paying attention or playing favorites.
I want to push back on the pacifist character a bit. I've built pure support characters, casters usually, who don't have a single offensive spell, not even a cantrip. Doesn't mean you can't be useful, doesn't mean you can't be effective as a player, but you need to think about how your character fits into the narrative and the group strategies. I've actually really enjoyed wringing the absolute most about always being a support, and I had a ton of fun in a campaign where I only ever did damage once, and that was a huge character moment where he sacrificed his pacifism to save one of his party members.
yes, a pacifist character who doesn't contribute to the group is an actual drain, but you absolutely do not have to do damage to use every turn to the fullest to support your friends.
Not to mention the fact that diplomacy is always an option and if you play a pacifist character that gives you an excuse to try diplomacy try role-playing it first before things lead to combat of course that situation will depend on the DM allowing it but it's still an attempt that can be made
My undead bard isn't exactly a pacifist.He just prefers buffing teammates and debuffing/controlling the enemy. I am NOT getting anywhere near our typical mobs that have AC no less than 20 and who can two-shot me. No no no - other lads are tanking and beating them up just fine by me, thank you.
Imo those non-damage-dealing builds still work far better in other systems, even those that are combat-focused. In systems like Lancer, 13th age or Pathfinder 2e support players are not only very important (sometimes invaluable), but also very fun to play (for example in pf2e even heal spell has 3 variations that can be used in different scenarios). It's definitely a fun way to build your character - 5e just does not support it that well.
@@BadassHater1 honestly I think birds are one of the best builds if you're trying to go for a pacifist.
@@KajtekBeary I think that depends on the DM.
Yes D&D may have more rules relating to combat than it does roleplay but that's simply because combat is a system that needs to be regulated whereas roleplay kind of can't be. But it's still a role playing game and not a combat simulator.
There are plenty of support options plenty of utility options and plenty of opportunities to roleplay if the DM allows it.
Combat is one pillar of the game it has never been the only pillar and it's entirely possible to play without combat or with little combat especially if combat is dependent upon your role play to get in and out of complex situations.
If a character who isn't going to combat is completely useless outside of combat as well then that's either the player's fault or the DMS it's not the character builds fault simply how it is being handled. Either the player is trying something new and hasn't quite figured out what they're doing yet or the DM is simply decided that they are more combat focused than roleplay focused. Both of which are over the table issues and don't actually have anything to do with the mechanics of the game at all
If you can make your exotic race work within the rules, you can have it.
You want a half orc, except instead of half human, he is half... ling? You use the normal stat block, but most people think you are a tall for a goblin.
A buff elf? Firbolg.
Anime catgirl? Tabaxi.
I just made an urgal,
I used the satyr step block but mostly chose appearance from a lot of FPL probably find more from a tiefling.
The general idea if that lower wives he's half and half but mechanics wise he's just a really big satyr 😮
One girl on our server used gnoll as a basis for her cute wolfgirl rogue. She did not last long.
That works for me.
@@BadassHater1 that's not ominous at all
I have a concept for a selkie character thats a reskinned simic hybrid
A minitoaur a kobold a merman and an ogre walk intro a human tavern. The world explodes.
That must have been the most intense one night stand in the world
It seems like a lot of this is coming down to the players in game behavior being bad and not anything to actually do with the character build at all
Bad players create bad characters. Often, the first sign that you have a bad player is that they bring you a bad character.
@@PeacefulPorcupine but a lot of the characters in this particular video were not bad in and of themselves they were only bad because of the players.
Like Krispy fed a pacifist cleric is not an inherently bad build it's only bad because the player decided to be stubborn and take things too far.
A hybrid character isn't bad on principle the player is the one making it a big deal and trying to steal spotlight.
I'll give him a pass with revenge characters because yes they pretty much are bad depending on how they're intended I know cuz I've made a couple never intended to play them and only made them for myself to quietly laugh about and not actually force my DM to deal with, and they were more mechanics driven revenge rather than story-driven anyway although a character driven by the revenge in story can actually be a good role play character as well it doesn't have to be bad on that level. So that one comes down to the reasons being made and a mechanic involved it tends to be bad though so I agree with this one but it can be well done.
yes you're probably going to find the seeds of problem players within their characters however that doesn't necessarily mean a character that looks bad on paper or in theme is going to be bad.
But some of the characters in this video weren't even crazy concepts they were just regular characters being played in a negative way like the druid shapeshifting into a wolf that's just a regular druid he was just using that ability to annoy the other players which is annoying and bad player but has nothing to do with the actual character so why is it on the bad characters thread.
I agree that if someone is playing a character badly then it is a problem. And I know they're a bad characters and bad concepts out there I just don't think any of them were touched upon in this particular video.
Like most of these were spotlight hogs and that is always a player problem and never a character problem.
And what I mean by that is that only one of these characters seems specifically built to take the spotlight and that simply a Kombat character whereas the other spotlight hogs were all roleplayed badly. and I think that badly executed roleplay and badly designed character backstory or personality that can lead to it are while both being problems they are separate problems. They can overlap in the sense that a badly executed character can often lead to bad roleplay however they aren't the same as a regular character can still be a bad role play and a good role player can still end up deciding a bad character.
I think crispy is right and a good measure to tell if how much of the character is actually filled with in the system and how much is crazy Homebrew stuff. Boston time if a character is going to be problematic and make their character problematic as well they will not be able to fit that into what is established because that is more fair and balanced than they are ready for so The Homebrew will be crazy. That is not always the case if there's plenty of good Homebrew but I think that's more likely to be an issue than just the character itself. The biggest signs of course being Homebrew races and subclasses I think Homebrew backgrounds tend to be pretty fair though a lot of them are bad in the sense of not being made well. Racism backgrounds are less worrisome than classes if you have a Homebrew to class or subclass I think that's definitely a sign of a problem cuz I don't think there's any way to make that well done when there's so many classes already in the game, and some classes in and of themselves are just very complicated to make and therefore unlikely to be made very well in Homebrew.
But even with that in mind you still cannot tell if a character is going to be poorly role played just on the character sheet. Even the most ridiculous builds only break the game if the player makes them.
If we're going to talk about bad characters we should talk about poorly designed backstories or poorly made characters that don't work very well with the game itself not an okay character or even a good character that simply being roleplayed badly.
Crispy partly covered this in the commentary on some of them pointing out how that works in some games and some players the same bill that is here listed as a problem build but didn't really get to the heart of the issue that most of these characters aren't actually bad, simply miss handled.
I'm willing to guess those character archetypes are assumed to have "it's what my character would do" built in or the intention is more blatant. While most of these character builds can be done well, those times are likely exceptions rather than the rule.
@@ArcCaravan that could be true but not necessarily just because we often hear about the times that goes wrong doesn't necessarily mean those are the more common ones just the ones people talk about
Like how the common stereotype for a rogue player is going to be an edgelord but that one may be less common than it appears
But either way if it's a character that could be played good or bad then the character build itself is not bad
The worst character is a lvl 1 druid with
Str: 12
Dex 13
Con: 9
Int: 7
Wis: 13
Cha: 10
And it's my character lol. Rolling down the stat line with 3d6 and no rerolls is brutal.
I'd expect wisdom 8 would be needed for worst druid.
those are fine for a campaign were your all playing peasants , otherwise I would have that character make themselves a noble sacrifice for the party asap and roll up a new pc.
Looks like standard average old school character
@@kevoreilly6557 Well I'm not playing an old school game soooo... lol
Looks balanced to me.
I made my character mute because I made a “oath of silence” paladin (home brewed paladin subclass). I also made my character able to speak through their Raven familiar.
The character only worked because the character could still communicate with the party. I also made the character a warlock with the old one (meaning i could also speak telepathically)
It made the character more fun because the paladin was a somewhat edgy character was balanced out with having a ridiculous voice. The voice could be played for comedic effect or for coolness with the raven voice (which was my go to) or for coolness (telepathically).
I had a pacifist character, a Healer Abjourationist Wizard, who never hit anyone over the course of the campaign, sans a giant spider. His oath as a doctor was why. It all went smoothly and he was very helpful in combat.
My advice when building a character is design the ultimate side character. If everyone in the party does that, then everyone will feel like a hero.
This is what I like doing
Merfolk (from plane shift) actually work pretty well as an ancestral legacy for a dhampir. From there, play a draconic bloodline sorcerer and BOOM, you have a RAW mermaid vampire half dragon
I had a character who was strongly opposed to killing unarmed or surrendering opponents, but was fine with combat against opponents who were actively fighting her, and that level of pacifism worked fine. But one of the core rules of character building is to make a character who wants to be an adventurer, and that necessarily entails some level of being okay with violence.
"half mermaid half vampire half dragon"
so... a triton draconic bloodline sorcerer using the dhampir lineage?
Does anyone have a count on the number of horror stories we've gotten from 'revenge' characters? I remember the whole 'Alladin the Paladin' story revolved around that happening twice in a row with the player lying about it the second time.
I remember Aladin's 3rd revenge character was actually an IRL friend joining to TPK the party as a separate player. I remember some stories had revenge characters after being a problem earlier while other stories had players straight up copied builds just to outshine someone. One revenge character I remember in particular was a Dune campaign where someone left over not being able to kill an NPC then returned with an IRL fake identity with voice changer only to still fail at her original goal.
Played in a campaign where I was a Leonin barbarian, a former gladiator who was an absolute killing machine. Another player was a Goblin monk, a pacifist who would not only try to block my barbarian from killing bad guys but even resurrect my “victims”from the dead. But it all played into the goblin’s backstory, and as the campaign progressed he eventually had reached a point where due to a personal vendetta he was finally ready to kill again. His background was that he’d been part of a band of murderous pirates and became a pacifist out of guilt for all the lives he’d taken. His character evolution was part of the plan from the very beginning.
I've got a character I really want to play but I'm a little nervous about introducing because she's a bit of a lone wolf character and more than a little edgy.
Listening to this makes me realise I could have been a lot worse.
As long as your character is willing to work with their party once they’re on an adventure together and the edge level is appropriate to the tone of the campaign, you’re probably fine.
Wait, did you just pronounce “noir” with a hard I?
I want to make a character that is a dragon. However, is a dragon being given a test by Bahamut to become a platinum dragon themselves and transformed into a regular mortal and given a monumental task to complete to prove their worth.
I once made a half werewolf, half mermaid character who was a pirate (it was a pirate themed game), with some of the cursed-monster-hunter flare due to multiclass between beast barbarian and bloodhunter. Sounds like a random mess when I lay it like that, but in practice she came out as a very chill pirate woman with an extra raunchy humor, who was tearing enemies apart with her werewolf claws and also ended up wrestling a black dragon. It was a very short game, like a few sessions, but i had so much fun with her
We also had like her niece on the crew who was just a straight up mermaid, i had to carry her around sometimes
This has me reconsidering attempting to convert an OC in Dungeons and Dragons as a Reborn or Warforged character modeled after Frankenstein's Monster whose abilities are based on becoming part werewolf, vampire, witch, fishman, zombie, and sasquatch. Granted I was already trying to just find warlock abilities to reflavor as monster parts, but it was not planned with official lore in mind. Was already having difficulty making a satisfying build of what's basically a video game character with an RPG job system that swaps classes.
The "mid-maxed" character example reminds me of a character I made in my 10th grade D&D club (in the days of 3.5). I had rolled horrible stats, and jokingly made a monk character of Empowered, a superheroine who early in her graphic novel series has consistently terrible fortune and is often captured by supervillains. I brought her to the table with probably multiple single digit ability scores, but wound up rolling natural 20s more than I have for any other PC! 😆I miss slaying monsters as Empowered.
So I tried DMing Witchlight, and a couple players had some traits that kind of irked me: a distrust in Fae... When we know full well we are heading into the Fae Wild. Now, get it, Fae are often portrayed as tricksters and trying to mess up others, but when it was during the carnival chapter, where no fae were truly involved, I didn't feel comfortable.
Worst off: One of the people that were opposed with the Fae... *was a fairy themself*
Man I love these input videos. Very reminiscent of some of your older stuff and as always some great insight. Love the chill vibe of it
I technically made a "revenge character", they were a sort of reincarnation of my first character who was killed by one of the campaign's BBEGs, but I thought I took the character in a rather interesting direction. He was sort of stand off ish and cold to most of the party, helping out when needed but mostly concerned about finding said BBEG, which united us all enough to stick together. The funny thing is what happened after I got my revenge though, there was this in character moment as we're standing over the body where I was just like "Well shit, what do I do now?" The route I decided to take was sticking with the party out of principle, they helped me complete my quest, so I would help them complete theres. with all the anger gone our characters ended up getting closer as well, to the point where we could actually call ourselves friends instead of simply allies. Its one of our favorite character arcs in my group to this day.
I have an OC D&D character, myself, a fey bard whose race is best described as "satyr-ish" since his mom is one and his profile is vaguely that of a satyr. However, when it comes to mechanics and mannerisms he's just plain Satyr, and other aspects about him are just flavour and or backstory. While tons of people have told me "there's no such thing as balance in these games", I don't want to give him stupid amounts of power even if canonically he's related to an archfey through his father for the reasons you listed here. At his core he's a performer who's travelling to expand his craft, he has a large family of odd looking cousins across the realms and he likes helping people.
Most of this is as a result of me commissioning an artist to rework an adopt I got, the rework going much father away from the satyr baseline than I had intended, and me just... falling in love with the result.
The point about overly complexed characters in terms of the race - i am not a fan of this both as a player and as a DM.
Especially when it does not make sense lore-wise and when THAT'S THE ENTIRE PERSONALITY. Like seriously - they are a unique race abomination and THAT'S IT.
My most daring character in that regard is an undead human bard and even then - him being undead is not his whole freaking character!
Meanwhile half-vampire half-wolf half-elf half-naga OC Crimson Snout The Second One is just a 24/7 horny hodgepodge of WTFness
I think the best way to do this is to stick to a two-way hybrid and pick one race for the snap lock and abilities and then maybe pick the other one for appearance and lore
@@lahlybird895 we actually have a girl playing as one of those - a half-dragon half-unicorn dragonborn variant. She...doesn't really have a character to be honest. She just sits silently during all RP moments except for the moment when someone adresses her directly. And no - we're not taking away her spotlight all the time. Infact - we're trying to ENCOURAGE her to roleplay more and have more badass moments for herself. But she never takes these. And we did ask her if she's not having fun - she says that she does. She just...does not want to do things other than slicing people with her dual chakrams Zena-style and that's it.
We honestly have no idea what to do with her now - the rest of the party including myself are roleplayers and we're not big fans of 11 hours non-stop combat sessions.
Yes. That actually happened and i was there as a player. IT. WAS. HORRIBLE.
@@BadassHater1 what is a clash of playing styles and has nothing to do with the build
@@BadassHater1 Hey I have been there with 11 hour or more combats. But that was Battletech on a table top (actually the entire dining room floor) with Battalion on Battalion, mechs only with only 3 of us to do all the rolling, moving, and record keeping. BattleForce 2 was a god send for us.
But In your case I'm sorry for you. It sucks, but some players just aren't into roleplaying at all. And, well you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. So your options are really limited. If you can, and this is just a suggestion, but if there are more games you are aware of you might ask around and see if any are more combat oriented that have a player who is more role play than combat oriented stuck in that game and suggest a swap if those players are willing.
I love to do a thing I'm sure some people would absolutely hate if they'd be in the same party. I like to have a thing from my background turn into a flaw that impacts an actual skill check.
Like a monk I played who grew up in a monastery where everyone was always very thruthful. He never had any reasons to mistrust someone before he started adventuring, so I asked for his insight to be -5, even though he had a pretty decent wisdom score.
Or a druid who was thought to be "the chosen one" as a kid (spoiler: he wasn't.) He had a -5 on survival checks because growing up, he never had to do anything for himself and he was always surrounded by some guards/servants who basically did everything for him.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to be a thing from the backstory, like the halfling bard who was a real goody two shoes and mainly a support. Ofcourse his intimidation was -5.
I always make sure it actually makes sense for the character somehow, and ofcourse that the rest of the party is ok with it. It can create some great moments in my opinion (and luckily, in most cases, also the opinion of the rest of the party)
It really suits the way I like to play the game, and in some cases it probably saved me some "horror" stories because I decided not to join certain groups when I got comments like "Why would you want that? Don't you want everything to be as high as possible?"
I think a pacifist type character is extremely difficult but yes, there are ways to do it. Non-lethal attacks, like you said. You could also have a character who is specifically a pacifist toward People (player character races, other good aligned monsters) but has no problem killing undead, beasts, and other monsters. To me that can make a lot of sense.
Honestly for the first one I’d let them but just say stat wise they’re a simic hybrid and most people would think they’re a mutant or a magic experiment gone wrong.
I did once play a pacifist character, who flat out refused to deal damage. However:
- this was a ten-player-game, so it had less effect on the party's overall damage output
- I cleared this wth the entire party before
- I made very sure, he was still useful in combat, using heals, buffs, debuffs and battlefield-control
Fun thing? Fabula Ultima is BUILT for "Half vampire, Half Mermaid" kinda things.
Another thing about LARPS...is that there are usually WAY more people then in a DnD game, and with less ability to kick characters.
I'm so glad I stumbled across this channel. It's been a wild ride binging these
Revenge character can be the worst. They tend to cross into hard metagaming territory. Holding knowledge of deaths they shouldn't know about.
I used to game with someone would loved “one joke” characters. All the character had going for them was one joke used over and over and over…. Classic example was his Superhero The Butler. His power was that it would become dark, there would be a flash of light and a loud bang, the lights would come up, the villain would be dead and everyone would know that The Butler did it. (Good news: the GM noped that).
9:24 pointy hat mentioned RAHHHH 🗣️🗣️🗣️
I play a pacifist character on Strixhaven that has all but inflicted less than 10 damage, but the few things we have fought are from other planes and will return once 'killed'. I built a completely support heavy character to compensate of a Peace Cleric instead and she has a negatice in health. But that does free up other casters of our two wizards, bard, sorc and warlock to be able to do the actual fightinf. Plus Strixhaven isn't combat heavy anyways. Context matters, support casters can always do other things and stick to defense.
funny thing. i play a lot of eternally young gothlolis whose primary contribution isn't damage but rather skills. so they tend to be really good at preventing or skipping fights. and when they are forced to fight, they usually set up other players to shine brighter. such as rolling a perception check to spot a weak point in the enemy's armor to give the players +2 to hit that enemy or rolling a knowledge check before handing out the oils of flametongue weapon because she remembered a story about a demigod of strength who slew a hydra with the help of a squire holding a torch. but i also like playing light flankers and supports.
Didn't see it in the video so I'm gonna add my 2 cents here: Characters who refuse to compromise on party choices or refuse to do any kind of self reflection when something that challenges their in game views happens in a session, it's okay in one shots and short games, would be Hella hard to fit a character arc in a few sessions, but playing the same flat guy in a year long campaign just makes me completely uninvested into their personality, especially when they look completely unphased by life changing experiences
"If I am the same man I was 10 years ago, then I have wasted 10 years." -Muhammed Ali. IIRC.
I may be crazy, but I allow any race option in the official books unless I have a very good reason to ban it-for instance, no reborn in Tomb of Annihilation because a character starting out afflicted by the death curse would be at a serious disadvantage compared to everyone else. If someone wants to play a homebrew race, I’m going to need to look at it first, but I’ll probably allow it-again, unless I have a very good reason to ban it, such as being way too overpowered. I’m actually homebrewing racial traits for a half-gnome right now because one of my players wants to play the child of her previous character, who was a gnome and ended up married to a human.
I just recently played a reborn bard in TOA, My character and his love for syndra was the quest hook for the party and it worked out pretty good. we didnt use the rules for the curse, instead we came up with our own thing, if i failed the con save id roll a % die and that would dictate what deformity my PC got or appendage they lost. 1st it a middle toe toe first then a ring finger and pinky toe... When i rolled a 1 and his member dropped off in front of the party that started his slow downward spiral into insanity, and this was maybe a 1/3 of the way through. you had to be there but it was hilarious ever session after that the character would do more and more erratic stuff, our Dm immediately picked up what was going on and even mentioned it a few times but the party kinda ignored his cries for help until we got to the yuanti in omu and I forgot this npcs name and called him steve (its a table meme) and when the npc said his name was orvex and asked who steve was i decided on the fly that steve was gonna be a handpuppet/ seperate personality of my bard and played it off like I was talking to the puppet and not the npc and the whole party started tripping out as they figured out how broken their friend was/ how the face of the party was certified bonkers, I thought it would have been when he devoted himself to ubtao and had a phallus shaped club made of gold at about the halfway point in the campaign but hey at least it was before the tomb lmao. The real tragedy happened in the tomb. he found and freed his tortured clone from the hags by seducing the bag lady and killing her sisters. his clone was complete and more like the character at the start of the adventure than the not quite undead shell of a man he was now and his mind shattered again, and his goal became preserve the clone who he thought of as his real self at all cost. we fight the god fetus , acererak shows up and then i start monologuing/ dialogue with my hand puppets for the rest of combat. un amused several npc allies pay the price. Im not having much luck landing any spells, the front line retreated from acereraks platform naturally he finds his way to me, as a desperation move I pull a bugs bunny and give him a big ole kiss on the lips, the table erupts for a 2nd time wtf is even going on! rofl and with a hand puppet I say thats your que to gtfo. fairly enraged by my insolence i become the soul recipient of all acereraks attention. he spends the next 2 turns trying to kill the crap outta my character but i got con prof and im rolling hot boi being possessed by Igin the Almaraj helped a lot to. our rogue and cleric got in a few good shots and finally right before I was about to get the finger of death he ticked for acid damage one last time from a spell the artificer cast in the very beginning of combat that acererak never bothered to wipe off and poof he gtfod after making some ominous threats. the original plan was to be reunited with syndra but after thoroughly losing his mind and seeing the clone as the real him he basically tells the normal people in the party that the clone is the real him now and they should help him back to the port so they can go back to their old lives and be happy and grow old. Meanwhile the real bard and the rogue go completely native wandering the jungles as a duo. the rogue declaring himself the new king of feathers and my bard well he is ubtaos champion, conqueror of the maze! was hands down one of the most fun and memorable pcs ive played, and the dm and other players seemed to like him as well bc he gets brought up in a positive light a lot of our other games.
When it comes to overly complex characters, they can work in the right context. For example, if the premise of the campaign is that everybody in the party are Vampires, then the Half-Mermaid-Half-Vampire character example is fine, as it's just a bit of flavour that sets them apart. Outside of that context though, it's a little much.
On the Pacifism note: I once had a character who was a vegetarian and refused to harm animals, but would happily hurt people, since he believed that animals didn't act in malice. This was rarely an issue, and whenever there was potential combat with animals, he would always try to find another way, but would not hold a grudge against the party if they decided to fight; he just wouldn't join in.
I also ran a game where the party were vigilantes, and all had a general no-killing rule. This made the final confrontation with the bad guy way more tense and complex, as they had to find a way to beat him without killing him.
Only time I tried to gm MtA game, three of four players brought up concepts to lowkey troll me specifically homeopathic doctor, esoteric audiophile sound engineer and astrology based psychotherapist. All these would annoy me irl atm, but in game, they all were perfectly cool both thematically and mechanically, so it was fine. But I was impressed by approach anyway.
We never managed to play due to schedule conflicts though.
Also, love to play "technical pacifist" who's like okay with hurting anyone, but would try to provide medical help to anyone who's still breathing and socialise out of conflict in a first place
I love your attitude towards the "pacifist" characters, it really shouldnt be a big deal if the player is smart about it. I once played an oath of devotion paladin who followed Ilmater who had a rather more non-violent approach, but wouldnt get in the way of things: his main weapon was a quarterstaff, which he used on most living enemies, and would try to knock them out without killing them, but he also realized that undead and some other creatures couldnt really be "saved" or "reformed" the same way, so thats when he would use his greatsword. Unfortunatley while the DM was cool with it and liked the approach, two players SAID they didnt mind it, then always offed the people I knocked out anyway, for on real reason other than they thought it was funny. Ultimately I left the group over this: as I didnt want to "retaliate" in character by not healing them or something, I just felt like my character wouldve parted ways with them, and I as a player left cause I felt disrespected by the people I was playing with and wasnt having fun.
Look up the name 'Treantmonk' for a take on the non-damaging wizard style. I'm trying one out in Pathfinder 2e. She's only died once so far :)
I've noticed that a lot of new players are the ones who want to be 20 things once and it's usually from excitement.
I'm just thrilled for there to be Pointy Hat AND Longest Johns references
The most complex character I've ever played was a half-elf/half-orc devotion paladin. She's an escaped slave, and her oath is just to end slavery across the realm. She's chaotic, good. I looked for a homebrew race on d&d beyond. I ran it past my dm to check if it was balanced. If a player wants to play a homebrew race, they should have to go and find one they like online first, and show it to the dm, so the 2 can tinker with it so it's actually balanced.
Also I made a pacifist character once, she simply valued life to an extreme, she was a bard, and I went out of my way to non kill something and I had all my spells used for support. I had a buffed sling which was made to be able to do non lethal damage. The only damage spell I had was vicious mockery...this all changed when I got a flametounge short sword off of a big bad since no one else wanted it. I still kinda tried to be non lethal if I could, but I would also often forget to say "non-lethal damage" and just fucking obliterate any enemy I came across. She was a half-elf Aasimar
Eat advice I can give to new players is “this ain’t therapy”
Ah, character concepts.
As someone guilty of what I am about to say: Alt-Itis.
That is, when you're indecisive about character concepts and make "all the characters".
I have prevented myself from making a Druid in 5e again because I was attached to that prior concept I had. I liked Circle of the Moon too much and I *do* want to give the others a try.
Druid Mascot moment... Been there.
I have a player in one of my games who is playing a meme character. Specifically, the "Man Who Knew Too Little" concept presented by Zee Bashew a few years ago. Another player in that game was planning to spec into a build suggested by DnD Shorts centred around the Open Sea Paladin and the Polearm Master feat. He specifically told me he was going to dismantle my campaign by level 4. (Un?)fortunately, the latter character is dead and has been replaced by a character that is much better developed and less cheesy, but still strong.
I don't even allow a lot of the PHB stuff. My worldbuilding is smol. My current project is halfling centric, with goblins (non standard, very civilized and integrated with chameleon skin) in the mix and that's it. I might add something else somewhere on the map. Evil fascist humans or elves as a villain race maybe. I like keeping the elements down.
I've had issues with pacifists before. Not nearly as disruptive as being in the vicinity of a published setting though.
Nothing wrong with that. When I home brew a setting I generally limit the races to the ones actually living in that setting/ area.
I've faced the "just let the min-maxer build everyone's characters" nonsense. One of the players in a... troublesome campaign I was in had a Bear Totem Barbarian with really high stats (their lowest was WIS, at 10) and the Great Weapon Master feat, letting him dish out tons of damage while taking very little in turn. As soon as Kalashtar made it out of Unearthed Arcana, he even put in a request with the DM to change his race from Variant Human to that, to cover his two main weaknesses: Wisdom saves, and Psychic damage (the one damage type Bear Totem Barbarians don't resist). His character was obviously the strongest fighter on the battlefield, downing foes much faster than my suboptimally-built Sorcerer, or any of the other PCs. It got to the point I felt like my presence on the battlefield was meaningless. And when I raised this concern with the DM, the suggestion I got back was to let the min-maxer help me build my character better.
Here's the thing: I put a LOT of time and effort into my character. Specifically, her backstory. The build I had wasn't just picked arbitrarily, it worked well with the plot I had for her, a plot that tied her into the overall world plot very nicely. If it was JUST a matter of being less effective in combat, it wouldn't be as big a problem, but the DM was not rewarding any of the work I put into my backstory, and I wasn't about to throw that work away just to deal bigger damage numbers. Meanwhile the min-maxer had no backstory at all (at least, none that I was ever made aware of), and was constantly getting rewarded with semi-challenging melee combatants to tear apart. He even got a SENTIENT +1 greataxe-- the second-best weapon he could have gotten in terms of dealing raw damage-- as a JOKE. Meanwhile the only magic item the DM ever gave ME, he... didn't even bother to stat... it acted as an Arcane Focus, and that's it. Beyond that, it did literally nothing.
I'm the one running the campaign now, and neither the min-maxer, nor the old DM is welcome at my table.
I will admit I got a half dragon character, but they are mechanically a dragonborn. I don't want the DM to have to homebrew something or be overpowered compared to the others.
Gimmick characters are completely fine in my book as long as you make them more than just their gimmicks
For all players that think they're playing a pacifist: being a pacifist is NOT simply refusing to kill someone directly. By that definition, an evil cultist that heal Tiamat while she destroy a town is a pacifist if he refuse to kill. See how wrong that sounds?
The only time you could play as a pacifist in DnD is if the entirety of your party are on board to always find a peaceful solution. If you really want to play as one, ask your party if they would like to try it, and to the GM if they could reward you XP when using non-violent solutions to solve encounters. That can make for fun and creative problems for your party to solve.
"all but two skills"
Ah. A PF2e Rogue. (Like, seriously, my likely suboptimal Rogue I played in my last PF2e campaign had all but three skills by the end of the 4-6 campaign. Pathfinder's approach to balance is to make each class the _best_ at something, and for Rogues its skills.)
If you choose to not heal someone because your character's pacifist ways... they're not a pacifist. This choosing harm, it's antithetical to pacifism. So, healing the barbarian murderhobo who just slaughtered a kitten orphanage is what a pacifist would do... at least stop them from dying.
I really have a big problem with the people do otherwise. More so because I feel they don't under how ethics work.
9:38 um. crispy. I. I would like you to please look up how to pronounce the word noir. Yes it is dumb. Yes it is because it's French. But please. For my sake. I am so sorry
Mid and max
In general I don't like having more then 3 or 4 Sentient races in my setting. so I'll usually base whats in the game on what the players pick.
Crispy, my man, noire. No-wire. 3 videos now with you pronouncing it like that XD
Pretty funny tho I gotta admit
I could see a mermaid half dragon getting bitten by a vampire and her offspring being the afore mentioned creature. I'd make a stipulation that if they got wet, then they'd have a mermaid tail and as for the vampirism, be like Blade. Ya know, like walking around in daylight but still need to consume blood at least twice a week 🤔
The issue with pacifict characters is that the really problematic ones take it to unreasonable extremes. I'd say that a reasonable pacifist will simply use violence as a last resort or in self defence. You can take it further by refusing to kill people but at least within those restrictions you can kinda work within a party provided they aren't murder hobos.
so my longest running character was in sorts a revenge character, but, that wasnt exactly the driving force behind her. she was a Trithereon worshiping war cleric, so there was a lot of her protecting others that were in the same situation as she had been in. looking out for the slaves as she herself had been one at the temple she had grown up in before escaping. her goal was to find the man that had tainted the church she was a part and ensure it wouldnt happen again, that what she and others went through wouldnt be the status quo. it was both revenge and redemption in a way? because she was able to find her path to a life outside of hunting down the members afterwards, a life travelling and helping.
I had a guy in my group who made a revenge character that was, well...pretty special. I'll have to send you that story. I have SO MANY.
I was going to run a pokemon D&D campaign and one player wanted to be Magicarp.
I said the magic word: no, and they played Slopoke instead(magicarp would've been way too weak).
Not too horrible, but the worst I saw personally was in a game very Elden Ring inspired. Only relevant detail is that PCs would resurrect after death if they still had the will to fight. I made this known before session 0 and before character creation even started. One of the players made a character who just wanted to die. Not even to die a glorious death or anything, just wanted to die in general. Making a character in direct contrast to what little lore I had felt really dumb. Like, he literally made a character that would not be able to be resurrected because he had a death wish, and then got upset when permanent death became a very real possibility for him. Like????????? What exactly was he even trying to do?
Probably a joke character where death never comes to them out of mocking irony. Which, in an Elden Ring setting, is just selfishly stupid.
What was that about 1 hp critters? Seems interesting
Pathfinder is solving this ancestry (race) problem pretty well. Mechanics for everything work (you can make mechanicall all half something - half something combinations), but that's kinda obvious that mechanics in pf2e work, dnd here is an outliner where mechanics not working is a common occurance, most of the modern systems do not have those problems. Min-maxed characters are not problematic for the same reason - strength between players is more or less the same, and non-combatants are really useful in-combat, because the system is build around cooperation
But pathfinder2e also gives a lot of power to Game Masters when it comes to limiting options for their settings - all of the options have rarity tags (without tag - common, then there are uncommon, rare and unique tags). Their use goes something like this:
Common - usually works in any classical fantasy setting
Uncommon - you should ask the GM if they allow you to pick those options, they should fit a lot of settings, but might not be a good fit for every setting or type of game (kitsunes, inventors, gunslingers, beastgunners, demolitionists, ghost eaters, fetchlings, tengu, nepthilim, ifrits, sylphs and spells like teleport are examples of uncommon things)
Rare - be careful when picking up those. They are not stronger, but more weird and specific, and might give players powers to alter the story way too much sometimes (examples of rare options would be exemplars (half-god class), flashwarps, androids, automatons, sprites, skeletons, chronoskimmers, clockwork reanimators, curse mealstorms, and overall undead character archetypes)
Unique is mostly used for specific items and monsters, those usually are only used by GMs - you can give them to yout players, but they can't be bought by players themselves.
Also, all the items have levels that indicate at which level players should have access to those.
I don't think there's a problem with the OC type character as long as the player doesn't try to be the Main Character or Mary Sue
Unfortunately standing out too much in the setting/table would make them a Mary Sue.
@@ArcCaravan oh it takes more than that to be a Mary Sue. A Mary Sue is the best at everything and everyone (according to them) loves them for it
I love a good pacifist character. You've got to remember that you need to fit with the party though so they know what they're getting into.
Saying that having your other players go and make a point of killing everyone you've spared gets old fast.
A pacifist life cleric does make sense in that they don't want to kill anyone. Not healing your party though, that's just being a douche.
Dhampire Triton dragon sorcerer. Half. Vampire half mermaid half dragon mahahaha
My buddy calls me a min maxer, but I genuinely don't think he understands the rules. No, dude, I'm not trying to ruin your fun, I just think you should reconsider your 8dex/18int/10wis druid.
You're right that everybody should get to play how they want... But you should commit to at least making a mechanically functional, competent character, for the sake of your friends.
Is the gnome only considered ineffective because he doesn't use attack spells? Because there's a lot of insanely good spells that aren't attacks. A wizard who only buffs and uses support magic can be the most effective character in the game. Sounds like the noob doesn't understand magic, and not that the gnome is "ineffective"
If one's definition of pacifism is refusing to cause harm to anything even if that something is trying to harm them or others, then yeah, that's a terrible character to bring into DnD. If your character is more the type who won't start a fight but will definitely finish one, then that's totally cool. Spare some badies. Save some innocents. Walk softly and carry a big stick. Just don't bring a character to a game built around combat if that character will refuse to participate or even aid those who do. That's just being intentionally disruptive.
1:07 You mean "Original character do not steal tm"
Rule 1 - don’t play with assholes
Rule 2 - just follow rule 1
9:45 Is that how you pronounce noir? Huh.
Mid and max.🎉
Mid and Max
Nope
first?
Mid and max