D&D 5E Ban Variant-Human! Impact?

[Tony Vargas]

Each edition also gets the this edition is perfect type crowds. Happened in the 3E and 4E forums.

Oddly, it's often the /same/ crowd. Yay! 3e the best D&D ever, d20 forever! Yay! 3e was such broken garbage, I'm so happy it's fixed! Yay! 5e! The dark ages are over! Whoohoo!
"Everything is Awesome...."

Was that statement true or untrue?

No.

 

[FrogReaver]

Oddly, it's often the /same/ crowd. Yay! 3e the best D&D ever, d20 forever! Yay! 3e was such broken garbage, I'm so happy it's fixed! Yay! 5e! The dark ages are over! Whoohoo!
"Everything is Awesome...."

No.

No really doesn't compute

 

[Oofta]

If you are going to reply, the least you can do is answer the single question I asked. Was that statement true or untrue?

I'm done. Have a good one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

No really doesn't compute

TBH, didn't even look at the statement. Just thought it would be fun to imply that it was neither true nor untrue...

...having gone back and read it. Sure it's true. Perception is a powerful factor. We literally can look right at something and not see it, or see it as something it's not....

...but, y'know, sometimes if the Beholder doesn't see something that was right before it's eyes, it's because something didn't make it's save vs Disintegration.

 

[FrogReaver]

TBH, didn't even look at the statement. Just thought it would be fun to imply that it was neither true nor untrue...

...having gone back and read it. Sure it's true. Perception is a powerful factor. We literally can look right at something and not see it, or see it as something it's not....

...but, y'know, sometimes if the Beholder doesn't see something that was right before it's eyes, it's because something didn't make it's save vs Disintegration.

Then I ask why do you think that statement has been so controversial here?

 

[MoonSong]

Then I ask why do you think that statement has been so controversial here?

'cause context?

 

[FrogReaver]

'cause context?

Or perception?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Then I ask why do you think that statement has been so controversial here?

I can't see a reason for it.

 

[Blue]

The Human really needed to be designed as a happy medium between the Variant (too good) and the Standard (typically sub-par).

I think giving Humans two floating +2s and two bonus skill proficiencies hits that happy medium pretty effectively. If a feat is worth a +2 to a stat then the floating +2s are the same as the +1s and the feat math-wise.

Considering that every single guidebook counts race ability score pairing to class as a very important part of picking classes, and that there's only a single race (subrace really) in everything they have come out with so far that has +2/+2, and having them floating to put them whereever you want including the god stat DEX - I can't agree. That's way too powerful.

 

[Esker]

Then I ask why do you think that statement has been so controversial here?

It really doesn't seem like you've been listening to what various people have been trying to tell you. It's not about the content or logical consistency of your statements; it's about tone. It's a consistent pattern that you can come across as arrogant / abrasive / condescending (pick your synonym).

It doesn't especially bother me personally, and I don't know whether it's intentional or not -- I typically give people the benefit of the doubt about intention, especially online where it's easy to come across differently than you intend, and where people have things going on with themselves and their lives that casual forum-acquaintances have no way of knowing about -- but after so many people have pointed it out, I think it would behoove you to spend a minute or two reflecting on that, and (assuming it was not intentional) at the very least apologizing for the miscommunication, rather than doubling down and insisting on a response to your specific narrow question by way of defensively avoiding the actual issue.

And I say this as someone who generally enjoys interacting with you here. It'd be better all around if you could figure out how to make your (usually insightful and carefully reasoned) points in a way that didn't "engage the ego of your reader" as Umbran succinctly put it in post #270.