Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Icharbezol" data-source="post: 6848649" data-attributes="member: 89262">I would second this.The Variant Human presents an interesting quandary for me, because while most of my players are fine with the base human, I have one that says he'll never play a human unless the Variant is made available as the norm instead of an option in my campaign. He says this is because every other race in the PHB is &quot;better&quot; with all of their additional racial abilities than the core human, and that makes it not worth playing a human unless Variant is actually core and norm. I take it that many others out there feel the same about core humans?As I was originally wanting to run a fairly basic game when I announced to my Shadowrun group that we'd be playing D&amp;D after this SR campaign's conclusion, I wasn't considering a lot of the things that he's taking for granted as core elements of the game that are actually optional rules. Indeed, it seems that most of my players have not actually read the PHB in depth, and think that these are not optional rules, but core concepts of the game and the DM does not have a choice in whether they are allowed in a campaign and it is the players' decision upon building their character. And I was very leery of allowing a first level character to have a feat at all, due to some of the abilities they will grant.I've gone on record as stating I will allow the variant human and feats, but multiclassing must include downtime because their characters cannot simply level up and suddenly learn an entirely new skill set without some explanation behind the new knowledge they have acquired. I don't think that 365 days to train in a new class is unreasonable considering the huge gap in knowledge that rests between someone having trained all their lives in combat maneuvers to suddenly begin learning how to become a wizard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Icharbezol, post: 6848649, member: 89262"] I would second this. The Variant Human presents an interesting quandary for me, because while most of my players are fine with the base human, I have one that says he'll never play a human unless the Variant is made available as the norm instead of an option in my campaign. He says this is because every other race in the PHB is "better" with all of their additional racial abilities than the core human, and that makes it not worth playing a human unless Variant is actually core and norm. I take it that many others out there feel the same about core humans? As I was originally wanting to run a fairly basic game when I announced to my Shadowrun group that we'd be playing D&D after this SR campaign's conclusion, I wasn't considering a lot of the things that he's taking for granted as core elements of the game that are actually optional rules. Indeed, it seems that most of my players have not actually read the PHB in depth, and think that these are not optional rules, but core concepts of the game and the DM does not have a choice in whether they are allowed in a campaign and it is the players' decision upon building their character. And I was very leery of allowing a first level character to have a feat at all, due to some of the abilities they will grant. I've gone on record as stating I will allow the variant human and feats, but multiclassing must include downtime because their characters cannot simply level up and suddenly learn an entirely new skill set without some explanation behind the new knowledge they have acquired. I don't think that 365 days to train in a new class is unreasonable considering the huge gap in knowledge that rests between someone having trained all their lives in combat maneuvers to suddenly begin learning how to become a wizard. [/QUOTE]

Verification