PHB - Human only?

PHB - Human only?


Nifft said:
In that case, I didn't understand your poll.

PHB = humans only. MM = other races (c/f Savage Species).

If a player wants to play a non-human, she can consult her GM who will say if a race is appropriate and detail the appropriate modifications.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Quartz said:
PHB = humans only. MM = other races (c/f Savage Species).

If a player wants to play a non-human, she can consult her GM who will say if a race is appropriate and detail the appropriate modifications.
So the race-specific Talent thingies that WotC has been talking about will all be in the MM?

That sounds like a lot of work for the DM with very little benefit.

Well, I'm not seeing any benefit actually... what benefit do you see?

Cheers, -- N
 


jeffh said:
Automatically assuming your opponent holds an idiotic position rather than a rational one is pretty damn condescending.
Well I guess we'll just have to disagree there.
Disagreeing with one extreme view [playing a human is pointless] does not automatically mean I hold the opposite extreme view [playing a non-human is pointless].
Except the view you were disagreeing wasn't "Humans are pointless". Here, let me quote the passage you were responding to:
Humans are already the most overused and boring race. I can't even remember the last time someone other than me ran a non-human in our group. I've never run a human just because everyone else does; that and they seem so boring. A bonus feat and skills and nothing else? Why don't I just play half-orc? At least they get Darkvision.

I would die of boredom for the first 2 months until we got new races. Terrible idea.

"Humans are overused and boring." He even says "I can't even remember the last time someone other than me ran a non-human in our group" designating that everyone in his group plays Humans. The overused come from the fact that, despite the multitude of other options, the only race chosen is Human; I love playing wizards, but if everyone in my group played wizards, I'd get sick of them too, because that's all I'm surrounded by.

He acknowledged they get a free feat and skill points. That's not Pointless, given how feats are precious commodities in D&D. Merely that there's no variation with Races at his table, despite the copious options.

You dismissed his point of "Playing a human is boring" by saying there are lots of interesting people. That's... not really refuting his point. He didn't say "There exists no interesting people". His example of "not boring" is even a half-orc who at least gets dark-vision; the point being that they hold Different thematic abilities.

So how else am I supposed to take what you said?

If you think "Playing Humans is boring because they're overused" necessitates the response "There exists interesting humans", then I think it's totally logical for me to refute that with "We don't need classes and magic to play interesting people". Because the races are there to add variety just like the classes and magic is.

If anything, you turned his statement into a strawman.
 
Last edited:


Nifft said:
Well, I'm not seeing any benefit actually... what benefit do you see?
I think the benefit he's thinking of is (assuming that he is assuming that monsters as characters sections in the MM is just as long in 4.0 is just as long in 3.x) that at the start of 4.0, players have alot of options of races. Problem is is that races in 4.0 are suppose to take quite a bit more space in 4.0 then they do in 3.x. In order to do this, there would have to be alot fewer races in the 4.0 MM.

As much as I like playing a monster race, I understand why WotC is removing the races as characters section from the books. I'm not thrilled about it, but I can see their logic and how it is a solid decision.
 

I think that's a brilliant idea. It only seems 'radical' in the context of D&D.

It would eliminate a whole subset of rules, which is a good thing for something like a 'basic game'. Add something like different background feats so you can create a variety of human characters and some guidelines on how to create custom non-human races and you're good to go.

Lots of other rpg systems use this approach, so it could definitely work for D&D, as well.
 

Hejdun said:
Humans are already the most overused and boring race. I can't even remember the last time someone other than me ran a non-human in our group. I've never run a human just because everyone else does; that and they seem so boring. A bonus feat and skills and nothing else? Why don't I just play half-orc? At least they get Darkvision.
I think the reason why "Human" is the most popular race (at my table, anyway) is that they are the most versatile. Extra skill points and an extra feat will go a long way to qualifying for prestige classes...probably much further than a +2/-2 ability mod and superior eyesight anyway. You don't get "fixed" bonus feats or skill bonuses; you can pick and choose what feats and skills you want to improve.

Rather than removing the other races from the PHB, I would like to see more versatile versions of the elf, dwarf, and halfling. I don't know how to accomplish this without reducing dwarves to nothing more than short, stocky humans, however.
 

CleverNickName said:
Rather than removing the other races from the PHB, I would like to see more versatile versions of the elf, dwarf, and halfling. I don't know how to accomplish this without reducing dwarves to nothing more than short, stocky humans, however.

I don't want to see more versatile races; I want to see races with a more distinct bonus. That's one of the things I'm glad they're doing with 4E, making the races much more distinct.
 

jeffh -

I'm not quite sure why're being so aggressive in this thread. In any case, it's over the line. Don't post in this thread again unless you can stay polite from now on.

If you have any questions, e-mail me.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top