Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Zardnaar Dec 20, 2014 11:40:22	From the look of it we will be starting a new game today and I think I will be allowing multiclassing, any race/cladss you like (FR HoTDQ adventure). Except the Monk I thinkI will leave that one out just because its a monk.    On the fence about letting in feats. I would rather not, players will likely want them though so I'll see what everyone thinks on that front.    I will not be allowing the variant human however as it has been used for the various annoying builds I have seen the players use. I'm guessing most forumites will allow the variant human but not 100% sure just getting a feel as to what people allow or not.
#2 Plaguescarred4 Dec 20, 2014 11:48:38	I allow all feats, backgrounds and races/classes, including the human variant. Its very popular in my circle.
#3 Zardnaar Dec 20, 2014 11:51:39	Plaguescarred4 wrote:
#4 rampant Dec 20, 2014 11:53:22	It's better than the OPness of the basic human. That thing is a mess.
#5 mellored Dec 20, 2014 11:55:02	default human can be good if you roll several odd stat. Variant human is quite strong at low levels, but that fades as others can snag feats, and their lead is more or less gone by level 8.
#6 Zardnaar Dec 20, 2014 12:17:49	mellored wrote:
#7 Azzy1974 Dec 20, 2014 13:39:49	I haven't made any "you can't play this" edicts in my irst DM outing with 5e—I want to see what the players gravitate to, and how it plays.
#8 Huntsman57 Dec 20, 2014 14:22:31	I don't see variant human as OP, but then, in most cases I wouldn't choose default human over it. I don't feel that means variant human is OP however, since there are many races that, depending on my class, I might pick over variant human. I just feel as though there are very few situations where default human isn't the worst race in the PHB.
#9 Rhenny Dec 20, 2014 16:10:36	We haven't found that the human variant outperforms others.   Lots of people have been making them, mostly because I think they are novel and they give lower level PCs a chance to feel out how a feat works.  It does give the player an early chance to create a character concept that is more unique.   We have not had a single player choose to make a default human though.  I think it has everything to do with what is more interesting rather than what's more powerful.   Unfortunately, in parties with lots of humans, we tend to have difficult time sneaking in the dark.   We have horrible perception rolls and we generally alert any monster nearby because we have to use light.  This becomes a nice counterbalance for the DM that makes sure that dim light and full darkness hinder the PCs appropriately.
#10 AaronOfBarbaria Dec 20, 2014 16:54:54	It will be interesting to see if, one day, Zardnaar let's up on thinking of everything as over-powered or out of whack and embraces the power scale of 5e which is obviously different than that which Zardnaar has grown used to.   Then maybe there would not be a feeling that so much needs to be banned in order for things to work out as intended.
#11 FFSAA Dec 20, 2014 17:19:32	A group that has inspiring leader and healer in it survive a lot better than one that doesn't.
#12 cowleymen Dec 20, 2014 19:13:32	variant human should be the base human in my opinoin. Regular human is just so damn boring. If first level feats bother you, let them assign another +1 or let them assign one +2 and one +1 to any attribute
#13 GladiusLegis Dec 20, 2014 21:15:27	Even in a featless game, I'd make the Variant Human the standard from which to build on. And, instead of the bonus feat, make it a floating +2 they can put on any stat, including one they already added a +1 to. Thus making them the only race that can start with a +3 from racial bonuses.
#14 GladiusLegis Dec 20, 2014 22:09:13	mellored wrote:
#15 DaveDash Dec 20, 2014 23:08:35	My group never plays humans, we like dark vision too much.
#16 Zardnaar Dec 21, 2014 5:01:07	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #16) AaronOfBarbaria	Zardnaar wrote:
#18 Sorxores Dec 21, 2014 7:53:12	human is not overpower depending for what:   let's compare:   Any charisma base class (paladin, sorcerer, warlock, bard) Half elf:           --> Human darkvision      -­­-> normal vision +1 in 2 stats   --> +1 in 2 stats +2 cha           --> +1 feat +2skill            --> +1 skill Fey Ancestry --> Nothing Trance           --> Nothing   So how does the human varian is more powerfull for a charisma base class then an half elf? specially for a paladin, the half-elf paladin using the point buy system fro AL can have 16 Str, Con and Charisma et still enought point to get a 10 in Wisdom for his wisdom saving throws while the human variant can only get two 16 and one 14, then a feat probably for his role specialisation (great weapon master, sentinel, shield mastery) but will be lacking the darkvision, advantage VS charm, immune to sleep, 4 hours trance, access to both elven and human legendary/artifact items.   Once WotC realease Prestige class, then yes having a feat at lvl 1 might make it overpower swince youcould potentially get a prestige class as soon as level when ut was intended for lvl 5 (requirement : having 1 particular feat) but as long as no prestige class are out, i don't see a problem, specially that a human barbarian taking great weapon master at level 1 might be slightyl stronger then a half orc barbarian lvl 1, but when they reach lvl 12 the half orc will become stronger
#19 Eberronknight Dec 21, 2014 9:31:40	I love the variant, I only play humans but felt the Base human was a bit powerful but if it evens out in later levels, that will be fine.   As DM, I don't allow any players to be Drow that's about it.   I may just use the Variant Human race rule and drop the Base human, will have to think about it some more.
#20 Brock_Landers Dec 21, 2014 10:18:14	rampant wrote:
#21 mellored Dec 21, 2014 10:28:05	GladiusLegis wrote:
#22 Zardnaar Dec 21, 2014 12:35:51	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #22) AaronOfBarbaria	Zardnaar wrote:
#24 Zardnaar Dec 21, 2014 13:31:09	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#25 AaronOfBarbaria Dec 21, 2014 14:04:56	It's nothing to do with adult themes.
#26 Zardnaar Dec 21, 2014 14:07:53	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #2) Miladoon	Plaguescarred4 wrote:
(Reply to #26) AaronOfBarbaria	Zardnaar wrote:
#29 SirEmilCrane Dec 21, 2014 19:59:43	I don't like the way people on the other side of the world who I will probably never meet play DnD so I will complain about it on the Internet, because every group has to play dnd the way I want them to.
#30 AaronOfBarbaria Dec 21, 2014 21:08:28	That's a very strange thing to insist every group has to play d&d the way you want them to, SirEmilCrane... or were you just mischaracterizing the discussion Zardnaar and I are having?
#31 Zardnaar Dec 21, 2014 21:34:23	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#32 SirEmilCrane Dec 21, 2014 22:13:53	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#33 AaronOfBarbaria Dec 21, 2014 22:38:30	If we DMs from around the world don't discuss our thoughts with each other, how are we to expect ourselves to learn and grow, or at the very least be prepared for the experience of a new player to our table who holds different opinions and expectations than our own?
(Reply to #19) Chaosmancer	Eberronknight wrote:
#35 SirEmilCrane Dec 21, 2014 23:29:50	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#36 Zardnaar Dec 22, 2014 0:43:14	SirEmilCrane wrote:
#37 The_White_Sorcerer Dec 22, 2014 6:03:35	If a group wants to ban certain races and classes for whatever reason, especially a flavor reason, they're free to do so, and I don't understand why some people have such a problem with it. While people might be mistaken about purely mechanical balance issues, "I don't want a dragon-like race in my game" is a perfectly valid reason to ban dragonborn, for example. While discussion can be had about such flavor issues, the people doing the banning are in the right because they're the ones playing in the game.   On topic, I allow both varieties in my game, the choice being up to the individual player.
#38 AaronOfBarbaria Dec 22, 2014 6:39:25	I'm not sure how my statements of what sounds like no fun to me - which I made because I take anything posted on this public forum as an invitation for others to express there opinions on, and because I believe that it will help other DMs be more prepared to interact with and adapt to new players they might meet which share my opinions - became construed as me saying anyone was doing something objectively wrong.   Yes, Zardnaar, or SirEmilCrane can do whatever they want to - but if they are going to post about it on this forum, they should expect comment, rather than just no one responding at all.
#39 mellored Dec 22, 2014 6:48:03	Chaosmancer wrote:
#40 ChrisCarlson Dec 22, 2014 7:34:32	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#41 Karnos Dec 22, 2014 7:57:59	I allow all races, although I warned my players that a tiefling or dragonborn would be a challenge- it's a human dominated setting and dragonborn are hated enemies and tieflings are seen as vile demons and killed on sight, so either race would require some effective disguise skills or magic.   Even allowing variant humans, I had several players willing choose to play standard humans instead.
#42 Maine Dec 22, 2014 14:55:31	Chaosmancer wrote:
#43 Illithidbix Dec 22, 2014 16:49:51	I actually kinda prefer the variant human to the default, the main reason is how bonuses come off even numbers.   The default human is fine, if a little  tame when using the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) becoming 16, 15, 14, 13, 11,9 or +3, +2, +2, +1, 0, -1  [Total +7]   BUT if you're using point buy you can effectively get an extra 2 +1 modifiers.   15, 15, 11, 11, 11, 0   becomes 16, 16, 12, 12, 12, 9 = +3, +3, +1, +1, +1, -1  [Total+ 8] 15, 13, 13, 13, 11, 8   becomes 16, 14, 14, 14, 12, 9 = +3, +2, +2, +2, +1,  -1 [Total +9] 15, 13, 13, 11, 11, 10 becomes 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 11 = +3, +2, +2, +1, +1, 0 [Total +9]   If you're rolling then it's very much down to how many even vs odd numbers you roll.   And I kinda dislike a race with such disparity in power depending on which ability score generation method you use. With the variant you get 2 x +1 and maybe another +1 if you pick the right feat, which may give +2, +1 or +1, +1, +1, which in my opinion is more in line with other races.
#44 mellored Dec 22, 2014 17:44:25	Illithidbix wrote:
#45 Shasarak Dec 22, 2014 19:22:06	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#46 JohnLynch Dec 23, 2014 5:27:20	I haven't banned a single thing thus far in 5th ed and I'm happy to say nothing has been overpowered. Wizards at sub-level 4 seem as powerful as everyone else. I've also played with Basic Humans and Variant Humans. Variant Humans have had an extra feature, but the disparity between Basic Human and other races isn't significantly different to Variant Human and other races. It is obvious between Basic and Variant human though, although as you point out basic human makes multiclassing easier. This edition thus far has proven rugged enough that I'm even allowing house ruled sentient constructs in the game (called Ironforged as the history is different to Eberron). As for banning or discouraging certain races. Half-Orcs are either pitied or not recognised (those who know what a half-orc is understand how they were born). Surface drow are either respected or not recognised (drow were instrumental in saving the dwarven race and after their civil war the surface drow turned their back on demon lords after worshipping them for centuries). Tieflings are seen as tainted and are distrusted, although are allowed to remain as second class citizens. I'm up front with how tieflings are perceived. Some players enjoy playing that type of character so it's inclusion (IMO) is good for those people. Wildfolk (mechanically shifters with the culture of Vikings/Germanic tribes) are seen as dangerous barbarians and will act as the primary antagonist for one of my campaigns so are an NPC race only for now.
#47 mellored Dec 23, 2014 6:13:22	I've banned summoning pixies.   Or rather, any summon does not come with spells.
#48 FFSAA Dec 23, 2014 6:43:34	mellored wrote:
(Reply to #48) Reius	FFSAA wrote: