So you have caught on that one of the players has been allowed access to bonus resources that the rest of the party isn't privy to. How much extra are you willing to put up with, before you call foul? Can you think of any examples where you'd just shrug it off "it's not a big enough thing to change the power balance between players"
To give some examples:
-The druid has the Speech of the Woods subclass feature, even though they did not take the Circle of the Shepard subclass
- One of the character's comes from a wealthy family, who will sometimes send them extra spending money.
If you notice a disparity between the players, your best option may be to talk to the DM privately and say something like, "Hey, I noticed that a couple of the other players have some fun new perks. I've been spending some time developing my character's backstory and think [perk] would be an interesting way to explore it in game. What do you think?"
As long as the DM accommodates you as well, or at least explains their reasoning for being selective, then it shouldn't be an issue. Sometimes you just need to be proactive to get your due.
So you have caught on that one of the players has been allowed access to bonus resources that the rest of the party isn't privy to. How much extra are you willing to put up with, before you call foul? Can you think of any examples where you'd just shrug it off "it's not a big enough thing to change the power balance between players"
To give some examples:
-The druid has the Speech of the Woods subclass feature, even though they did not take the Circle of the Shepard subclass
- One of the character's comes from a wealthy family, who will sometimes send them extra spending money.
Does the druid have a homebrew subclass?
Having a wealthy family is a perfectly normal background option
Neither of those things seems "extra" on its face.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Eh, I'd probably shrug off such examples, as likely my character also has some things the others do not.
As a DM, I do try to keep things *mostly* even, but sometimes someone writes something into a backstory that just logically would give them a slight something that the other PCs wouldn't have.
For example, in my campaign, one of my players has a homebrew subclass that *he* made up, because he had a character concept that just did not fit into any of the existing subclasses. Nobody else got to make up their own subclass, but then no one else asked. I don't think it was "unfair" that he got to homebrew a subclass. I would have considered it for the other players as well, if they had asked. We used some UA Beastmaster features for another PC when I normally don't allow UA, because I thought they made the Beastmaster better, so that's not homebrew, but it is something that I thought was needed to improve the subclass. I didn't feel the need to tweak the others. So far, no one has complained, and nothing has seemed unbalanced (they are now 8th level).
Now, one thing I have done is try to protect the characters' classes. At one point my homebrew player wanted to change one of his features to do something and I said, "No, that will step on the cleric's toes." He wanted to be able to do something as a reaction that the cleric would have had to cast as a spell ahead of time, and I thought that made what he was asking for OP. He grumbled about it but accepted my ruling.
Every character is a unique creation and most of them are going to have individualized things about them that other characters, even of the same race/class/background combo, would not have (or be allowed to have). This is a delicate balancing act as a DM, but there is an alchemy to it that you can't measure in strict ones and zeroes on a spreadsheet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
At 2nd level, you gain the ability to converse with beasts and many fey.
You learn to speak, read, and write Sylvan. In addition, beasts can understand your speech, and you gain the ability to decipher their noises and motions.
Speech of Beast and Leaf
You have the ability to communicate in a limited manner with beasts and plants. They can understand the meaning of your words, though you have no special ability to understand them in return.
————-
These are fairly similar, although the firbolg racial ability is more limited. There are quite often a number of ways to get abilities that are either the same or similar enough. Maybe the other player has something else. We don’t know. The only people that definitely do know are the DM and the other player. Ask THEM.
homebrew backstory, not homebrew subclass. It's also limited to just that one thing (because i couldn't find a feat that allowed for players to be able to speak to plants/animals). The player would be using a different standard subclass for the druid. I picked this one, because i can see where it does give a bit more power to the player, but it's not something stupidly strong like the freaking Assassinate feature, and thus i believe is easier to balance around.
-The druid has the Speech of the Woods subclass feature, even though they did not take the Circle of the Shepard subclass. I wouldn't notice.
- One of the character's comes from a wealthy family, who will sometimes send them extra spending money. I wouldn't care. I might even see it as a benefit to the party.
I pretty much don't mind anything until I notice that they have something that their race or class doesn't justify. If I see a Drow who doesn't mind the sunlight, I'm going to ask about it. It's minor, but it's puzzling. If I see someone shapeshift and they're a Druid, even if they take an unusual kind of animal or beast, I'm fine, but if I see the Fighter do that, I'm going to ask about it. If they have an unusual magic item of any kind and I see it, I want one too. A lot of things I'll just shrug my shoulders and assume they got it with a feat, but if they are at any level lower than 4th and seem to have two feats, I have a problem with that. If the Fighter tosses an Eldritch Blast that's fine, but if they also are human and they can teleport, I'm upset.
I believe in fairness; anytime someone gets something, everyone should get something similar. The philosophy for the current edition of the game is always give bonuses and not give penalties to compensate, so I don't want things taken away, I don't want them to have things modified with a penalty, I just want something as nice as what they got.
Thank you for that, i didn't think to go through all the races to see if the effect existed. But yeah, that's basically what I was looking for. Now i just have to find a way to make it work with my character.... This is going to be fun/terrible. YAY!
So you have caught on that one of the players has been allowed access to bonus resources that the rest of the party isn't privy to. How much extra are you willing to put up with, before you call foul? Can you think of any examples where you'd just shrug it off "it's not a big enough thing to change the power balance between players"
To give some examples:
-The druid has the Speech of the Woods subclass feature, even though they did not take the Circle of the Shepard subclass
- One of the character's comes from a wealthy family, who will sometimes send them extra spending money.
That seems pretty minor.
Maybe the DM wanted the druid to have that feature to make some plot point work.
Some PCs are wealthy. Other PCs might have a criminal background that gives them opportunities other characters don't have.
The player asked for the ability, and the DM decided that it wasn't likely to factor to much into making them outclass the other players. If the other players notice, and ask, the DM is likely to allow something of "equal power". But they have to notice and ask first. Then they, along with the DM can figure out what makes sense for their character to find/learn/etc... that is of equal power.
The player asked for the ability, and the DM decided that it wasn't likely to factor to much into making them outclass the other players. If the other players notice, and ask, the DM is likely to allow something of "equal power". But they have to notice and ask first. Then they, along with the DM can figure out what makes sense for their character to find/learn/etc... that is of equal power.
But why? Why do they have to notice and ask first? I'd have more of a problem with that than with a player getting something special in the first place.
edit: since it looks like this is going to be the other thread all over again, I'm going to be a little bit more explicit.
I trust my DMs. I don't see what the point of playing with them would be if I didn't. I certainly hope my players trust me as well. That means the assumption is always that whatever the DM does, they do for the best of the game. Doesn't mean they/we always get it right, but that's ok - the intention matters. So if a DM does something that breaks the rules, is out of the ordinary, or favours one or more players over others, that is perfectly fine with me in principle - I assume there's a reason for it, and if there's a reason it's not a problem.
If it turns out there's no real reason for it - and "they asked for something extra, you didn't" is not a real reason - then that erodes the trust I have in my DM. If they're doing something that isn't for the good of the game, and they're secretive about it to boot, why would I still assume everything else about the game is on the up and up? And if I can't assume that, why would I still want to play?
Asking what I'd be willing to accept in terms of seemingly unfair / unequal treatment is, to me, the wrong question. I can accept any amount of unequal treatment, if it's for good reason. The favour doesn't matter, the reason for it does.
I like to define it as the bickering sibling situation. Some times it's just easy to hope that Kid B doesn't know that Kid A got something (because they asked for it). Because if Kid B learns, they will also want something as well, but their's has to be different. Now multiply that issue across 4-5 people.
How many hot dogs is an ice cream cone worth? What happens when an ice cream cone is worth 1.4 hotdogs, but Kid B doesn't F***ing want 40% of a hot dog?
I like to define it as the bickering sibling situation. Some times it's just easy to hope that Kid B doesn't know that Kid A got something (because they asked for it). Because if Kid B learns, they will also want something as well, but their's has to be different. Now multiply that issue across 4-5 people.
How many hot dogs is an ice cream cone worth? What happens when an ice cream cone is worth 1.4 hotdogs, but Kid B doesn't F***ing want 40% of a hot dog?
You're the grownup, for Pete's sake. Figure it out. Especially since if kid B finds out later, you're going to have to deal with that too and it'll be a much bigger deal than deciding the appropriate conversion rate of hot dogs vs ice cream (my suggestion; if you say they're different but equal, they're different but equal - don't overcomplicate it).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You're trying to figure out if this is going to cause interpersonal issues if the homebrew character concept is secret, but another player discovers and feels cheated because reasons?
My question is, why keep it a secret if that's going to cause problems down the line?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I like to define it as the bickering sibling situation. Some times it's just easy to hope that Kid B doesn't know that Kid A got something (because they asked for it). Because if Kid B learns, they will also want something as well, but their's has to be different. Now multiply that issue across 4-5 people.
How many hot dogs is an ice cream cone worth? What happens when an ice cream cone is worth 1.4 hotdogs, but Kid B doesn't F***ing want 40% of a hot dog?
Why are you equating character creation to kids getting treats?
Nobody should be getting something in character creation just as a treat, or a bonus. It should all make sense within the concept, and if it does there should be no problem of other people thinking they were somehow cheated out of goodies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
We are all grown ups. It shouldn't be a problem, but people are terrible and many people throw fits when they feel "cheated". Have you ever seen a grown men and/or women throw a tantrum like a toddler because things aren't going their way? Because i sure a heck have. It's terrifying and sad.
"different but equal" works with kids, it tends to not work nearly as well with people in their late 20's to early 40's. The game is already a bit screwed up, because too many people where allowed to play (game was balanced for 4-5, we currently have 8 because i'm (still) convinced that a couple of them will bail last minute. And it's easier to balance up (more enemies, etc...) then it is to balance down.
As for why it's a secret. I don't like forcing people to reveal more then they have to / want to about their character. I feel it breaks immersion if everyone has to 1000% trust and confide in their party from the very get go. And after time passes, it's less likely to matter and/or be a secret. Like most people are hard pressed to hide that their character has been looting everything that's not nailed down, or the fact that their parents are nobles who have been sending them a couple hundred gold "allowance" every in game month, or that the character will often speak to wild animals and those animals SEEM to listen and understand. You are even pretty sure a group of boars once saved your parties life by leading you to an clean source of water.
1) We are all grown ups. It shouldn't be a problem, but people are terrible and many people throw fits when they feel "cheated". Have you ever seen a grown men and/or women throw a tantrum like a toddler because things aren't going their way? Because i sure a heck have. It's terrifying and sad.
2) "different but equal" works with kids, it tends to not work nearly as well with people in their late 20's to early 40's. The game is already a bit screwed up, because too many people where allowed to play (game was balanced for 4-5, we currently have 8 because i'm (still) convinced that a couple of them will bail last minute. And it's easier to balance up (more enemies, etc...) then it is to balance down.
3) As for why it's a secret. I don't like forcing people to reveal more then they have to / want to about their character. I feel it breaks immersion if everyone has to 1000% trust and confide in their party from the very get go. And after time passes, it's less likely to matter and/or be a secret. Like most people are hard pressed to hide that their character has been looting everything that's not nailed down, or the fact that their parents are nobles who have been sending them a couple hundred gold "allowance" every in game month, or that the character will often speak to wild animals and those animals SEEM to listen and understand. You are even pretty sure a group of boars once saved your parties life by leading you to an clean source of water.
1) Then why is your suggested course of action to cheat some people out of something and just hope they won't find out?
2) Honestly, either they accept the DM's judgment or they can walk away. If that's unacceptable to them, you arguably may not want them in your campaign to begin with. That works a whole lot better if it happens up front though, rather than things coming to a blow halfway through the 37th session.
3) Getting some not-strictly-by-the-rules benefit and being open about that doesn't have to mean sharing every little detail about it. A DM can tell a player they've given some of the others a minor liberty with character creation to suit their concept and that they'll consider the same for them if they have something in mind too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You keep asking and asking the same question, and every time people tell you that you are wrong, you throw a fit. "I don't see why it's do bad" People tell you. You won't accept it.
I begin to think this is either your own personal character and that's why you won't give up; or maybe it's a very close personal friend, or a member of your family.
You want a character who was born as a dog, and somehow can transform freely into a humanoid, evidentially you want this without limitations, and you can't bear to play a Druid, because you just have to be a dog first. I might consider it, but you'd be limited to the intelligence of a wolf, since there isn't an entry for dog, and that's a 3.
1) Let's say for a moment that to "make things fair" everyone gets access to an ability they would not otherwise have access to. In this case a subclass ability (the first ability of that sub class) for the class they are play, but not the sub class they are playing. So you end up with stuff like the arcane trickster rouge who has assassination. The College of Valor bard who also has Cutting words. The fighter with both improved critical and superiority dice. etc... Some of the subclass have first abilities that are really really strong, others not so much. The only way to be "fair" is to allow everyone the ability to do this, even if only one player bothered giving a reason their character had their bonus skills.
2) I think i'm more worried about the walk away. Like it's hard to get and hold a group together in the best of times. But i'm also probably working my self up by imagining the worst possible situation. Like player accidently meta games (why can Bill's Druid, who is a Circle of the Land use this ability from a Circle of the Shepard? An ability they have been using for months without issue, but i never registered because i didn't know the druid subclasses off hand), which when combined with outside stress turns a microscopic issue into a campaign breaker.
3) This is kind of a hard point. Because how do you explain why one person has 20% more starting gold then the rest of the party without revealing they have the noble background? Or explain why this "half elf" has a unique ability to talk to and understand animals, without revealing it's because they were transmuted from an animal? Like sure if everyone is playing openly, it's probably not as much of an issue. But if a player or the whole group is playing it close to the chest.... Plus i really want to trust my DM, but i'm going to be insanely curious what "minor liberties" means for a character. Like an acid resistant (instead of fire resistant) Tiefling could be minor liberties, but then so could a small sized warforged (the actual PC) piloting a medium warforged, which is piloting a large warforged.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So you have caught on that one of the players has been allowed access to bonus resources that the rest of the party isn't privy to. How much extra are you willing to put up with, before you call foul? Can you think of any examples where you'd just shrug it off "it's not a big enough thing to change the power balance between players"
To give some examples:
-The druid has the Speech of the Woods subclass feature, even though they did not take the Circle of the Shepard subclass
- One of the character's comes from a wealthy family, who will sometimes send them extra spending money.
If you notice a disparity between the players, your best option may be to talk to the DM privately and say something like, "Hey, I noticed that a couple of the other players have some fun new perks. I've been spending some time developing my character's backstory and think [perk] would be an interesting way to explore it in game. What do you think?"
As long as the DM accommodates you as well, or at least explains their reasoning for being selective, then it shouldn't be an issue. Sometimes you just need to be proactive to get your due.
Does the druid have a homebrew subclass?
Having a wealthy family is a perfectly normal background option
Neither of those things seems "extra" on its face.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Eh, I'd probably shrug off such examples, as likely my character also has some things the others do not.
As a DM, I do try to keep things *mostly* even, but sometimes someone writes something into a backstory that just logically would give them a slight something that the other PCs wouldn't have.
For example, in my campaign, one of my players has a homebrew subclass that *he* made up, because he had a character concept that just did not fit into any of the existing subclasses. Nobody else got to make up their own subclass, but then no one else asked. I don't think it was "unfair" that he got to homebrew a subclass. I would have considered it for the other players as well, if they had asked. We used some UA Beastmaster features for another PC when I normally don't allow UA, because I thought they made the Beastmaster better, so that's not homebrew, but it is something that I thought was needed to improve the subclass. I didn't feel the need to tweak the others. So far, no one has complained, and nothing has seemed unbalanced (they are now 8th level).
Now, one thing I have done is try to protect the characters' classes. At one point my homebrew player wanted to change one of his features to do something and I said, "No, that will step on the cleric's toes." He wanted to be able to do something as a reaction that the cleric would have had to cast as a spell ahead of time, and I thought that made what he was asking for OP. He grumbled about it but accepted my ruling.
Every character is a unique creation and most of them are going to have individualized things about them that other characters, even of the same race/class/background combo, would not have (or be allowed to have). This is a delicate balancing act as a DM, but there is an alchemy to it that you can't measure in strict ones and zeroes on a spreadsheet.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Speech of the Woods
At 2nd level, you gain the ability to converse with beasts and many fey.
You learn to speak, read, and write Sylvan. In addition, beasts can understand your speech, and you gain the ability to decipher their noises and motions.
Speech of Beast and Leaf
You have the ability to communicate in a limited manner with beasts and plants. They can understand the meaning of your words, though you have no special ability to understand them in return.
————-
These are fairly similar, although the firbolg racial ability is more limited. There are quite often a number of ways to get abilities that are either the same or similar enough. Maybe the other player has something else. We don’t know. The only people that definitely do know are the DM and the other player. Ask THEM.
homebrew backstory, not homebrew subclass. It's also limited to just that one thing (because i couldn't find a feat that allowed for players to be able to speak to plants/animals). The player would be using a different standard subclass for the druid. I picked this one, because i can see where it does give a bit more power to the player, but it's not something stupidly strong like the freaking Assassinate feature, and thus i believe is easier to balance around.
-The druid has the Speech of the Woods subclass feature, even though they did not take the Circle of the Shepard subclass. I wouldn't notice.
- One of the character's comes from a wealthy family, who will sometimes send them extra spending money. I wouldn't care. I might even see it as a benefit to the party.
I pretty much don't mind anything until I notice that they have something that their race or class doesn't justify. If I see a Drow who doesn't mind the sunlight, I'm going to ask about it. It's minor, but it's puzzling. If I see someone shapeshift and they're a Druid, even if they take an unusual kind of animal or beast, I'm fine, but if I see the Fighter do that, I'm going to ask about it. If they have an unusual magic item of any kind and I see it, I want one too. A lot of things I'll just shrug my shoulders and assume they got it with a feat, but if they are at any level lower than 4th and seem to have two feats, I have a problem with that. If the Fighter tosses an Eldritch Blast that's fine, but if they also are human and they can teleport, I'm upset.
I believe in fairness; anytime someone gets something, everyone should get something similar. The philosophy for the current edition of the game is always give bonuses and not give penalties to compensate, so I don't want things taken away, I don't want them to have things modified with a penalty, I just want something as nice as what they got.
<Insert clever signature here>
Thank you for that, i didn't think to go through all the races to see if the effect existed. But yeah, that's basically what I was looking for. Now i just have to find a way to make it work with my character.... This is going to be fun/terrible. YAY!
That seems pretty minor.
Maybe the DM wanted the druid to have that feature to make some plot point work.
Some PCs are wealthy. Other PCs might have a criminal background that gives them opportunities other characters don't have.
It's a team game anyway.
Why is the DM giving one player an extra benefit the others aren't getting?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The player asked for the ability, and the DM decided that it wasn't likely to factor to much into making them outclass the other players. If the other players notice, and ask, the DM is likely to allow something of "equal power". But they have to notice and ask first. Then they, along with the DM can figure out what makes sense for their character to find/learn/etc... that is of equal power.
But why? Why do they have to notice and ask first? I'd have more of a problem with that than with a player getting something special in the first place.
edit: since it looks like this is going to be the other thread all over again, I'm going to be a little bit more explicit.
I trust my DMs. I don't see what the point of playing with them would be if I didn't. I certainly hope my players trust me as well. That means the assumption is always that whatever the DM does, they do for the best of the game. Doesn't mean they/we always get it right, but that's ok - the intention matters. So if a DM does something that breaks the rules, is out of the ordinary, or favours one or more players over others, that is perfectly fine with me in principle - I assume there's a reason for it, and if there's a reason it's not a problem.
If it turns out there's no real reason for it - and "they asked for something extra, you didn't" is not a real reason - then that erodes the trust I have in my DM. If they're doing something that isn't for the good of the game, and they're secretive about it to boot, why would I still assume everything else about the game is on the up and up? And if I can't assume that, why would I still want to play?
Asking what I'd be willing to accept in terms of seemingly unfair / unequal treatment is, to me, the wrong question. I can accept any amount of unequal treatment, if it's for good reason. The favour doesn't matter, the reason for it does.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I like to define it as the bickering sibling situation. Some times it's just easy to hope that Kid B doesn't know that Kid A got something (because they asked for it). Because if Kid B learns, they will also want something as well, but their's has to be different. Now multiply that issue across 4-5 people.
How many hot dogs is an ice cream cone worth? What happens when an ice cream cone is worth 1.4 hotdogs, but Kid B doesn't F***ing want 40% of a hot dog?
You're the grownup, for Pete's sake. Figure it out. Especially since if kid B finds out later, you're going to have to deal with that too and it'll be a much bigger deal than deciding the appropriate conversion rate of hot dogs vs ice cream (my suggestion; if you say they're different but equal, they're different but equal - don't overcomplicate it).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
My question is, why keep it a secret if that's going to cause problems down the line?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Why are you equating character creation to kids getting treats?
Nobody should be getting something in character creation just as a treat, or a bonus. It should all make sense within the concept, and if it does there should be no problem of other people thinking they were somehow cheated out of goodies.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
We are all grown ups. It shouldn't be a problem, but people are terrible and many people throw fits when they feel "cheated". Have you ever seen a grown men and/or women throw a tantrum like a toddler because things aren't going their way? Because i sure a heck have. It's terrifying and sad.
"different but equal" works with kids, it tends to not work nearly as well with people in their late 20's to early 40's. The game is already a bit screwed up, because too many people where allowed to play (game was balanced for 4-5, we currently have 8 because i'm (still) convinced that a couple of them will bail last minute. And it's easier to balance up (more enemies, etc...) then it is to balance down.
As for why it's a secret. I don't like forcing people to reveal more then they have to / want to about their character. I feel it breaks immersion if everyone has to 1000% trust and confide in their party from the very get go. And after time passes, it's less likely to matter and/or be a secret. Like most people are hard pressed to hide that their character has been looting everything that's not nailed down, or the fact that their parents are nobles who have been sending them a couple hundred gold "allowance" every in game month, or that the character will often speak to wild animals and those animals SEEM to listen and understand. You are even pretty sure a group of boars once saved your parties life by leading you to an clean source of water.
1) Then why is your suggested course of action to cheat some people out of something and just hope they won't find out?
2) Honestly, either they accept the DM's judgment or they can walk away. If that's unacceptable to them, you arguably may not want them in your campaign to begin with. That works a whole lot better if it happens up front though, rather than things coming to a blow halfway through the 37th session.
3) Getting some not-strictly-by-the-rules benefit and being open about that doesn't have to mean sharing every little detail about it. A DM can tell a player they've given some of the others a minor liberty with character creation to suit their concept and that they'll consider the same for them if they have something in mind too.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You keep asking and asking the same question, and every time people tell you that you are wrong, you throw a fit. "I don't see why it's do bad" People tell you. You won't accept it.
I begin to think this is either your own personal character and that's why you won't give up; or maybe it's a very close personal friend, or a member of your family.
You want a character who was born as a dog, and somehow can transform freely into a humanoid, evidentially you want this without limitations, and you can't bear to play a Druid, because you just have to be a dog first. I might consider it, but you'd be limited to the intelligence of a wolf, since there isn't an entry for dog, and that's a 3.
<Insert clever signature here>
1) Let's say for a moment that to "make things fair" everyone gets access to an ability they would not otherwise have access to. In this case a subclass ability (the first ability of that sub class) for the class they are play, but not the sub class they are playing. So you end up with stuff like the arcane trickster rouge who has assassination. The College of Valor bard who also has Cutting words. The fighter with both improved critical and superiority dice. etc... Some of the subclass have first abilities that are really really strong, others not so much. The only way to be "fair" is to allow everyone the ability to do this, even if only one player bothered giving a reason their character had their bonus skills.
2) I think i'm more worried about the walk away. Like it's hard to get and hold a group together in the best of times. But i'm also probably working my self up by imagining the worst possible situation. Like player accidently meta games (why can Bill's Druid, who is a Circle of the Land use this ability from a Circle of the Shepard? An ability they have been using for months without issue, but i never registered because i didn't know the druid subclasses off hand), which when combined with outside stress turns a microscopic issue into a campaign breaker.
3) This is kind of a hard point. Because how do you explain why one person has 20% more starting gold then the rest of the party without revealing they have the noble background? Or explain why this "half elf" has a unique ability to talk to and understand animals, without revealing it's because they were transmuted from an animal? Like sure if everyone is playing openly, it's probably not as much of an issue. But if a player or the whole group is playing it close to the chest.... Plus i really want to trust my DM, but i'm going to be insanely curious what "minor liberties" means for a character. Like an acid resistant (instead of fire resistant) Tiefling could be minor liberties, but then so could a small sized warforged (the actual PC) piloting a medium warforged, which is piloting a large warforged.