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

[Paul Farquhar]

IME, if a campaign is going to end before level 8 or so, most people do play variant human.

Is it common to even know that? I find either something is a one shot or otherwise short, or an open ended campaign.

I think in a longer campaign it balances out fairly well: vuman gives you front-loaded benefits, but isn't necessarily more powerful later once other races have chances to pick up racial half-feats, etc.

Exactly. It doesn't matter if a feat is better at low levels or better at high levels, it will balance out in the end - and if it didn't you would see it skewing character selection. And if you want a world in which humans are the dominant species even that might not be a problem.

And variant humans aren't the only race with (potentially) a special ability that is strong at low levels but fades at high levels. Tortles and Warforged, with free full plate at level 1, and Aarakocra, with flyig at level 1, are the most conspicuous examples.

 

[Smarmot]

The impact would be that far less players would play humans at all. That for me would ruin a lot of the role playing aspect of the game since humans are the most relatable characters, for obvious reasons.

 

[Esker]

Is it common to even know that? I find either something is a one shot or otherwise short, or an open ended campaign.

I would lump low-level one-shots in with that category, but here's some personal data:

I'm in three campaigns now that started at level 1 and are going to level 5-6 (two of the three are Play-by-Post). I'm playing a variant human in all of them, and of the 15 characters in total across those campaigns, six are variant human. I'm in three others that are longer running (again, two are Play-by-Post). There is only one human in 15 characters across those three, and they are a standard human.

I periodically play in one-shots that my local gaming cafe runs once a month. They're always level 2. At least half variant humans in those, I think.

Stat-generation method doesn't seem to be a big factor: one of the shorter campaigns and one of the longer campaigns used rolled stats. In the longer one, there are 0/4 humans. In the shorter one, 3/6, all variant.

 

[Fenris-77]

Mmm, one last point - every DM is in complete control of what shows up in his game. Reigning in your local power gamer is a thing in most systems, not just 5e and is just a part of the gig. If you have a player that seems primed to abuse VH then manage it, using any one of the variety of suggestions in this thread. If banning them is what gives you feels then go ahead, but I don't think that's the best answer for every game.

 

[Ashrym]

It is wild how very different our experiences have been on this issue.

I’m the only one in the three gaming groups I’m a part of who I know has played a standard human in a game and I only did that because I had 5 odd rolls.

Every human I see at a table is a variant human. I never see standard by other players.

Standard human works better with point buy. I've had too many players roll well while others rolled poorly and were dissatisfied that I always go for something more equitable. Standard human with standard array forces working around a lot of uneven stats.

The ability score generation method makes a difference in this discussion.

Regarding the hypothetical MASH unit.

Maybe Healer EITHER brings 0 hp to 1 hp, OR heals someone at non-zero 1d6 plus. So, those that go down are removed from the fight (but survive), and those that havent gone down actually have to leave the fight if they want healing.

It's not hypothetical. That's how I would help large groups of NPC in battles. Helping one side with healer while the other typically has a spellcaster means healing is once per combatant on one side and a couple of spells on the other. It's just a lot of impact one race with one feat can have.

Mind you, we would also assassinate the other spellcaster before the battle if we could. AoE's are scary in those fights.

 

[Tony Vargas]

people who don't agree are just too stoopid to see the truth.

TBF, it's just as likely the people who do agree are.

 

[GlassJaw]

Standard human works better with point buy. I've had too many players roll well while others rolled poorly and were dissatisfied that I always go for something more equitable. Standard human with standard array forces working around a lot of uneven stats.

Standard human is terrible with point buy. With point buy you can completely avoid odd stats, thus taking away the biggest draw of +1 to all stats.

 

[Ashrym]

Standard human is terrible with point buy. With point buy you can completely avoid odd stats, thus taking away the biggest draw of +1 to all stats.

No, because the cost of the points going into higher stats causes issues. Point on variant lets you deliberately stop lower in more ability scores on an odd number to get higher stats in general. On a character looking for a lot of different ability scores that's useful. Just niche.

 

[Salthorae]

Standard human works better with point buy. I've had too many players roll well while others rolled poorly and were dissatisfied that I always go for something more equitable. Standard human with standard array forces working around a lot of uneven stats.

The ability score generation method makes a difference in this discussion.

Sure, stat generation methods matter... to a degree. I would say "stat style/preference" matters more.

I think @GlassJaw's post below supports my statement as well. I'll explain more below it.

Standard human is terrible with point buy. With point buy you can completely avoid odd stats, thus taking away the biggest draw of +1 to all stats.

Your post mentions "working around uneven stats", while GlassJaw's points to what I consider my default perspective of even stats as the preference as well. It lets a player focus on their classes primary stats with their feat or ASI choices rather than

If I do end up with an odd stat, I never work around it. I just leave it there and focus on my main stats. To me, it is aesthetically displeasing, but I end up living with it.

For a standard human with standard array of 16/15/14/13/11/9, I'm still focused on my 16 and 15 stats for improvements. The only difference is for the 15 I might be inclined to take a +1 feat instead of a +2 ASI.

Anyway, I really think the preference of style for stats matters more than generation method.

 

[GlassJaw]

No, because the cost of the points going into higher stats causes issues. Point on variant lets you deliberately stop lower in more ability scores on an odd number to get higher stats in general. On a character looking for a lot of different ability scores that's useful. Just niche.

Experiment with point-buy using different races and you'll find the difference is typically only 1 stat point. Plus other races get a ton of other abilities.