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

[FrogReaver]

I think the biggest indicator for me is how many threads discuss builds and whatnot that start with taking a specific feat at 1st level to get ahead of the curve. Standard human is good on point buy but bit niche while variant human is open to synergy abuse. I tend to do it in my characters whether I'm indicative of the norm or not so I see it.

That's why I prefer a limited selection.

Yep - and all it takes is one of us in a given game for that to show through! I tend to not do that kind of stuff all the time but I do sometimes and it's noticeable when I'm playing the SS+CE fighter and everyone else is playing non-feated-good but not super optimized characters.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Why exactly is there a call to ban a variant option? Is it not optional enough? If "variant human" is a problem at the table, whether real or perceived, then don't allow it. Just because it's a problem for one table doesn't mean it's a problem for everyone else. Again, it's optional. You decide what to do for your table. Just be sure it is what your group wants and not just what you think is wrong or bad or whatever irks your personal sensibilities.

 

[FrogReaver]

There is kinda no other way to do it right. Each feat needs to be vetted for its balance and playability.



The problem with removing all feats is, it removes character customizability. This is moving against the tide, since many (most?) players want 5e to have more customizability.

Or I just ban the Variant Human race. No need to go through the lists then. Alternatively someone suggested just restricting to the human racial feats. That seems like a solid solution to me as well.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why exactly is there a call to ban a variant option? Is it not optional enough? If "variant human" is a problem at the table, whether real or perceived, then don't allow it. Just because it's a problem for one table doesn't mean it's a problem for everyone else. Again, it's optional. You decide what to do for your table. Just be sure it is what your group wants and not just what you think is wrong or bad or whatever irks your personal sensibilities.

Good point. It as optional. I just have to opt out. Thanks for clarifying that. Sounds much better and will get more support than banning it!

Also - Just because everyone else doesn't call it or see it as a problem doesn't mean it isn't, even at their tables.

 

[Zardnaar]

Threads more about the implications of banning the variant human.

 

[Yaarel]

Or I just ban the Variant Human race. No need to go through the lists then. Alternatively someone suggested just restricting to the human racial feats. That seems like a solid solution to me as well.

Isnt there only one Human feat? Prodigy?



For a down and dirty feat list, just allow half-feats, the ones that boost an ability score by +1. That way the feature itself will be minor.

 

[FrogReaver]

Threads more about the implications of banning the variant human.

Thank you for bringing us back on topic!

 

[FrogReaver]

Isnt there only one Human feat? Prodigy?



For a down and dirty feat list, just allow half-feats, the ones that boost an ability score by +1. That way the feature itself will be minor.

Half feats are also part of the problem. Heavy Armor Master, Resilient for example.

 

[Zardnaar]

Thank you for bringing us back on topic!

I've considered this before, players point blank said it's fine but they wouldn't play humans.

I have 6 players but only 2 variant humans with a ravenfolk, Minotaur, half orc and aasimar being the other 4.

 

[Zardnaar]

Half feats are also part of the problem. Heavy Armor Master, Resilient for example.

I don't regard HAM a big problem as it scales poorly.

Resilient: con is always going to be good and gets better as you level. Same with warcaster and the -5/+10 feats.

And healer just ruins things.