D&D 5E (2014) Ban Variant-Human! Impact?

[Gladius Legis]

Is the ability to float one of the +2 ASI worth darkvision, fey ancestry, long life, and an extra language? Probably not IMO. We ended up keeping the half-elf as is, and boosting all the other races to match it in various ways.

Depending on the class (MAD classes especially), I think it totally would be.

Being the only Paladin in point-buy who can have 18s in both STR and CHA at Lv. 4, for example? Or the only Monk at Lv. 4 with 18s in DEX and WIS? That's quite strong.

 

[Mistwell]

Every time I see a thread like this it just reaffirms how the 5E feat system is in desperate need of a redesign.

It definitely shouldn't as the OP isn't a good representation of the systems users.

 

[Yaarel]

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

Defensive stuff is less problematic than offensive stuff.

Personally, I dont care about these two: Heavy Armor Master (damage reduction) and Resilient (save proficiency).

Besides, these two help a Fighter serve the party as a better meat shield.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Yea - that's been my experience as well.

Played in a campaign where standard human was the only starting race. As we played we would sometimes do something that would cause another race we dsicovered to become a playable race. Now that those races are available, I think only 1 of us ever makes humans and he doesn't optimize nearly at all.

 

[FrogReaver]

It definitely shouldn't as the OP isn't a good representation of the systems users.

Or am I? lol

 

[Zardnaar]

Resilient con has offensive use with spellcasting.

 

[Gladius Legis]

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

It is a big problem at the levels most games run at, though.

HAM and the -5/+10 feats are the prime examples of feats I really feel should scale by proficiency (or half-proficiency), somehow ...

 

[Yaarel]

Resilient con has offensive use with spellcasting.

Such as? Concentration checks?



Heh, I am thinking about banning Concentration checks.

I like how Concentration prevents layering many spells simultaneously. I dislike the nuisance of ‘spoiling’ a spell.

Feats to improve concentration are a horrible feat tax.

I might just ban Concentration checks entirely.

 

[Mistwell]

Healer

Healer is only an issue with one subclass of a single class. And it's a relatively rare choice apparently even for them. I mean, if you're thief really wants to spend a feat just to heal downed allies with a bonus action for a little bit...I really don't think it's gonna mess with your game much. And aside from that use, it's a perfectly normal feat.

 

[FrogReaver]

Defensive stuff is less problematic than offensive stuff.

I don't think so. In many ways its more problematic. Barbarians that go con primary with rage are quite problematic as in order to challenge them you would have to basically wipe the rest of the party.

Personally, I dont care about these two: Heavy Armor Master (damage reduction) and Resilient (save proficiency).

One is arguably the best caster feat. The other typically trivializes nearly all low level combat.

Besides, these two help a Fighter serve the party as a better meat shield.

They allow him to do it too well IMO.