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

[FrogReaver]

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.

That's a discussion I will participate in - but not here.

 

[Zardnaar]

Such as? Concentration checks?

Any attack spell using the concentration mechanic.

Without it you probably have a 35-40% chance of failing a roll.

With it that drops down to 25%- 10% depending on level. Combined with warcaster you're not going to flunk a check very often short of something like dragon breath.

Sorcerer with warcaster great buffer but once again featless game the Sorcerer built in con save is huge.

 

[Mistwell]

#1. I said sometimes it's true they are correct when they say something isn't a problem. Why is that part getting ignored?

#2 Why do you think that everyone that says something has actually thought it through?

You followed it up with:

I could easily play in your games and find problems that you've overlooked.

Are you really not seeing how that comes across as condescending?

 

[Esker]

-5/+10 feats
It's very easy to negate the -5 part so tends to double or triple the damage.

Negate it? There are ways to mitigate it, but you never negate it. If you have advantage, it means that you're starting at a higher baseline.

Take a reckless attacking barbarian at level 2, 16 STR, using a greatsword, and figure a nat 9 or better needed to hit.

Without -5/+10, we have 0.84 * (7 + 3) = 8.4 DPR
With -5/+10, we have 0.5775 * (7 + 13) = 11.55 DPR

Reckless attack is one of the most reliable ways to mitigate the -5, and there, the -5/+10 is netting a 37.5% increase in DPR. It's good, yes! But double or triple? Where are you getting that? I guess maybe the idea is that at low levels you are also more likely to drop a creature with that damage and therefore get a bonus action attack out of it?

As for SS, the obvious candidate is a fighter with archery style.

Without -5/+10 we have 0.70 * (4.5 + 3) = 5.25
With -5/+10 we have 0.45 * (4.5 + 13) = 7.875

which is a 50% increase in damage. I'll take it, sure! But it's not double or triple (and even with the feat you're doing less damage than a melee barbarian without it; just at range). And yes, sometimes cover would have come into play, and if you're dealing with 3/4 cover the -5 is completely negated (well, more accurately, both characters are paying it) and you're getting a "free" +10. But that's not all that common a situation IME.

Compared to getting a free bonus action attack with ability mod, without having to commit to TWF style, neither -5/+10 feat is as good.

Warcaster/resilient
Concentration rolls. Concentration spells tend to be better than ones without it.

I understand what the feats are for, and I recognize that they're good feats, but why are they particularly problematic at low levels? Sorcerers have Resilient CON automatically. Does that make them OP at low levels? War Caster is better than Resilient in Tier 1, but... at low levels you have relatively few spell slots, so you're not likely to be concentrating as often as you are later on. Is it because the DC is so unlikely to be more than 10 at those levels?

Healer feat
Compare with how much healing a life cleric can do.

Yeah, it's a lot of healing, and for a very cheap resource. That wasn't one of the ones I questioned, btw, because it's clear why its effect is magnified at low levels (like HAM and Inspiring Leader). But full action healing is overrated, simply because of the action economy opportunity cost. A thief with the Healer feat can use it as a bonus action, making it better, but not until level 3. It's a good feat, but it doesn't break anything; especially since you can only use it once per character per rest.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

My issue with the Healer feat goes beyond the thief. It turns any tier 1 character into arguably a better healer than a cleric.

 

[Yaarel]

Any attack spell using the concentration mechanic.

Without it you probably have a 35-40% chance of failing a roll.

With it that drops down to 25%- 10% depending on level. Combined with warcaster you're not going to flunk a check very often short of something like dragon breath.

Sorcerer with warcaster great buffer but once again featless game the Sorcerer built in con save is huge.

Ban concentration checks. Concentration checks are a nuisance, and the need to improve concentration is a horrible feat tax.

Ban concentration checks.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

It's also a problem outside of the thief. The thief just outright breaks it.

5E is default easy mode. Things have buckets of hit points and thungs tend to hit like a train.

Compare healer to say a life cleric at level 1. Even later in the game it's duplicating high level spells per short rest.

If you have that feat or healing spirit spell from Xanathars healing is even easier.

 

[FrogReaver]

You followed it up with:



Are you really not seeing how that comes across as condescending?

I think you read into things I say that i'm not saying. Can you not simply agree that some random person playing in someone elses game could bring a fresh perspective and notice an issue that they didn't? That shouldn't be hard to understand. It shouldn't be controversial.

 

[Zardnaar]

Ban concentration checks. Concentration checks are a nuisance, and the need to improve concentration is a horrible feat tax.

Ban concentration checks.

You would need to redo the spell lists. That's more of a 6E thing.

Healing, saving throws and encounter rules are a bit of a mess in 5E imho and healer makes it even worse apart from saves.

Also death saves unlimited 1hp healing.

 

[Yaarel]

The Healer feat turns any tier 1 character into arguably a better healer than a cleric.

You make that sound like thats a bad thing.

Playing the character you actually want, and taking a feat to cover the healing requirement, is a good thing for the game.

It is wrong to force someone to play a Cleric.

The Healer feat is a palatable solution.