Ban Variant-Human! Impact?

Ashrym

Hero
@Esker

I'm pretty sure we know I meant 11th level, lol. Between bards and rogues lately I think I've written those levels backwards a couple of times.

It's not a "no combat" campaign. It's a high social campaign. While the elf is a bit better at combat the human is still a bit better at skills up to that point. How much one values one over the other, plus how often each check comes into play is pretty much the difference.

I find that if I play 8 combat encounters in the day the miss that would have hit is about once. I get the impression that you value the combat benefit more than the saves and skills at those lower levels. I value the skills and saves benefits more than the combat benefits at those lower levels. Neither is a big bonus at the time.

I agree half-elf is better, although DM's who allow proficiency training in downtime still marginalize the skill benefit. I think half-elves can be better than variant humans on many builds too, even with the feat. What I disagree on is that standard humans are categorically bad for this type of play.

Perception, investigation, insight, and persuasion are fairly often where I put expertise, if you're curious.
 
Probably. It depends on the mood I'm trying to set in the game. Its not really hard, just ask "Who is holding the torch(es)?" as they roll initiative.

Now, that also might vary with edition. 1e Dwarves are a bit over-the-top, so pushing it there can seriously disadvantage the humans overall.
So then - what's the difference in having everyone be a non-darvision race and a single player not having darkvision? Little to none!
What is the likelihood that a single player in your group picks a race without darkvision? Fairly high.

If 1 doesn't have darkvision then it's no longer much of a downside to having more than 1 without it. IMO.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Then I ask why do you think that statement has been so controversial here?
Do you honestly not see it? That at a certain point your just trolling? It's one thing to ask a question, but everyone that disagrees with you just haven't experienced a PC with a variant human. When people point out that they have and it wasn't an issue then it's just that they believe 5E is perfect or that they are literally blind to the issue.

Because you've decided it's a problem, everyone who doesn't see it as an issue is just a blind idiot who can't see the obvious truth right in front of them.

Now I don't really care. It's not an issue to me, I explained why. There are plenty of problems in 5E, this just isn't one of them for me. What's controversial is you calling everyone who disagrees with you stupid.
 

Ratskinner

Adventurer
So then - what's the difference in having everyone be a non-darvision race and a single player not having darkvision? Little to none!
um...what now?

What is the likelihood that a single player in your group picks a race without darkvision? Fairly high.

If 1 doesn't have darkvision then it's no longer much of a downside to having more than 1 without it. IMO.
Right, but people needing a torch means that someone is using a hand (or burning a Light spell, or whatnot). Its not like the dwarf is going to care, so he ain't holding it and giving up a shield (or a second weapon hand). Not having darkvision puts a serious damper on a PC's effectiveness, and possibly a drain on party resources. (At least, if the DM isn't handwaving it away.)
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen... Be nice plz n_n
Right, but people needing a torch means that someone is using a hand (or burning a Light spell, or whatnot). Its not like the dwarf is going to care, so he ain't holding it and giving up a shield (or a second weapon hand). Not having darkvision puts a serious damper on a PC's effectiveness, and possibly a drain on party resources. (At least, if the DM isn't handwaving it away.)
Light is a cantrip, and you can cast it on almost anything. It may hurt when stealthing at night, but nothing that outrageous
 

Ratskinner

Adventurer
Light is a cantrip, and you can cast it on almost anything. It may hurt when stealthing at night, but nothing that outrageous
At night...or in a dungeon. Also, lack of darkvision really limits missile combat. You're out there ready to target, but if the enemy isn't within 20 feet of your light....
 

pkt77242

Explorer
Light is a cantrip, and you can cast it on almost anything. It may hurt when stealthing at night, but nothing that outrageous
Or dungeon crawling or in caves, etc. it is a huge negative if you are trying to be stealthy and it is extremely important for “stealthy” classes. How is your human rogue sneaking up on anyone in the dark?
 

Esker

Explorer
@Esker
It's not a "no combat" campaign. It's a high social campaign. While the elf is a bit better at combat the human is still a bit better at skills up to that point. How much one values one over the other, plus how often each check comes into play is pretty much the difference.
Well, more accurately, the human is a bit better at the skills in their fourth and fifth highest stat that both are proficient in. The elf/half-elf are better at the skill(s) they're proficient in that the human isn't (and also in the DEX skills that they share).

I find that if I play 8 combat encounters in the day the miss that would have hit is about once.
How many skill rolls a day do you make in that 5th stat do you think?

I get the impression that you value the combat benefit more than the saves and skills at those lower levels.
I wouldn't say that, necessarily, but I do think that I tend to cede skills that key off of my two lowest stats to other party members. I tend to opt for bards over rogues if I want to be good at CHA stuff, and make rogues that focus on DEX/WIS/INT. If I made a CHA-focused rogue I think I'd want to expertise multiple CHA skills, so might not worry about INT skills so much, except maybe Investigation. But I also like not dying, so AC is good (though letting front-liners take hits instead of me is better), especially at low levels when it's easier to get killed. I'm more than happy to trade a point of CHA or INT saves for a point of DEX saves. There are likely more DEX saves than CHA, INT and STR combined.

Perception, investigation, insight, and persuasion are fairly often where I put expertise, if you're curious.
That's fair; I'd likely either swap persuasion for stealth, or swap investigation for deception. Right now I'm playing two rogues, one an arcane trickster with expertise in stealth, perception, arcana and sleight of hand; another an inquisitive with expertise in insight, perception, investigation, and stealth. I also have a bard with expertise in deception and insight (will probably go persuasion and perception at 10th).
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I don't think it's too powerful. Very strong, yes, but not overpowered. I'll use the Paladin as an example, with a Lv. 4 under point buy allowing for 18s in STR and CHA with this version of the Human.

At that level, that Paladin mainly just gets +1 to spell save DC (good but not overpowered), while hitting like any other Paladin who bumped STR to 18 at Lv. 4.

Two levels later, that Paladin gets an extra +1 to their's and nearby allies' saves over other Paladins. But that's Lv. 6, where such a thing is less problematic.
It's more the nature of the pseudo bell curve. You can be at 17/17 for your two highest with point buy, so ready for 18/18 at 4th. Or can go 16/16 for cheap and have a lot of points around elsewhere.

The fact of how rare it is right now is what makes me want it restricted, and both as floaters is the opposite of restricted.

In any case, I don't see this being as problematic as what Healer, HAM and PM can all do at Lv. 1.
You seem to think I'm arguing for leaving variant human alone. To me, it's a variant rule that I've disallowed before. What I'm comparing against are the core races, which does not include variant human. There are no feats at 1st in the comparisons I am making.
 

Warpiglet

The pig to end all wars
As to the OP...

Does variant human break anything?

what I don't like is people griping about your experience. In your game it sounds like variant human is a problem.

In our games it simply is not.

What I like about variant human is that it helps me realize a variety of concepts.

I like Blade pact warlocks but don't always want to take hexblade.

I recently have been playing a cleric 1 warlock 6. It's celestial pact. I took toughness as my level one feat to offset my 12 con. I play him like a Gandalf that fights a lot and is an emissary for an angel from the 7 heavens.

Overpowered? No. With point buy I needed at least a 13 wisdom and charisma plus strength.

In his and so many other concept builds, variant human can take pressure off of a point buy build to do something new and suboptimal.

I use feats to move "suboptimal" variety to at least average effectiveness.

If you have people "running the table" with variant human, that attitude and not the feat is the issue.

Consider that. Most who use variant human want fun and not to break the game. Variety is good. Most restriction is a homogenizer.

Our party has 2'variant humans, a half elf, half orc and a halfling.

I kick ass surely but am not more powerful than any race of Paladin...
 

Zardnaar

Hero
As to the OP...

Does variant human break anything?

what I don't like is people griping about your experience. In your game it sounds like variant human is a problem.

In our games it simply is not.

What I like about variant human is that it helps me realize a variety of concepts.

I like Blade pact warlocks but don't always want to take hexblade.

I recently have been playing a cleric 1 warlock 6. It's celestial pact. I took toughness as my level one feat to offset my 12 con. I play him like a Gandalf that fights a lot and is an emissary for an angel from the 7 heavens.

Overpowered? No. With point buy I needed at least a 13 wisdom and charisma plus strength.

In his and so many other concept builds, variant human can take pressure off of a point buy build to do something new and suboptimal.

I use feats to move "suboptimal" variety to at least average effectiveness.

If you have people "running the table" with variant human, that attitude and not the feat is the issue.

Consider that. Most who use variant human want fun and not to break the game. Variety is good. Most restriction is a homogenizer.

Our party has 2'variant humans, a half elf, half orc and a halfling.

I kick ass surely but am not more powerful than any race of Paladin...
You picked a sub par feat with a sub par mc build.

3E worked fine at a casual level to. Then you get a level 6+ Druid rock on up with natural spell.

You're not playing the game wrong if you're having fun.

But some feats are OP and if you read some guides the same ones turn up again and again.

Some people go out if their way to abuse feats, others kind if stumble into it.

You could play 3E as well and not abuse it and it worked well enough for the time. Actually worked better that way.
 

Ashrym

Hero
@Esker I almost never take expertise in stealth. I find natural DEX and proficiency plus reliable talent walks all over most passive perception.

As for the number of attacks, 2-3 rounds at 1-2 attacks per round, 8 encounters. I like TWF on rogues, and I also like actually using cunning action and fast hands.

As for skill checks, I'm the kind of player who swings from the chandelier, slices the drapes on the way by to cover the guards, tackles the evil vizier out the window, the grapple holding his head under the moat or a horse trough so he can't cast spells. I get called make checks as often as I can think of ways that might get me called to make a check. ;)
 

Zardnaar

Hero
@Esker I almost never take expertise in stealth. I find natural DEX and proficiency plus reliable talent walks all over most passive perception.

As for the number of attacks, 2-3 rounds at 1-2 attacks per round, 8 encounters. I like TWF on rogues, and I also like actually using cunning action and fast hands.

As for skill checks, I'm the kind of player who swings from the chandelier, slices the drapes on the way by to cover the guards, tackles the evil vizier out the window, the grapple holding his head under the moat or a horse trough so he can't cast spells. I get called make checks as often as I can think of ways that might get me called to make a check. ;)
Perception and thieves tools IMHO.
 

Ashrym

Hero
Perception and thieves tools IMHO.
I don't usually bother with expertise in thieves' tools either. We just take extra time to do it out of combat and it doesn't come up in combat. Traps are riskier but healing fixes that. Traps are definitely a place where I feel it skipping that expertise at times.

What I take expertise in is based on the type of character I'm envisioning.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
I don't usually bother with expertise in thieves' tools either. We just take extra time to do it out of combat and it doesn't come up in combat. Traps are riskier but healing fixes that. Traps are definitely a place where I feel it skipping that expertise at times.

What I take expertise in is based on the type of character I'm envisioning.
I would probably leave that to the second set of expertise. Only rogues can expertise tools as a class so yeah.
 

Ashrym

Hero
I would probably leave that to the second set of expertise. Only rogues can expertise tools as a class so yeah.
Just because only rogues can do it doesn't imply rogues must or should do it. I've taken proficiency in thieves' tools from the backgrounds on fighters, rangers, bards, warlocks, and monks. So long as I have decent DEX to go with the proficiency I'm generally okay. Not as okay as the rogue with expertise, of course, but generally okay. DEX fighters, rangers, and monks are no worse off than the non-expertise rogue. Bards and warlocks were both riskier because of the CHA priority over DEX.
 

Advertisement

Top