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

[Zardnaar]

Thinking more how about ban varient human default human gets prodigy feat regardless if feats are used or not.

 

[Yaarel]

Thinking more how about ban varient human default human gets prodigy feat regardless if feats are used or not.

I feel ‘tools’ are more Human racial flavor than skills. I prefer to see tool expertise, over skill expertise. Plus, the tool list itself has alot of flavor to choose from.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Variant Human Impact

1. Combat feats are generally strong in combination with high stat and multiple combat feats. Variant human greatly speeds up that process. A variant human fighter for example can have all his offensive elements by level 8. A variant human Paladin gets there at level 12. However, if variant human is banned then the fighter takes till level 12 and the paladin till level 16. Those are the levels that most groups won't reach in practice.

2. Other combat feats are used to increase concentration saves. Caster's tend to love these so long as they get them without impacting their stat increases. Without variant human that would generally put casters around level 12 before we would see these kinds of concentration boosting combat feats.

3. Defensive feats like Heavy Armor master aren't nearly as good if you get it near tier 2 as opposed to the start of tier 1.

4. Feats like healer and inspiring leader also are not nearly as good if you must wait till level 4 and give up a primary ASI to obtain them.

In short - I think most practical feat issues are because Variant Human exists!

The only reason for banning variant humans that I can think of is if you find that most of your players are choosing it. And even that isn't necessarily an issue if you like a human dominated world.

In the games I'm currently playing, there are no variant human characters, and only one standard human. That suggests to my that, at least for a Gygaxian human dominated world, humans are underpowered.

I'm thinking of banning standard humans and making variant humans the default in my next campaign (which I am planning on setting in Eberron). Largely on the grounds of variant humans being more interesting, and my players not making sufficient use of feats.

 

[Horwath]

Standard human should be used only.

But, a little buffed up

+1 to all abilities
+2 skills
+2 tools or weapons
common, +2 languages

 

[FrogReaver]

The only reason for banning variant humans that I can think of is if you find that most of your players are choosing it. And even that isn't necessarily an issue if you like a human dominated world.

In the games I'm currently playing, there are no variant human characters, and only one standard human. That suggests to my that, at least for a Gygaxian human dominated world, humans are underpowered.

I'm thinking of banning standard humans and making variant humans the default in my next campaign (which I am planning on setting in Eberron). Largely on the grounds of variant humans being more interesting, and my players not making sufficient use of feats.

it only takes 1 choosing it for the problem to show up

 

[Oofta]

My wife currently plays a variant human rogue swashbuckler in our campaign, and yes she has the healer feat. The group likes it and I don't have a problem with it because it lets the cleric do something with his spells other than heal.

I don't want to force someone in the party to be a life cleric, I want them to play the PC they want. It also gives my wife a chance to be a bit of a support character which she enjoys. Win win.

I have no problem taking the HP away either, combats are still just as difficult as I want them to be so comparing "who heals the most" has always been pointless to me.

 

[Oofta]

it only takes 1 choosing it for the problem to show up

I've had at least one every campaign I've been in (I'm on #5 either run or played) so far. Never been a problem for me, maybe the problem is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Esker]

maybe the problem is in the eye of the beholder.

Yeah, Xanathar's is totally OP

 

[FrogReaver]

My wife currently plays a variant human rogue swashbuckler in our campaign, and yes she has the healer feat. The group likes it and I don't have a problem with it because it lets the cleric do something with his spells other than heal.

I don't want to force someone in the party to be a life cleric, I want them to play the PC they want. It also gives my wife a chance to be a bit of a support character which she enjoys. Win win.

I have no problem taking the HP away either, combats are still just as difficult as I want them to be so comparing "who heals the most" has always been pointless to me.

Our group just doesn’t care about having a healer - even in out death at 0 campaign.

A Healer would be very beneficial at times but it’s not like the game does t play without 1.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

it only takes 1 choosing it for the problem to show up

What problem? If it was overpowered everyone would choose it. If only one person chooses it it can't be overpowered.