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

[FrogReaver]

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.

1. Never claimed it showed up in every campaign with variant human - only that it takes 1 for it to be able to show up.

2. Sometimes the beholder just doesn’t see what’s plainly before his eyes.

 

[FrogReaver]

What problem?

The one with variant humans? Do you know what thread you are in?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The one with variant humans? Do you know what thread you are in?

Some feats are better at low levels? So what? If it was that good everyone would choose it.

 

[Esker]

Some feats are better at low levels? So what? If it was that good everyone would choose it.

IME, if a campaign is going to end before level 8 or so, most people do play variant human. I think in a longer campaign it balances out fairly well: vuman gives you front-loaded benefits, but isn't necessarily more powerful later once other races have chances to pick up racial half-feats, etc. The fact that humans can't (without rolling) start with 17 in a stat to set themselves up for a half feat and a stat boost at level 4 (well, unless they took a half-feat for the same stat at level 1; but there aren't usually two in the same stat available to humans that a character wants, IME) can definitely be a factor.

The human with a feat at 1st and an ASI to get their primary stat to 18 at 4th vs the non-human with an 18 at 4th via a half-feat puts the human potentially up half a feat but down darkvision and other things. Builds that rely on a two-feat combo though tend to still be human.

 

[Oofta]

1. Never claimed it showed up in every campaign with variant human - only that it takes 1 for it to be able to show up.

2. Sometimes the beholder just doesn’t see what’s plainly before his eyes.

Or maybe you hold a minority opinion and it's annoying when you say that people who don't agree are just too stoopid to see the truth.

If a feat is problematic at 1st level it's probably problematic at 4th.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

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.

Yeah, I'm not ever going to subscribe to that kind of logic at all, but I would love to hear your reasoning behind it because it would amuse me to no end.

 

[clearstream]

Not Skilled or Weapon Master? Those are pretty innocuous and seem like they fit the curve of those other feats.

I think Prodigy covers Skilled, and is really a heck of a lot better in play. On the other hand, Weapon Master would add something, and neatly balance Tavern Brawler with an armed option that also gives the +1 stat.

Part of my intent is that human culture is somehow sketched in by the feat list. Seeing as every human born in my campaign has this feature, it defines them. For a different campaign world - or a distinctly different part of my campaign world - I might have looked at other choices.

 

[clearstream]

Probably easier to list the feats you don't allow.

Or add one of the non problematic feats to the default human.

There are 56 feats, and I am allowing humans to start with their choice of only a handful of them. So probably not But yes, you are right for a DM who wanted to focus on exclusions (at the minor cost of keeping the list up to date as new feats are published, which does not happen often).

 

[GlassJaw]

I posted about this not too long ago. This was my proposed solution:

D&D 5E - buffing human (and removing variant human)

While I'm not opposed to the variant human, I don't really like that it's the only race that gets a feat. It's a huge outlier across all the races and a big boost in power right out of the gate. I know some people restrict the feats that can be chosen but I prefer a more elegant solution...

www.enworld.org

+1 to all stats, or +2 to one stat and +1 to another
Common and 1 additional language
Proficiency in 1 skill
Proficiency in 1 artisan tool, gaming set, or musical instrument

 

[Umbran]

2. Sometimes the beholder just doesn’t see what’s plainly before his eyes.

Arguments that place the blame/burden of understanding on the other person, and couch failure to grasp your truth as a flaw in the other person are insulting and thus doomed. What you are doing here is a good way to make sure that nobody listens to you.

Do not make it personal. Do not engage the ego of your reader if you want them to accept your point.