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

[Yaarel]

Give the Standard Human proficiency with two tools, and expertise with one of these two.

Humans and tools go together like ... humans and tools.

 

[Zardnaar]

Give the Standard Human proficiency with two tools, and expertise with one of these two.

Humans and tools go together like ... humans and tools.

It's not that different to human racial feat.

I allow 3pp feats thinking of replacing a few phb feats.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't have a lot of players decide to go variant human, and the overwhelming reason why not is actually the lack of darkvision. That's a 'my table' kinda thing though, and not super useful in addressing the larger issue. Personally, I think the only think about VHuman that is even remotely OP is starting one of the core combat feat trees at first, which really only means restricting access to a small number of feats and everything should be fine.

Starting with any of the following feats is too strong IMO.

Heavy Armor Master
GWM
PAM
CE
Healer
Inspiring Leader
Actor
Lucky
Mobile
War Caster
Resilient
Sentinel
Sharpshooter
Observant
Shield Master - if using the old ruling

Really - just about the only feats that should be allowable at level 1 are the ones rarely if ever taken.

On a broader scale, I think it's important to acknowledge that a lot of players aren't playing max-efficiency whiteroom builds when they play D&D. Unless that's your group, the VHuman isn't going to be an issue. This is also in a lot of cases a far more conceptual problem than an actual problem, as many campaigns don't play over the level spread necessary to build any of those combat feat trees completely, or at least not and also compliment them with maxed out core stats. Even if you do play long enough, the combat builds are still mostly going to be overshadowed by casters at high levels anyway. Given the above, the problem at hand seems a little more niche than people see to think. That's my two cents anyway.

It's not even that it happens ever game - it's that it's a problem when it does happen and there's no sense in chancing it happening.

 

[FrogReaver]

Dude when it's combined with "sometimes they just haven't analyzed their games enough to really understand" it becomes something more than you just saying "IMO".

But from your answer, it sounds like you're not aware of how you're coming across. Something to think about maybe?

#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?

 

[GlassJaw]

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

 

[FrogReaver]

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

I kinda agree - but I kind of think that variant human is the real issue and that feats themselves may be getting a bad rap due to variant humans.

 

[Zardnaar]

Starting with any of the following feats is too strong IMO.

Heavy Armor Master
GWM
PAM
CE
Healer
Inspiring Leader
Actor
Lucky
Mobile
War Caster
Resilient
Sentinel
Sharpshooter
Observant
Shield Master - if using the old ruling

Really - just about the only feats that should be allowable at level 1 are the ones rarely if ever taken.



It's not even that it happens ever game - it's that it's a problem when it does happen and there's no sense in chancing it happening.

My list is

SS
GWM
Healer
Warcaster
Resilient

Those are the big problem ones.

CBE
Alert
PAM

Are a bit OP.

 

[FrogReaver]

My list is

SS
GWM
Healer
Warcaster
Resilient

Those are the big problem ones.

CBE
Alert
PAM

Are a bit OP.

I'm always amazed when you leave off inspiring leader off your lists.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

So, this thread quickly degenerated...

IMHO variant humans are fine. They're a strong PC race, but it's nice that for the first time since 3E came out, the human race is actually a viable choice for mechanical reasons. (Dwarf was the OP race in 3E, elf in 4E, and half-elf in 5E). I mean, seriously, the human race was the default race for the major civilisation in every edition, but humans were spectacularly underpowered compared to, well, just about every other race. And condemned for being just about the only serious PC race that didn't have supernatural senses. Having a feat at 1st level hasn't been an issue in the games I've played.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Yaarel]

Starting with any of the following feats is too strong IMO.

Heavy Armor Master
GWM
PAM
CE
Healer
Inspiring Leader
Actor
Lucky
Mobile
War Caster
Resilient
Sentinel
Sharpshooter
Observant
Shield Master - if using the old ruling

Really - just about the only feats that should be allowable at level 1 are the ones rarely if ever taken.



It's not even that it happens ever game - it's that it's a problem when it does happen and there's no sense in chancing it happening.

Actually, dividing feats up by tier is how 4e did it, and it works well.

For 5e, I consider the (defacto) tiers to be.

Levels 1-4: Student
Levels 5-8: Professional
Levels 9-12: Expert
Levels 13-16: Leader
Levels 17-20: Legend



It is appropriate to assign certain feats to the lowest tier, levels 1-4 (thus both the Human feat and the standard feat). More disruptive feats come on line at the next tier up, levels 5-8. And so on.